Chemical weapons searched for and found in Iraq

[Black Wolf]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

Several objectivists such as Yaron Brook have denounced the war in Iraq, because the justification for it was "spreading democracy". The original reason for going to war with Iraq were claims of finding weapons of mass destruction. Top intelligence analysts were unable to find these weapons of mass destruction, but Wikileaks revealed that there was a continued search for them. Turns out that laboratories for chemical weapons still remained, and chemical weapons were produced.

Judging from the article, it seems that the most deadly thing they were actually producing was mustard gas. Mustard gas is defined by NATO as a weapon of mass destruction. Were the initial reasons for going to IRaq valid?

Sorry if this is old news.. but I did have an argument with someone about the war in Iraq's validity.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

It is perfectly legitimate for any rights respecting government to invade a dictatorship--a dictatorship has no rights that a proper government need respect. (Iraq was certainly a legitimate target under that standard.)

Whether it is in that proper government's interest to do so is another matter. Another complaint Brook made is that Iraq was not the real heart of the problem; Iran is; if we are to go about invading countries to root out terrorism (Islamic Fundamentalism) then Iran would have been the better choice. It was probably "easier", politically, to go into Iraq however because we had authority from the UN to do so--the Iraqis had violated the terms of the cease fire from the (first) gulf war. (Now why we think we need the f***ing UN's permission is another question!) I suspect that had Iraq been pacified quickly it could have served as a springboard into Syria (where rumor has it a lot of the WMD were sent) or Iran. In fact we have Iran partially surrounded now with Afghanistan and Iraq.

[2046]

There could have been legitimate conditions for (actual, merciless, uncompromising) war with Iraq, however Hussein having chemical WMDs is way at the bottom of that list. The way we conducted that war was more than enough to make it illegitimate, even if Hussein had such WMDs.

Anyways, if you read Bush Sr. and Jr.'s comments on the matter, their entire justification for any involvement with Iraq (not just the war) was always altruistic from the beginning.

[CapitalistSwine]

Invading Iraq was probably the biggest military blunder we have made in a long time as far as long-term Middle East strategy is concerned. Among a host of other reasons, we not only increased tensions between ourselves and what would otherwise be peaceful civilians both in that country and its surrounding nations, but it has actually significantly aided Iran in their long term strategic goals. There is no question we could have invaded Iraq for a number of reasons. The fact of the matter was it was a shoddily done job throughout and there was a lot of rhetoric and warmongering pushed on the people that was inappropriate, among other concerns. At any rate, I highly suggest people check out the wikipedia page on "Bush Doctrine". Basically I agree with all responses on here thus far.

Edited February 1, 2011 by CapitalistSwine

[softwareNerd]

... Top intelligence analysts were unable to find these weapons of mass destruction, ...

Saddam was saying he had no such weapons, but nevertheless pretending to some of his top people that he did. His problem seems to have been that he wanted others (including foreign intelligence services to think he was stronger than he actually was). If he was less of a dictator, many more senior people in Iraq would have known the truth, and it is a good possibility that foreign agencies would have known the truth. One could make a case that foreign agencies ought not to have been fooled, but then one would have to make that case; one cannot presume that they ought not have been fooled.

Of course, this does not mean attacking Iraq justified the costs of doing so. Iraq was an easy target. I forget now, but I guess Brooks etc. were probably saying that Iran should be the target.

[Dingbat]

Taking Iraq would be a good base of operations for other middle eastern targets. Plus, we get the oil.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Dingbat

[softwareNerd]

Taking Iraq would be a good base of operations for other middle eastern targets.

If the military had advised taking Iraq as a launching pad to get to Iran...then perhaps; but we now know that was never part of anyone's plan.

[CapitalistSwine]

Taking Iraq would be a good base of operations for other middle eastern targets.

This is false in too many ways to count, unless you have an extremely loose definition of what a "good base of operations" entails, such as Iranian agents successfully infiltrating and operating within positions of the central government of the country you are occupying and operating in, as one example.

Plus, we get the oil.

This has been false, continues to be. Not to mention we poured more money into that country than we will ever get back for a very long time. Thats what happens when your funding for a war dwarfs the potential GDP of the country (and that assumes its infrastructure is repaired, secure from attack, and operating optimally).

