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: Road Walker who wrote (353833)	11/10/2007 1:05:04 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577870

We did attack Qaddafi several times and eventually he toned down his behavior. And if we needed to attack again it would have been simpler than in Iraq. Also you didn't have the justification of Libya violating a cease fire agreement, and you didn't have the same level of historical beligerence against neighboring countries (Libya did military intervene in Chad, but it didn't go so well for them). If oil played any part in not invading Libya it wasn't Libya's relative lack of oil (or Iraq's relative abundances) but the fact that Iraq threatened the oil supply from neighboring countries, while Libya's neighbors have little oil. If Iraq had no oil it wouldn't have had the revenue to have been as much of a problem, but if it did have the revenue, and became the same type of problem, our actions would have been the same. Iraqi oil was never the primary concern, or even a major secondary reason for the invasion.