Front Office Football Central - View Single Post

Desnudo · 02-07-2004, 05:26 PM

Peregrine
A specious argument, in my opinion. Clearly Afghanistan was attacked because it harbored terrorists, not because of concern over its governmental style. I support our attack against Afghanistan.

They took out a brutal authoritarian regime that doesn't happen to have large amounts of oil. Terrorism or not, it had nothing to do with oil. Which was my point. If you had said oil or terrorism, then I wouldn't have argued the point. I believe the general point you were trying to make with the oil comment is that we don't get involved unless it serves our national interests. Oil being a national interest. I agree with that.

I'm not sure what part of my post you're getting this from. The government is the one that has been justifying its actions in Iraq as removing a brutal dictator. I wouldn't support using that same standard carried out around the world, we already have plenty of work to do in the war against terrorism. We have a long history with Iraq, and various baggage from the previous war, possible WMDs, national interest in the country's oil, etc. Saying that this war is simply to remove a brutal dictator insults the intelligence of the American people. The government should be clear and honest about its reasons for doing things.

Originally Posted by Peregrine
Well, this is a very ironic statement, given our stance of turning a blind eye to brutal authoritarian regimes that don't happen to have large amounts of oil.

The tone of this statement implies that we are doing wrong by not taking action based on humanitarian, rather than economic or security, interests.

"Many would argue Iraq is simply a sideshow taking us away from our 'focus.'"

Many would argue that Iraq is an essential linchpin to Middle East stability and without a stable Iraq, you have no chance of influencing terrorist supporters Syria and Iran.

02-07-2004, 05:26 PM	#177
Desnudo Coordinator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Here and There	a Peregrine A specious argument, in my opinion. Clearly Afghanistan was attacked because it harbored terrorists, not because of concern over its governmental style. I support our attack against Afghanistan. They took out a brutal authoritarian regime that doesn't happen to have large amounts of oil. Terrorism or not, it had nothing to do with oil. Which was my point. If you had said oil or terrorism, then I wouldn't have argued the point. I believe the general point you were trying to make with the oil comment is that we don't get involved unless it serves our national interests. Oil being a national interest. I agree with that. I'm not sure what part of my post you're getting this from. The government is the one that has been justifying its actions in Iraq as removing a brutal dictator. I wouldn't support using that same standard carried out around the world, we already have plenty of work to do in the war against terrorism. We have a long history with Iraq, and various baggage from the previous war, possible WMDs, national interest in the country's oil, etc. Saying that this war is simply to remove a brutal dictator insults the intelligence of the American people. The government should be clear and honest about its reasons for doing things. Originally Posted by Peregrine Well, this is a very ironic statement, given our stance of turning a blind eye to brutal authoritarian regimes that don't happen to have large amounts of oil. The tone of this statement implies that we are doing wrong by not taking action based on humanitarian, rather than economic or security, interests. "Many would argue Iraq is simply a sideshow taking us away from our 'focus.'" Many would argue that Iraq is an essential linchpin to Middle East stability and without a stable Iraq, you have no chance of influencing terrorist supporters Syria and Iran. Last edited by Desnudo : 02-07-2004 at 05:29 PM.