3 ms·

Your 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)

Your 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]

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]