America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

Why stop there and just say all organized religion is to blame and call it a day, or DNA, the big bang, etc etc.

Well we know that it's not DNA, because they have the ability to choose not to do this. I'll say let's stop there because that's where they stop.

 

[Omnis]

Why stop there and just say all organized religion is to blame and call it a day, or DNA, the big bang, etc etc.

Because only Islam is built on a foundation of voluntarism. It's been that way for thousands of years, accompanied by unending violence.

Let's quote Fr. Barron and learn the difference between Islam and all the other religions:

There is an ancient and enduring philosophical position that goes by the name of voluntarism, which is to say, the systematic favoring of the will over the intellect. In the Middle Ages, this view is on display in certain theologians, who insisted that God’s will is his primary attribute and therefore that the divine choice trumps all, including the evident truths of reason. William of Occam, for example, famously distinguished between God’s potentia absoluta (absolute power) and his potentia ordinata (ordained power). The former is what God, in the pure sense of the term, could do, his totally rangy capacity; while the latter designates what God actually did. So, for example, God in fact commanded us not to commit adultery and he in fact made a world in which circles cannot be squares and vice versa. But in his absolute power, presumably, he could have determined that adultery is a virtue and that square circles are possible. This late medieval theorizing was picked up on by the founder of modern philosophy, René Descartes, who speculated that 2+2 in point of fact is equal to 4 but that God could determine, should he please, that it be equal to 5.

A philosopher who had no sympathy for this nonsense was St. Thomas Aquinas, who held that God’s freedom is grounded in the truth of his being. God can indeed do anything, but he can’t do the impossible, precisely because the impossible is a modality of non-being. To say that God cannot make 2+2 equal to 5 or turn adultery into a virtue is not to limit God; it is to say that whatever he wills is consistent with the integrity of his own being. In a word, Aquinas insisted that the will and the intellect are partners and that freedom, accordingly, ought always to be consistent with the truth of things.

In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI, who as an academic was very familiar with the controversy I have just rehearsed, gave an oration at the University of Regensburg that came down on the side of Thomas Aquinas. The central theme of his presentation was the essential role that reason ought to play in relation to religion. At the heart of his argument was the concern that voluntarism was asserting itself in the religious realm (God’s absolute power) and that this was conducing to violence, since without a common consensus regarding the truth, all that rival groups can do is resort to force, the assertion of the will.

I hope it is becoming clear why I feel this somewhat arcane academic discussion is of crucial relevance in our time. As silly as it is to say that 2+2 could be equal to 5, it is just as silly to say that a child in the womb is anything but human. What makes both assertions possible is the claim that will (whether God’s or our own) supposedly trumps intellect, that the sheer desire that something be true can make it true. And what makes all of this more than merely silly is, as Pope Benedict saw, that the divorce between will and mind unleashes violence, indeed potentia absoluta.

The revival of voluntarism is on rather massive display in our society and the principle of the primacy of the will is behind much of our discussion of moral issues. As has always been the case, this has led to a distortion of speech and to the unchaining of some pretty dark forces.
​

And from another article, you can see why Islam is the only religion that is such a widespread and fertile ground for violent radicalization. In all other religions, such violent behavior would be against their foundations. Radical Islamic clerics instead put a hyperstress on this divine will to condone and promise rewards for this behavior.

To use the threat of force to compel someone to change his religious beliefs—which we are regularly seeing in the Middle East—is not only criminal but wicked.

It is also deeply irrational—a point made by Pope Benedict XVI in his address at the University of Regensburg in September of 2006. In that controversial speech, Pope Benedict drew attention to a little-known dialogue between the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Muslim interlocutor. The Emperor pointed out that the idea of spreading the faith through violent conquest, which is recommended in the Qur’an, is supremely irrational, and the reasons he gives anticipate John Paul II by six centuries. Faith is a function, not of the body, but of the soul, and therefore coercion through bodily persecution cannot even in principle awaken authentic faith. One must, instead, be skilled in arguments that would appeal to the mind: “to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.” In a word, the idea of the holy war is not syn logon (according to the word or reason). And here is the decisive point: what is unreasonable is out of step with God’s own nature, since God, on the Christian reading, is identified with Logos: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

