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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (153357)	12/5/2004 12:12:13 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It seems unlikely that an agreement could have been made without long negotiations, and even more unlikely to make such a false claim and get away with it.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (153357)	12/5/2004 10:16:29 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I was just suggesting that people without a personal stake in the analysis of the situation might very well add 2 + 2 together in a rather different fashion, and notice the effect of Saddam's capture as a "closer" for the deal. Who would that be (personal stake)? You? You've proven time and again to be completely unable to look rationally at the facts. And I've shown quite clearly that Gaddafi was not influenced by Iraq but by the spectre of being put under sanctions again. The naval operation that interdicted uranium enrichment components happened in October, yet no word from Libya until December. One can surmise that a strong case was built by Dept of State and that heavy duty negotiations were going on then. No doubt there will be American investment in Libya's oil patch announced in the coming months too...