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: TimF who wrote (357815)	11/11/2007 11:13:19 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577883

If the same situation existed in another country that wasn't sitting the 3rd largest oil reserve in the world, we wouldn't have gone to war. Libya is a prime example... they actually were building nukes, they actually were harboring terrorists, they not only were a state sponsor of terrorism, they as a government committed a terrorist attack against US citizens. And they treat their citizens, to this day, as bad as Saddam. Yet we never went to war to remove Qaddafi... not enough oil. ---------------------------- We did attack Qaddafi several times and eventually he toned down his behavior. 'Attack' and 'ground war and occupation' are a lot different, as you know. I would not have objected to lobbing a few bombs at Saddam... in fact I think it would have been a good idea in many ways. 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. Iraq and Saddam were neutered. Who were they going to attack? It's a ludicrous claim. Iraqi oil was never the primary concern, or even a major secondary reason for the invasion. It was the only reason just not a public justification. It's hard to believe you are this dumb.