However, in Muslim teaching, Allah’s nature is so transcendent that it goes beyond any and all categories, including that of reason. Pope Benedict cites the noted French Islamic scholar R. Arnaldez, who points out that Allah is not even bound by his own word, so that if he so chose, he could recommend idolatry as morally praiseworthy. This elevation of the divine will over the divine mind, called “voluntarism” in the West, is, for Benedict, the source of enormous confusion and mischief. Most notably and dangerously, it opens the door to the idea of divinely sanctioned violence. Now I fully realize that many Christians over the centuries have done terrible things in the name of God and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful and non-violent. But I think it is clear that when Christians act in such a way, they are unequivocally at odds with their own conception of God. Is the same true of Muslims? I am still waiting for a compelling answer from the Muslim camp to the question posed eight years ago by Pope Benedict. At the time, of course, Islamist radicals responded by killing a number of innocent Christians – certainly a curious way of refuting the notion that divinely sanctioned violence is irrational!​

 

[Hun200kmh]

Wow ... apart from a reference made by Famine a long time ago, I think this is the first time I read - in gtplanet - a good text about Pope Benedict XVI's address at the University of Regensburg. The core issue and point he made was missed within all the so fashionable "Ratzinger hate" of the era, but it seems there's still hope for reason to prevail when debating these issues.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Don't move the goalposts. I said the article was strange, and it is.

Revisiting that post I see the article itself is, as you say, strange. I was just kicking towards the wrong posts

Except that we know they did, because they used them on their own people.

In 1988. The weapons are only viable for a short time hence the need for a network of factories to refill/replenish the munitions. Which Iraq no longer had.

And of course we found them in Iraq, because they had them.

We found a handful of chemical/biological munitions intact, the majority of those few were entirely unviable. Therefore they were not the "weapons of mass destruction" that Blair/Bush had been desperate to find (and which Blix had told them didn't exist).

Only in this very strange revisionist history is discovering WMDs in Iraq evidence that they never existed and that people lied.

Absolutely, they existed. Once upon a time. Not by the time of the 2003 war, of course.

Let's get back to the original statement which is that satellite evidence PROVES that they lied, and the subsequent statement that evidence was fabricated.

Yup, he's on his own with that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@TenEightyOne Yes they did in the context of chemical weapons, there were plenty that were still dangerous and many servicemen are still being treated to this day for injuries form them during the second gulf war. Now unless WMDs aren't considered chemical weapons...I'm confused. As I said in my other post, the WMDs on a nuclear scale that were supposedly being prepared was the only fiction.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because only Islam is built on a foundation of voluntarism. It's been that way for thousands of years, accompanied by unending violence.

Only about 1500, its a very young religion. The basis of that religion is in legends that are 5000-ish years old but then that's true of christishness too.

And from another article, you can see why Islam is the only religion that is such a widespread and fertile ground for violent radicalization. In all other religions, such violent behavior would be against their foundations.

That's simply not so, the spread of Christianity was a violent one too for at least the first 1000 years. Applying medieval philosophy from 1400 years after christ is pointless.

@TenEightyOne Yes they did in the context of chemical weapons, there were plenty that were still dangerous and many servicemen are still being treated to this day for injuries form them during the second gulf war.

Many of those being treated are being treated for exposure to Allied uranium rounds, no?

Now unless WMDs aren't considered chemical weapons...I'm confused.

Of course they're not by default, a WMD can comprise anything.

There's no question that limited numbers of (mostly unviable) chemical weapons remained. That was in Blix's reports then and part of the substantial body of evidence for Chilcot (which you should read, if you haven't). The "WMD" referred to the 45-min capability that Iraq supposedly had to launch large numbers of viable chemical weapons. Which they couldn't ergot they had no mass-destructive capability.

 

[IforceV8]

Because only Islam is built on a foundation of voluntarism. It's been that way for thousands of years, accompanied by unending violence.

Let's quote Fr. Barron and learn the difference between Islam and all the other religions:

There is an ancient and enduring philosophical position that goes by the name of voluntarism, which is to say, the systematic favoring of the will over the intellect. In the Middle Ages, this view is on display in certain theologians, who insisted that God’s will is his primary attribute and therefore that the divine choice trumps all, including the evident truths of reason. William of Occam, for example, famously distinguished between God’s potentia absoluta (absolute power) and his potentia ordinata (ordained power). The former is what God, in the pure sense of the term, could do, his totally rangy capacity; while the latter designates what God actually did. So, for example, God in fact commanded us not to commit adultery and he in fact made a world in which circles cannot be squares and vice versa. But in his absolute power, presumably, he could have determined that adultery is a virtue and that square circles are possible. This late medieval theorizing was picked up on by the founder of modern philosophy, René Descartes, who speculated that 2+2 in point of fact is equal to 4 but that God could determine, should he please, that it be equal to 5.

