[flagged]
Netanyahu has been saying Iran in minutes away from building nuclear weapons since early 2010s.
Never mind those facts. Let's say they are building weapons. What gives the US the right to build enough nuclear weapons that they could destroy the world multiple times over, but Iran cannot? Why is the US funding terrorist groups, but Iran cannot? Just cos they're the big bad boogeyman? Don't you think it'd be better to normalise relationship with them so that they become friendly? So that even if they are building weapons, they wouldn't use it against us because they're allies?
Already having nuclear weapons, being a superpower and the center of the post-WW2 and post-Cold-War world, being able to fight 2 ground wars simultaneously, etc.
The relationships between countries is governed by nothing other than might makes right, and any seemingly altruistic cooperation between the hegemon and its lessers only occurs because the hegemon benefits more.
Sounds to me like there was a huge misconception that no WMDs had been found in Iraq
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...
The article discusses chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads. These are fundamentally different.
And the reporting actually contradicts the original WMD justification. It explicitly states these were abandoned 1980s-era weapons, not an active program as claimed pre-invasion.
So your summary is WRONG. The reporting actually undermines government credibility rather than supporting it.
You want to know something funny? Many shells were manufactured by European companies using American designs, an embarrassing detail the Pentagon apparently wanted to suppress. In fact the article shows officials understood these weren't the weapons they'd claimed existed, which is why they wanted to keep the findings a secret. To reiterate: the weapons found were remnants of Iraq's 1980s chemical program (which the West had helped build), not proof of post-1990s WMD development.
Let me summarize based on the article: these were 1980s-era weapons, many manufactured before 1991, not evidence of the "active WMD program" claimed in 2003, and they were chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads.
By the way, your response to my WMD comment was "You are of course aware that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds killing thousands of people" which is absurd. There is a fundamental difference between chemical weapons and "WMD" as-is claimed by the US Government to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Those 1980s attacks (which you are talking about) were already known and didn't constitute the "active WMD program" claimed as justification for the 2003 invasion.
In fact, the gap between the pre-war intelligence claims and post-war findings was so significant that it started multiple investigations, including the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the Butler Review in the UK, both of which found serious intelligence failures.
So no, there doesn't appear to have been an active WMD program in Iraq in 2003, despite the claims used to justify the invasion.
... so yeah. Back to my original comment.
Furthermore, the conventional wisdom that you echoed, is that no WMD were found in Iraq, this was found a decade later to be completely false. Iraq did not disarm and had huge stockpiles during and after the 2003 war.
Iraq did not only undertake to disarm the program (which was also partially active), but also to destroy all chemical weapons, it breached the UN disarmament program by not disarming, which makes the pretext valid.
We can discuss whether it was smart for the US to invade Iraq, due to the subsequent changes in the Middle East that was also a plausibly correct move, but that's more complex than I can discuss in a single paragraph
1. While chemical weapons are technically classified as WMDs, the pre-invasion claims were specifically about active production programs and imminent threats. Finding scattered 1980s remnants doesn't validate those specific claims.
2. Describing these as "huge stockpiles" misrepresents what was found. The NYT article YOU cited describes degraded, corroded weapons that were often non-functional, hardly the operational arsenal implied by "stockpiles".
3. You conflate the 1980s chemical weapons program with post-1991 disarmament obligations. The remnants weren't evidence of ongoing non-compliance but rather weapons that had been lost/missed during the chaotic dismantlement process.
4. The NYT investigation explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale" and shows officials kept them secret because they contradicted WMD claims.
5. There's a significant difference between "no WMDs found" and "degraded chemical remnants from the 1980s found." The latter doesn't constitute the "reconstituted WMD program" claimed pre-invasion.
My previous comment already addressed all of this, that these discoveries actually undermined rather than supported the invasion narrative / rationale.
Your response does not counter the fundamental point, it just reframes the debate around technical definitions while ignoring the substance of what the intelligence claims actually were vs. what was found.
I am not interested in continuing this conversation. Thanks.
The fact that the shells are corroded does not mean the material cannot be removed and reused, and it still means Iraq failed to destroy these properly, therefore breaching the UN mandate.
I think this is a great example of how due to political unpopularity of actions, an entire false narrative can be disseminated for a decade, and two decades later it still has many dogmatic followers that will defend it.
Maybe it's good food for thought about which false truisms we keep right now for political reasons that will be found out as lies in a decade.
1. You shifted the goalpost again. You moved from "WMDs proved invasion was justified" -> "chemical weapons are technically WMDs" -> "UN mandate violations justified invasion" and each argument abandons the previous when challenged. Boring.
2. You claim the Army's secrecy proves WMDs existed, when the NYT article explicitly states the secrecy was because these finds contradicted WMD claims. The Army hid them due to embarrassment, not validation.
3. Whether degraded chemical weapons could theoretically harm people doesn't address the core issue: there was no active WMD program as claimed pre-invasion.
4. Scattered remnants from chaotic 1990s dismantlement != active non-compliance with UN mandates. Many weapons were simply lost during the destruction process, not deliberately hidden.
Have fun.
I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war.
I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile, thus making the pretext valid (let's put aside laboratories that were not dismantled).
You say these are "scattered" but 5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence.
Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false
False. The Bush administration's case centered on mobile biological weapons labs, aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges, and claims of active production facilities. Colin Powell's UN presentation focused heavily on alleged bio-weapons and nuclear programs. Chemical weapons were a minor part of the overall WMD narrative.
> "I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war."
UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix reported in March 2003 - just before invasion - that inspectors found NO evidence of active WMD programs. UNSCOM had already dismantled Iraq's major chemical production facilities by 1998. The "Iraqi manipulations" were about concealing historical records of past programs, not hiding active ones.
> "I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile"
You absolutely moved goalposts. You started claiming these finds proved WMDs existed, then shifted to "chemical weapons are WMDs," then "UN violations justified invasion." Past use in the 1980s was already known and irrelevant to 2003 invasion claims about active programs.
???
> "5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence."
Absurd. Many were empty, corroded, or non-functional 1980s remnants. Countries with active nuclear arsenals, operational chemical weapons, and biological programs had vastly greater WMD capabilities than scattered degraded shells.
> "Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false"
The truth is that no active WMD programs were found (as per every source you have mentioned, even), which is what the invasion was predicated on. Your own source explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale".
Seriously, you trigger me with your absurdity and logical incoherence. sighs.
I replied for other people, but you are on your own now. Take your own suggestions and execute them.
I could continue to counter your arguments which are either cherrypicked or false, and the fact you blame me for moving goal posts, when you had done so yourself. But I really can only admire your continued ability to defend your mind against new information which such vigor. I am also stopping here
Quote me and reply and I might engage.
That's obviously nonsense. Why would the Iranians build secret underground facilities to refine uranium if it wasn't for building nuclear weapons? An oil-rich country does not need civilian nuclear power. Even if they wanted nuclear reactors, they could make a deal with the U.S. and buy the fuel rods in exchange for oil.
Iran's nuclear program is definitely not about power generation.
And yet we allow israel to develop nuclear weapons and fund terrorist groups. At least in iran's defense, they aren't engaging in genocide like israel is.
> For the life of me I can't understand why it was undone.
Zionist domination of america. We're always told china this or russia that, but we don't waste trillions of dollars fighting for china or russia.