Edited February 2, 2011 by CapitalistSwine

[Dingbat]

I don't think any of us knows the top secret decisions the US government makes concerning foreign relations. Removing oil from the hands of crazy dictators, so that we don't fund tyranny (our own destruction) every time we fill our cars with gas, is a good idea.

Iranian operatives, Iraqi operatives, American operatives, ... etc what does it matter who's working towards a better world as long as there are people with that vision doing what they can.

I've heard that the CIA has been behind a lot of anti-government activities in Iran. There's a lot of things that go on covertly we don't know about. These kind of operations are not for the masses to know. History will reveal all once humans are ready to understand.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Dingbat

[CapitalistSwine]

You can get a fairly good idea whats going on if you read a lot of sources regularly on many of the things going on over there. You can also see the relation between the U.S. and Iraqi oil as a source of income or even control by looking at reports that are completely public that show both the financial and the security and infrastructure conditions of these sites. There are studies and other things done on all of these items as well, often times those are easily accessible, if one knows how to look for them. Oil is definitely not one of the benefits we have gotten out of Iraq, and controlling Iraq hardly puts us in control of anything of real importance regarding oil in that area. Iran is the one in the best position right now as far as that is concerned. (strategic control of oil, or the ability to control the oil in the future or arbitrate it's control with it's ability to attack critical areas for that industry)

Edited February 2, 2011 by CapitalistSwine

[Dingbat]

Give me an example of this US-Saddam security infrastructure. Tell me why it's best to leave oil in the hands of dictators.

The masses wouldn't understand an overt attack on Iran. The Iranians are only beginning to realize how crazy their leadership is. It was hard enough getting the American public to pass invading Iraq alone.

[CapitalistSwine]

Give me an example of this US-Saddam security infrastructure.

I don't really understand what you are asking here. Could you rephrase the question? What Saddam-US security infrastructure? Further, why does it matter, last I checked Saddam has permanent rope burn around the neck.

Edited February 2, 2011 by CapitalistSwine

[DancingBear]

Give me an example of this US-Saddam security infrastructure. Tell me why it's best to leave oil in the hands of dictators.

The American invasion of Iraq may have successfully toppled a dictator and secured oil, but it has now created a vacuum. The government that replaces it will inevitably be weaker than that of surrounding countries due to it's youth. Furthermore, there is a huge struggle between Shiites and Sunnis to take that power. These religious affiliations cross borders in the Middle East and can easily be manipulated to create unrest in neighboring governments. Iraq was Iran's biggest rival and provided a balance of power to an incredibly volatile region. With Iraq essentially out of the picture, Iran is free to develop it's resources and strategy.

[Dingbat]

The government that replaces it will inevitably be weaker than that of surrounding countries due to it's youth.

Ah, you pessimists, your disbelief in humanity depresses me. Remember: Benevolent Universe Premise.

[Dante]

Ah, you pessimists, your disbelief in humanity depresses me. Remember: Benevolent Universe Premise.

The benevolent universe premise refers to the fact that value achievement is possible, and in fact should be expected with a conscious commitment to achieving values. It refers to the fact that the universe is open to value achievement. It does not make any statements about humanity. It is entirely consistent to believe that the universe is benevolent, and at the same time that most humans are short-sighted and destructive.

[Dingbat]

It is also consistent to say that, as a statement about humanity, humans can be willing to choose rational values today, and in the future.

[The Wrath]

But to say that about modern-day Egypt is ignoring the social and historical context. Modern Western governments did not come into existence when a bunch of erstwhile superstitious barbarians thought rationally about politics and decided that democratic/parliamentary government was the way to go. Egyptian society--and Middle Eastern society in general--has long way to go, philosophically, before anyone should expect them to replace their current tyrannies with anything measurably better.

[Grames]

Judging from the article, it seems that the most deadly thing they were actually producing was mustard gas. Mustard gas is defined by NATO as a weapon of mass destruction. Were the initial reasons for going to IRaq valid?

Yes, chemical weapons count as weapons of mass destruction. Saddam used gas both in war and domestically.