A philosopher who had no sympathy for this nonsense was St. Thomas Aquinas, who held that God’s freedom is grounded in the truth of his being. God can indeed do anything, but he can’t do the impossible, precisely because the impossible is a modality of non-being. To say that God cannot make 2+2 equal to 5 or turn adultery into a virtue is not to limit God; it is to say that whatever he wills is consistent with the integrity of his own being. In a word, Aquinas insisted that the will and the intellect are partners and that freedom, accordingly, ought always to be consistent with the truth of things.

In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI, who as an academic was very familiar with the controversy I have just rehearsed, gave an oration at the University of Regensburg that came down on the side of Thomas Aquinas. The central theme of his presentation was the essential role that reason ought to play in relation to religion. At the heart of his argument was the concern that voluntarism was asserting itself in the religious realm (God’s absolute power) and that this was conducing to violence, since without a common consensus regarding the truth, all that rival groups can do is resort to force, the assertion of the will.

I hope it is becoming clear why I feel this somewhat arcane academic discussion is of crucial relevance in our time. As silly as it is to say that 2+2 could be equal to 5, it is just as silly to say that a child in the womb is anything but human. What makes both assertions possible is the claim that will (whether God’s or our own) supposedly trumps intellect, that the sheer desire that something be true can make it true. And what makes all of this more than merely silly is, as Pope Benedict saw, that the divorce between will and mind unleashes violence, indeed potentia absoluta.

The revival of voluntarism is on rather massive display in our society and the principle of the primacy of the will is behind much of our discussion of moral issues. As has always been the case, this has led to a distortion of speech and to the unchaining of some pretty dark forces.
​

And from another article, you can see why Islam is the only religion that is such a widespread and fertile ground for violent radicalization. In all other religions, such violent behavior would be against their foundations. Radical Islamic clerics instead put a hyperstress on this divine will to condone and promise rewards for this behavior.

To use the threat of force to compel someone to change his religious beliefs—which we are regularly seeing in the Middle East—is not only criminal but wicked.

It is also deeply irrational—a point made by Pope Benedict XVI in his address at the University of Regensburg in September of 2006. In that controversial speech, Pope Benedict drew attention to a little-known dialogue between the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Muslim interlocutor. The Emperor pointed out that the idea of spreading the faith through violent conquest, which is recommended in the Qur’an, is supremely irrational, and the reasons he gives anticipate John Paul II by six centuries. Faith is a function, not of the body, but of the soul, and therefore coercion through bodily persecution cannot even in principle awaken authentic faith. One must, instead, be skilled in arguments that would appeal to the mind: “to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.” In a word, the idea of the holy war is not syn logon (according to the word or reason). And here is the decisive point: what is unreasonable is out of step with God’s own nature, since God, on the Christian reading, is identified with Logos: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

However, in Muslim teaching, Allah’s nature is so transcendent that it goes beyond any and all categories, including that of reason. Pope Benedict cites the noted French Islamic scholar R. Arnaldez, who points out that Allah is not even bound by his own word, so that if he so chose, he could recommend idolatry as morally praiseworthy. This elevation of the divine will over the divine mind, called “voluntarism” in the West, is, for Benedict, the source of enormous confusion and mischief. Most notably and dangerously, it opens the door to the idea of divinely sanctioned violence. Now I fully realize that many Christians over the centuries have done terrible things in the name of God and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful and non-violent. But I think it is clear that when Christians act in such a way, they are unequivocally at odds with their own conception of God. Is the same true of Muslims? I am still waiting for a compelling answer from the Muslim camp to the question posed eight years ago by Pope Benedict. At the time, of course, Islamist radicals responded by killing a number of innocent Christians – certainly a curious way of refuting the notion that divinely sanctioned violence is irrational!​

So where does Dick Cheney fit into this?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Many of those being treated are being treated for exposure to Allied uranium rounds, no?

No documented chemical use, such a mustard gas for example, if you want I can post up an article but last time I read it it had graphic images of said wounds. Your call. I too for the longest time thought WMDs were bs but then NYT and Washington Post started publicizing the stories after the war was over.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
This works better

Of course they're not by default, a WMD can comprise anything.

In terms of payload and by war convention standards it only covers three things: chemical, biological, radioactive/nuclear. You could call other weapons WMDs, but as far a convention was concerned those are the real cases.

