Monday, January 10, 2011

WikiLeaks Show Iraq War Justified

By 'justified', I am referring specifically to the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue. The war was justifiable on many other grounds which is not relevant to this post. Just to avoid certain comments I will mention one; shooting at our airplanes. The information here should not be new to anyone who has had a serious interest in this and has not relied exclusively on the Main Stream Media for their info. (bold mine)

"While the media have been quick to run with WikiLeaks’ U.S. State Department cable releases to undermine Washington’s efforts to effect stability in unstable parts of the world, it is slow, if not silent, in giving credit where credit is due. Although other credible sources confirmed it before WikiLeaks did, in receiving similar disinterested responses from the media, it should be clear now that President Bush’s concerns about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program were well-founded.
The 2003 Iraq invasion by U.S. forces also launched a massive effort to find WMDs. By late 2003, as determined in a review by a Wired Magazine editor of WikiLeaks documents on the issue, the Administration was losing faith WMDs would be found. But, as Wired reports, the WikiLeaks documents clearly show "for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction. . . . Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."
Of note too is a January 2004 revelation by Syrian journalist defector Nizar Nayuf. He reported there were three locations in Syria where Iraqi WMDs had been transported prior to the 2003 invasion and were being stored. He also revealed some of these sites were being built with North Korean cooperation. This explained why three years later Israel attacked a nuclear facility being built in Syria by Pyongyang — and Syria’s subsequent failure to criticize Israel for fear of drawing further international attention to what Damascus had been doing.

Do not think that this will change to many of the minds of the 'Bush lied, people died' folks. They will tell you that Bush planted those documents and orchestrated the leak as part of his plan.


  1. Ian Dubrowsky1/10/2011 9:02 PM

    The cable refers to weapons and systems Iraq was building because of US support In the 1980s, the only way this justifies the "war" ( which In reality was a war crime, unless you only get your information from the msm or the fever swamps of the right wing Internet) is if u think that transferring US weapons from sadaam to insurgents is a good thing.

    It's not, and it's disappointing you can't come to grips with how terrible a human disaster we caused and continue to be a party to. As more interesting wikileaks cables show, the regime we have now put in place is just as authoritarian and brutal, except friendlier with Iran.

  2. @Ian Dubrowsky - "the only way this justifies the "war" ... is if u think that transferring US weapons from sadaam to insurgents is a good thing." - Where did you get that from?

    The leak shows that idea that there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion is just not true. Part of the 'this war is illegal/unjustifiable' argument was that there were no weapons. Those people were wrong.

    Part of the reasoning for the war was to prevent those weapons from falling into the wrong hands (and to take them out of the wrong hands that they were already in). To the effect that Terrorists may have gotten their hands on some, the goal was not fully accomplished. A partial failure in this regard seems much preferable to a complete failure (better they have a few nasty weapons and a difficult time making more then a lot of nasty weapons and an easy time making more).

    "it's disappointing you can't come to grips with how terrible a human disaster we caused and continue to be a party to" - I will not argue that the situation is perfect, but given the choice between the 'chaos of freedom' and the 'stability of mass graves' I chose freedom without a moments hesitation.

  3. Ian Dubrowsky1/12/2011 8:04 PM

    I got it right from the cable you posted about:

    "Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

    These "stockpiles" were well known about before the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq and troops were ordered to protect of all buildings the oil ministry- letting baghdad descend into the 'chaos of freedom' where over 100,000 people have since died.

    The "stockpiles" were the remnants of the chemical weapons capabilities that the U.S. gave Iraq in the 1980s., all other suggestions about Iraq developing a new WMD that justifies illegally invading another country all turned out to be lies, or false claims that the Bush administration took from people they tortured, in desperation for reasons to justify invading Iraq. It is no coincidence that 70 percent of Americans believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, the information we were getting from the government was designed to lead people to support imperial ambitions that you giddily post in defense of.

    We also know that Saddaam kept them for deterrent purposes against Iran, not that you care about rational analyses or anything like that.

    Iraqis dont have the choice between "freedom" or "stability", Bush choose for them- and if you actually were interested in the welfare of Iraqis, you would know that today they don't have the 'chaos of freedom' or the 'stability of mass graves', they have neither- Iraq today is just as unfree, brutal and authoritarian, except much much less stable.

  4. @Ian Dubrowsky - There were other reasons/justifications for the war besides the WMDs, but lets just stick to them for now. As I recall, part of the agreement for not invading Iraq 'proper' the first time around (Gulf War 1) was that he agreed to destroy all of his stockpiles. You acknowledge that he did not, thus broke the agreement, which is justification in itself.

  5. Ian Dubrowsky1/19/2011 3:45 PM

    It's an internal justification, its not a real justification- just like the notion that we wanted to "give Iraq freedom" or the other "reasons/justifcations" are false. I mean if you were going to take that justification seriously, then in your mind the U.S. is justified to invade half the planet which we give weapons to.

    By your own logic, the Japanese Invasion of mainland China in World War 2 is "justified". At the end of the day though, this kind of historical revisionism by you is pretty pernicious if not just sad.

  6. @Ian Dubrowsky - "internal justification"?

    What would qualify as a legitimate reason for you?

    Japan invading China (WWII) and US Coalition into Iraq similar, where is the connection/comparison? Also, if you think Japan was trying to liberate China I think you need to read a few more history books; or just one...

