Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Originally Posted by R.D.735

So that I understand your position perfectly, you're saying that Iran wanted to avoid a war by avoiding the possibility that its nuclear program would be discovered, then continued to deny that it possessed a nuclear program in order to look 'tough' compared to complying with the US.

Yes.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

You'll be pleased to know that I'm beginning to agree with you on the former point. The more I learn about it, the more it seems that Iran had every reason to be afraid of an invasion by the US. The rest of the world had good reason to fear that the US would attack Iran as well, but of course few considered that catastrophic action a possibility in those early days.

As to the latter statement, it is very true today, but it wasn't always true:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...700727_pf.html

Iran apparently tried diplomacy, was rejected, and tried to do what it could to avert war with the US. Their decision to keep their halted nuclear program secret may have been fueled by the consideration that the US would not believe them if they said they had shut it down.

At this point, you'd probably be tempted to argue that the threat of war accomplished great things by getting Iran to do so much. It apparently did. However, this does not prove that diplomatic pressure would have been ineffective and it is not what your original point was. Your original point was that Iran would never negotiate or compromise, that it would continue unless the US violently deposed the Iranian government, that it is the mirror of the threat that Iraq was portrayed to be in every way except imminence. The threat of force is not force, and the two should not be equated.

You may also be tempted to argue that the threat of force means nothing if the US doesn't attack countries to prove that the US means business. That's true. It wouldn't mean much if the US didn't go to war with other nations. This has the consequence of encouraging conflicts that could be resolved by threat of force instead, and of course does nothing to demonstrate the futility of diplomatic action.

I think we're pretty much on the same page there. When I said you cannot reason with terrorists, I did not mean they do not respond to the mere threat of force. The threat of force is the only thing that makes them give into anybody. I was saying they cannot be negotiated with in the ways most leaders can. Most governments will try to avoid war because they value peace, even when they are dealing with nations they could easily defeat in a war. Iran is not a government that thinks that way. Peace itself is not a bargaining chip with them beyond the extent that they don't want to be destroyed. In other words, scaring the Hell out of them is the only thing we can use to get them to do anything.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I'm surprised I didn't see this before: your argument requires that several of the most powerful countries on the planet either do not exist or do not respond to attacks by the Axis powers. Similarly, Russia could take over the world if the world did not resist. Does this show that the world can be dominated, or does it only show that it could be dominated when the most powerful opposition is nonexistent?

In the case of Russia, it's plainly obvious why other nations didn't participate in Afghanistan or Vietnam: the US was already taking care of it. Taking the US out of the equation assumes that other countries would not adjust their strategies at all, even though conditions had become radically different.

There is just no evidence that world domination is possible, and no argument to that effect that does not require the same world-does-not-resist condition.

World domination is impossible because the most powerful countries in the world would not let it happen. I was saying that without opposition from the world's three most powerful countries, Nazi world domination would have happened. Without opposition from the U.S., Soviet world domination would have happened. The Nazis took over a huge chunk of Europe very quickly. What would have stopped them from doing that to the rest of the world if the U.S., the Soviet Union, and Britain had not existed? It is not like they would have just gotten tired and stopped.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Did the entirety of the other countries you mentioned believe the claims, or was it a similar story with them as well?

Official reports from their intelligence agencies.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

This was Mohamed ElBaradei's conclusion in his statement on the status of inspection in Iraq on Jan 27, 2003. I encourage you to read it in its entirety:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/elbaradei27jan03.htm
[font=Times New Roman]

I have not argued that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

You've said that you suspect Saddam's nuclear weapons were hidden away or shipped to a foreign country. I'm curious as to where you think they may have been shipped or hidden, and why Saddam didn't use them in self-defense.

Not nuclear weapons. I am talking about the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. I think they were probably shipped to Syria or some other country, but for all we know they might be a mile under the desert in Iraq.