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: combjelly who wrote (225855)	3/23/2005 7:07:34 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1574350

CJ, re: We already knew that the Bush Administration was planning on taking Saddam down long before 9/11 gave them an actual excuse. So it is plausible. I might have even supported the State Deparment plan. Maybe... John

To: combjelly who wrote (225855)	3/23/2005 12:14:59 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574350

I don't know... but this is interesting" It sounds like what the majors would do. OPEC promises stable prices, which is what they want. It also sounds like what the neocons would do. All ideology and the rock solid conviction that their theories actually reflect reality, despite all evidence to the contrary... We already knew that the Bush Administration was planning on taking Saddam down long before 9/11 gave them an actual excuse. So it is plausible. I have no doubt. Before the invasion when people accused Bush of it being all about the oil, I thought that was a bit extreme.......that people were being overly critical. Not any more......Bush et al have shown that the stated reason, WMDs, was a sham and they will grab onto any other 'good' reason. So then, we have to assume that none of its the true and that the real reason[s] is hidden. Grabbing the oil and locating potential airbases in Iraq sound just about right for this administration. ted