  7. Ian Dubrowksky1/20/2011 4:55 PM

    I'm not a pacifist, I think there are a lot of legitimate circumstances where violent force is good strategy and moral- if regrettable- I think aggressive wars like the U.S invasion of iraq and the japanese invasion of China are wrong. Both unsurprisingly offered "justifications" for why they did so, honest thinking people know what to think of those though. I don't know why that principle is so difficult to understand.

    If you think that *I think* japan was trying to liberate China- (although that is what the Japanese thought with such "internal justifications" as occupying the Chinese was good for them, not unlike how you think the U.S. is trying to "liberate" Iraq) then you should reexamine your social intuition skills

  8. @Ian Dubrowksky - just because you use two different conflicts in the same sentence does not mean they have any real relation to each other.

    Do you really put Gulf War part two and the Japanese invasion of China in the same category / on the same level?

  9. Ian Dubrowsky1/23/2011 12:35 AM

    haha ok,

    I put them both in the category of aggressive wars, insofar as they are on the "same level"- maybe that's something you would like to discuss in some sort of academic seminar, it's not really an interesting question to me. Just like the false justifications given by people like tojo or Cheney for the crimes they have done aren't really pertinent.

    However I think that because they are both aggressive (and if you care about international law, illegal) should be unnerving for Americans considering the moral implications of what happens when you engage in agresive wars, like, i dont know, killing lots of people...

  10. @Ian Dubrowsky - 'illegal' in the international law sense means without any legitimate justifications. The shooting at our airplanes that I mentioned is one such justification; sufficient by itself. The point of the article was that the WMD justification was legitimate as well.

  11. Ian Dubrowsky1/24/2011 12:54 PM

    No, the law is pretty black and white on this. During the 1970s funding for the IRA came from people in boston and new york, the U.S. refused to extradite people implicated to Great Britain. If the UK had then bombed Boston or New York, it would have been illegal.

    your example about the airplanes illustrates this pretty well- say the Hussein government shot down U.S> aircraft- they are liable for sanctions, but the only reason why it would be "legitimate" for the U.S> to invade and then punish an entire population would be because the U.S> just has the power to do so- that's not a real justification, its a justification war criminals would use. Likewise, the WMD justification in no war justifies launching an aggressive imperialist war, any more then the UK would have been justified to bomb Hell's kitchen

  12. @Ian Dubrowsky - You appear to be conflating legality, morality, and practicality. Having the ability to attack or not has no bearing on the legal justification of the action (just the likelihood such an action will be taken).

    Regardless; if shooting at us still does not give us 'legitimate legal justification' to fight what would?

  13. Ian dubrowsky1/25/2011 11:12 AM

    "conflating legality morality and practicality" uhhh projection much? Of course that's the point, the core reason the us invaded was because it could, might makes right, the strong do what they will the weak do what they must.

    Self defense is good reason to fight, this was not by any stretch self defense. If shooting at planes is justification to occupy an entire country, then cuba is justified to invade the us for the years of terror directed at them and Palestinians should be en mass bombing Israel in retaliation for the multitude of war crimes committed against them, all ideas are insane. Military threats are not the only thing a country can do internationally

  14. @Ian dubrowsky - ""conflating legality morality and practicality" uhhh projection much?" -> Nope.

    "the core reason the us invaded was because it could" -> wrong again. Just because the US would not have invaded if it did not have the technical ability/power to do so does not mean it is the 'core reason' we invaded. Indeed, I can not think of a conflict where the 'core reason' was they could; territorial expansion, steal resources, slaughter sub-humans, pacify subjects... yes, but not 'just because they could'. We could have invaded a lot of countries, there needs to be an actual reason for attacking.

    "Palestinians should be en mass bombing Israel in retaliation for the multitude of war crimes committed against them" -> 'Should' ... as in have not implemented terrorist attacks in the past? 'War crimes', come on.

    "Military threats are not the only thing a country can do internationally" -> that is true. Military action should be taken as a last resort, but that means that it may need to be taken.

  15. Ian Dubrowsky1/27/2011 3:13 PM

    The reason for actually attacking has to do with Oil. The U.S. is on record as having a long standing interest in middle eastern Oil, and members of the Bush administration have been very frank in saying that 9/11 gave them an opportunity by whereby they could mobilize public support for attacking a muslim country. It's in the U.S. interest to say fluffy things about "democracy", "weapons" threats" blah blah, but those are lies. they have no bearing on facts whatsoever.

    If there was another great power in the world to balance U.S. power, its likely that the U.S. would have been deterred from aggressively invading a resource rich foreign country that we have nothing to do with. That's what "the U.s. invaded essentially because it could means". If China was on the same level of power as the U.S. (which isnt conceivably a realistic possibility) then im absolutely certain the Chinese state would be much more aggressive in using its military to control foreign resources.

    Palestinian terror? of course. But ever on the same scale, or as unapologetically violent as israeli terror? nope. Everyday that Israel maintains the occupation is in itself a form of terrorism, are you saying that in response suicide bombing is a good idea? Maybe you think there is something morally different between a suicide bomber and a pilot in an F 16 who just drops bombs on people's heads, frankly I don't. and yeah, 'war crimes'.

    "Military action should be taken as a last resort, but that means that it may need to be taken." if only the people in the U.S. and Israeli government's agreed with us then.


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow