Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Originally Posted by R.D.735

If the Iranians had halted their nuclear program out of fear of the US, is that supposed to indicate that they will continue to pursue nuclear weapons regardless of the costs to themselves or the region? If you are correct, the US didn't have to attack Iran in order to stop its nuclear program, it only had to give Iran a good reason to stop, a huge negative disincentive(of course, Iran was well aware that an attack would likely cause a regional war and widespread chaos, but chose not to gamble on the idea that the administration was sane). Similarly, Kim Jong Il agreed to phase out his nuclear program when the US offered some positive incentives.

Iran and North Korea love to bark and act tough, but the truth is that they are scared out of their minds of the United States. The will to stay safe while looking tough and defiant on the surface is what they are about.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

However, your reasoning is most certainly flawed. If Iran halted its nuclear program out of fear, it makes absolutely no sense that it would halt the program without informing the US government and allowing UN inspectors to come in and testify to the action. Iran clearly had other motives in mind, which were alluded to in the IAE.

They wanted to not be caught with such a program, but they did not want to look like sissies by reporting to the U.S. that they were doing as the U.S. wished. My response to your first paragraphy explains their behavior.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The world was even luckier? It's not very reassuring that we're basing our decisions about whether the world should continue to exist or perish in a blazing nuclear holocaust on mere chance. Would you have supported an active military confrontation with Russia because they probably wouldn't use their nuclear weapons for fear of our own? It would have toppled the Soviet Union even faster, wouldn't it?

There was a lot to consider, and the last thing we wanted was a nuclear holocaust. I never said we should have had a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. I think we handled the situation extremely well.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Do you think the entire rest of the planet could put up no defense? Afghanistan did pretty well with the support of the US. Multiply that effect by the number of even more developed countries around at the time and you have the effective resistance of the rest of the developed world, more than enough to cripple the Soviet Union.

No, it is not logical to multiply "that effect" by the number of even more developed countries. Afghanistan had the help of the United States. Plus, at what point would the rest of the world have started fighting? They didn't do anything when the U.S.S.R. tried to take over Afghanistan or when North Vietnam took over South Vietnam. Look at how far Hitler got, and look at how quickly he got there. Without the U.S., most of the rest of the world would have done nothing for a long time, and then it would have been too late. Too many nations are completely apathetic over the taking over of other nations. That is dangerous.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I'll still grant you the small possibility that it could have happened, though with the qualifier that we will never know if it's possible for a country to take over the world by aggressive means until some country actually does it. We do know, however, that no one has succeeded yet, and many have tried, even when they were unopposed by an equally large army. It's more difficult than you make it seem.

As fast as the Nazis took over so much of Europe, I don't think it would have taken them long to take over the world if it had not been for the U.S., Britain, and Russia. I think it took all three of us to stop them. Without the Allied resistance, the Nazis would have succeeded in taking over Europe, and at that point the hard part for them would have been over.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I couldn't help but notice this. Could you provide a link that shows the UN reporting their existence? I have strong suspicions that they didn't:

from http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...2-un-wmd_x.htm

I am not saying the entire U.N. said the stockpiles existed. There is a long and complicated story involved. Basically, UNSCOM made the findings in the 90's and the inspectors were flat out told by Hussein that he had had specifically named WMD stockpiles but that he had destroyed them. He did not do enough to prove himself on the destruction, and even Hans Blix said before the 2003 invasion that Hussein had not been satisfactorily cooperative in proving the destruction of the stockpiles, though Blix said that he believed he was close to getting to that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...ss_destruction

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...20Programs.htm