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: Elroy who wrote (205416)	10/6/2004 1:54:28 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573482

Elroy, I've said doing to Saudi what has been done to Iraq would have been a much more appropriate response to 9/11. No one seems to have an opinion. They didn't rise to the top of the A-hole list like Saddam did. If even going after Saddam cost Bush all of his political capital, how tough do you think it would have been going after Saudi Arabia? Tenchusatsu

To: Elroy who wrote (205416)	10/7/2004 2:05:22 AM
From: beach_bum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573482

Elroy, Re : "I've said doing to Saudi what has been done to Iraq would have been a much more appropriate response to 9/11. No one seems to have an opinion." There is a problem with attacking saudis (or yemen). First of all, who do you attack there ? Their govt is already siding with Bush. Attacking iraq and getting Saddam out of power is very tangible for claiming victory. This would have been the case if we had attacked pakistan, since Musharraf was already helping us. Iran may have been a better target (if we had to pick!). Khatami is very pro-democracy and has a popular support and it would have been a lot easier replacing Khomeini with Khatami than the situation in Iraq. They could claim to be invade iran to spread democracy in the middle east and also surround Bin Laden in Afganistan. it would put more pressure on Saddam (and maybe there was a chance he would change his stance with the US after seeing Iran succumb). But, I think the problem there is that there is no oil in Iran. I can understand the stretegy to go after Iraq with Oil in mind (giving 9/11 as an excuse). Control of oil wells in Iraq (or a US friendly govt there) could give us hugh leverage in improving our economy. An extra $200-$300 per month from cheap oil would do wonders to consumer confidence and potentially the economy. However, as we saw, it all fell apart, primarily because it was viewed as an illegitimate war by many and made it worse by attacks on oil pipelines in Iraq, contribution to increase in oil price, among other factors. Not that i agree with the thinking - I would rather invest in R&D to find other sources of energy. but I can see the thinking behind attacking iraq. Bum.