Moreover, the U.N. imposed trade sanctions on Iraq were gradually being disregarded by major nations such as France, Germany, Russia and others. In time if nothing was done about Saddam he would have been able to simply buy nuclear weapons from North Korea or Pakistan with his oil money even if Iraq never made its own nuclear weapons. Iraq did have 500 tons of low grade uraniumore to work with that could have been enriched or traded for completed weapons.

Other consequences of U.S. action in Iraq include Libya renouncing its nuclear program and halting A. Q. Kahn's brokering of nuclear weapons technology to other countries.

The proper way to prevent nuclear proliferation into the hands of madmen is to take action before they get the bombs, not after. As badly as the Iraq war was managed, it did slow WMD proliferation.

[CapitalistSwine]

Dante, Wrath, and Grames are right on target.

[Tanaka]

But to say that about modern-day Egypt is ignoring the social and historical context. Modern Western governments did not come into existence when a bunch of erstwhile superstitious barbarians thought rationally about politics and decided that democratic/parliamentary government was the way to go. Egyptian society--and Middle Eastern society in general--has long way to go, philosophically, before anyone should expect them to replace their current tyrannies with anything measurably better.

As long as dissenters have prison and torture to look forward to in these countries, the only honest voice that will ever be heard is the voice of the subversive fanatics preaching radical Islam on the street corners. Everyone else is too afraid to speak up. The government propaganda in the state controlled classrooms and media, be it true or false, is dismissed by pretty much everyone for what it is: an attempt to enforce the state ideology, not to convince people of a truth.

Under these supposedly pro-western dictatorships, Arab societies have in fact become more irrational and anti-western. Continued western support for these delusional tyrants, out of fear of a possible Islamist theocracy does nothing except ensure that outcome in the long run. Mubarak has no plans to westernize and free Egypt. His big plan was to rule forever and have his sons rule once he's dead. That's delusional: tyrants always fall.

Besides, an immediate Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt, in the event of Mubarak's ouster, is not all that plausible. The military doesn't support the Brotherhood, and it has the power to prevent them from imposing a theocracy. It would take decades for that status quo to change, and those are decades which can either be used to open up Egyptian society and change the culture, or wasted by keeping the dictatorship and letting it fester until the Islamists become strong enough to just roll over the government.

[Dingbat]

Tanaka, I did not know the military was not backing the Muslim Brotherhood. Interesting to know.

Modern Western governments did not come into existence when a bunch of erstwhile superstitious barbarians thought rationally about politics and decided that democratic/parliamentary government was the way to go.

Yes they did. All modern civilizations came from the dirt. Our ancestors where nomadic. We've just domesticated ourselves, somewhat.

[The Wrath]

As long as dissenters have prison and torture to look forward to in these countries, the only honest voice that will ever be heard is the voice of the subversive fanatics preaching radical Islam on the street corners. Everyone else is too afraid to speak up. The government propaganda in the state controlled classrooms and media, be it true or false, is dismissed by pretty much everyone for what it is: an attempt to enforce the state ideology, not to convince people of a truth.

Under these supposedly pro-western dictatorships, Arab societies have in fact become more irrational and anti-western. Continued western support for these delusional tyrants, out of fear of a possible Islamist theocracy does nothing except ensure that outcome in the long run. Mubarak has no plans to westernize and free Egypt. His big plan was to rule forever and have his sons rule once he's dead. That's delusional: tyrants always fall.

Besides, an immediate Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt, in the event of Mubarak's ouster, is not all that plausible. The military doesn't support the Brotherhood, and it has the power to prevent them from imposing a theocracy. It would take decades for that status quo to change, and those are decades which can either be used to open up Egyptian society and change the culture, or wasted by keeping the dictatorship and letting it fester until the Islamists become strong enough to just roll over the government.

All true, but I didn't say anything about the Muslim Brotherhood taking over. Just that whoever takes over isn't likely to be much better than Mubarak...ElBaradei might be a step in the right direction, but I don't much about Egyptian politics and I have no idea what his chances are. Egypt is just the example, but it applies to any country in the Middle East.

[The Wrath]

Tanaka, I did not know the military was not backing the Muslim Brotherhood. Interesting to know.

Yes they did. All modern civilizations came from the dirt. Our ancestors where nomadic. We've just domesticated ourselves, somewhat.

This is like saying that homo sapiens evolved from archaebacteria. Technically true, but you're omitting a lot of necessary intermediates.