Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (150515)	8/27/2002 7:02:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584994

Has it occurred to you that oil might have been as available as it is today? Yes. Most of the time the oil would be as available but controling the Kuwaiti and possibly even the Saudi oil fields (even if the later is just through intimidation) would give an extra weapon to Saddam. He could reduce the supply of oil without reduceing the amount below what Iraq could sell. He could also reduce the supply a lot for short periods as a weapon against the west. He would also have more money for his WMD program and if we had not responded powerfully to the threat more middle east countries would have lined up behind him as he would seem powerful and the US would have looked like a paper tiger. Tim

To: Alighieri who wrote (150515)	8/28/2002 2:41:45 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1584994

Saddam still sells as much oil as we allow him to and some we don't ...in any case, it would have been the entire world that would have had a problem, not just the US. As it turns out, the Saudis and Japan financed Desert Storm. The first to remain in power, and some say illegitimally....and the latter to preserve their oil supply. It was some 300 of our kids that fought and died out there. Not a single Japanese casualty that I can remember. Al, ironically, we are the biggest user of Iraq's oil. ted