4 ms·
This article is so terribly framed it hurts my brain, and my ability to respond. Even if nuclear and chemical weapons were a pretext to attack Saddam Hussein,
by knowtheory 16y ago
This article is so terribly framed it hurts my brain, and my ability to respond.
Even if nuclear and chemical weapons were a pretext to attack Saddam Hussein, the reason the US attacked him was, ostensibly, because he was a threat (defined as vaguely as possible).
The reason why Libya was attacked was that Gaddafi is also a threat.
That Gaddafi was rehabilitated at the behest of international business interests doesn't mean that he was any less of a murderous bastard or any less of a social pariah.
In so far as the lesson is "if you're a douchebag (as defined by the UN) the international community may try to pwn your ass", then, sure one might view nuclear and chemical weapons as a deterrent against international attacks.
However it should be carefully noted that in spite of the fact that the Bush administration and a number of world governments asserted and believed that Saddam Hussein had chemical and/or biological weapons, they attacked him anyway.
In other words, even possessing these weapons weren't a deterrent against attack by the US.
Also, please note that giving up nuclear and chemical weapons were never promised as some sort of carte blanche get out of jail free card from the international community. All international agreements are ultimately contingent, the question is how much shit has to change between now and the point where your agreement would fall apart that dictates how strong and resilient your agreement is. Gaddafi's no chump, he knows nobody likes him, or he wouldn't be such a paranoid mofo.
Likewise, Iran and North Korea know how distrusted they are by NATO nations.
North Korea is a particular instructive example, as they did go through a period of disarmament and verification, only to renege on their agreements. They got what they wanted from the international community, and after their incentives changed (presumably things weren't as dire as they were before), they told everyone to go fuck themselves.
- trustfundbaby 16y agoYour argument is poorly put together sir. > the reason the US attacked him was (Hussein), ostensibly, because he was a threat (defined as vaguely as possible) > The reason why Libya was attacked was that Gaddafi is also a threat ---- So why hasn't Ahmadinejad been attacked ... he is so much of a 'threat' (defined as vaguely as possible) that he makes surrounding Arab states nervous ... (see wikileaks for reference) > However it should be carefully noted that in spite of the fact that the Bush administration and a number of world governments asserted and believed that Saddam Hussein had chemical and/or biological weapons, they attacked him anyway. --- Yep ... but he didn't have nuclear weapons did he? >In other words, even possessing these weapons weren't a deterrent against attack by the US. ----- I like how you tiptoe around that last bit about nuclear weapons The central point of the article is pretty solid ... if you have nuclear weapons or even look like you have them, America isn't coming after you. The part about them getting you to disarm so they can attack you is a bit of a stretch though.
- knowtheory 16y ago> So why hasn't Ahmadinejad been attacked? Because we're already involved in two land wars in the middle east and asia? Because Iran has at least tepid Russian support? Because Iran has a large enough army and national spirit that a war in Iran would be extraordinarily costly and long ranging? The proclivity for removing repressive regimes does not guarantee that the international community will attack, just as the renunciation of nuclear weapons isn't a guarantee that a repressive regime will not be attacked. That's why i'm so skeptical of all of these moral hazard arguments on the international stage. International politics are really complicated, and there are a lot of factors involved in decision making. > I like how you tiptoe around that last bit about nuclear weapons Well caught, but i still think i disagree. It's true that the US hasn't ever attacked or declared war on a nuclear state (well, i'm not sure what the engagement between N and S Korea last year should be called), so we're in hypothetical territory on that subject. But one could equally ask why we haven't attacked Myanmar in spite of their horrendous human rights record, and the answer is simply that China is their sponsor. It's not because of their lack of nuclear arms.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- swaits 16y ago> However it should be carefully noted that in spite of the fact that the Bush administration and a number of world governments asserted and believed that Saddam Hussein had chemical and/or biological weapons, they attacked him anyway. Nobody really thinks that anyone in the Bush administration actually believed this, right?
- knowtheory 16y agoThere were a lot of people who believed this (remember the # of people who voted for Bush). And people assert that they believed it to this day. I'm not sure what the point is of not taking their word for what they believed. They can still be mendacious, intelligence fixing idiots, while being true believers.
- swaits 16y agoIn the Bush Administration? And no, the point of not taking their word for it is that they never earned, nor do they deserve, one iota of trust.