There's no question that limited numbers of (mostly unviable) chemical weapons remained. That was in Blix's reports then and part of the substantial body of evidence for Chilcot (which you should read, if you haven't). The "WMD" referred to the 45-min capability that Iraq supposedly had to launch large numbers of viable chemical weapons. Which they couldn't ergot they had no mass-destructive capability.

If they had no ability to do damage then why did bomb disposal units spend years and tours dismantling up to 5000 said war heads? The delivery system could easily be had, and the rhetoric of the war shifted into one of if not Sadam others (Al-Qaeda) could obtain these weapons.

 

[Omnis]

That's simply not so, the spread of Christianity was a violent one too for at least the first 1000 years. Applying medieval philosophy from 1400 years after christ is pointless.

Except that's a red herring for this argument. It's already been established that any violent religiosity, whether medieval crusades or jihad terrorism, are syn logon.

What we are faced with today is only one world religion that by and large continues to elevate will over reason and brings with it all kinds of terrible conflict and violence.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If they had no ability to do damage then why did bomb disposal units spend years and tours dismantling up to 5000 said war heads? The delivery system could easily be had, and the rhetoric of the war shifted into one of if not Sadam others (Al-Qaeda) could obtain these weapons.

I certainly wouldn't want to dismantle one, it could kill you. However, to be a weapon of mass destruction it has to be fatal to a much greater number of people in one go. Which they weren't. There seems to be an ongoing confusion between a WMD and a degraded chemical weapon.

Except that's a red herring for this argument. It's already been established that any violent religiosity, whether medieval crusades or jihad terrorism, are syn logon.

It hasn't been established by any means; for a start you need to nail the "reasonable" part of your clause. It is not considered reasonable to worship objects as gods to those who worship ethereal gods. Therefore the christian wars of the 1st and 2nd centuries (medieval stuff comes way later and is rooted in a very different logic) do actually satisfy the "reasonable" cause.

Furthermore; the translation from German to English errs on the harsh side... and that itself is a translation from a medieval political discourse. Not the greatest source for the intention.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I certainly wouldn't want to dismantle one, it could kill you. However, to be a weapon of mass destruction it has to be fatal to a much greater number of people in one go. Which they weren't. There seems to be an ongoing confusion between a WMD and a degraded chemical weapon.

How were they, not exactly what evidence is that that shows this? Because instead of killing 1 or 2 or injuring someone dismantling them? They weren't used thus you saying they weren't capable is just an assertion

 

[TenEightyOne]

How were they, not exactly what evidence is that that shows this? Because instead of killing 1 or 2 or injuring someone dismantling them?

The few that still contained non-degraded chemicals included fewer than 50 with high-grade Sarin. Lethal in a room, pretty useless deployed in an airburst over a hot desert.

They weren't used thus you saying they weren't capable is just an assertion

They couldn't have been used as Weapons of Mass Destruction any more than a magazine of normal artillery shells could. That was known by Britain when they suggested the "WMD" policy to JIC/Bush and was known by Blix. Did you read Chilcot or not?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-justify-iraq-war-inquiry-finds-a7122481.html

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The few that still contained non-degraded chemicals included fewer than 50 with high-grade Sarin. Lethal in a room, pretty useless deployed in an airburst over a hot desert.

That makes no sense considering that if they're non-degraded the amount of Sarin with in would be enough to kill a sizable group, not to count the fact that Sarin still releases from clothing several minutes after being in contact. Also if they hadn't supposedly degraded that shows these weapons in part were maintained for a time. Considering the max shelf life is 5 years, unless certain procedures are taken to extend that. In Iraq there were cases that these weapons would only last several weeks, but these weren't high-grade.

The fact that these weapons were found breaks the rules of Security Resolution 687.

They couldn't have been used as Weapons of Mass Destruction any more than a magazine of normal artillery shells could. That was known by Britain when they suggested the "WMD" policy to JIC/Bush and was known by Blix. Did you read Chilcot or not?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-justify-iraq-war-inquiry-finds-a7122481.html

Did I read a 1000+ page report, no and I doubt you did yourself, I read pieces that I had questions over. However, the Chilcot report isn't the end all end all. Not sure what a magazine of artillery shells is, but as I said there were many weapons with nerve and mustard gas agents intact, the evidence has been posted from service men who dismantled them and then had it covered up when injured severely by the stuff.

You have no clue if they were battle capable when attached to a delivery system, all you've posted is what I've said. What you've also mixed up is thought on my posts, as if I'm saying yes now in hindsight there was justification. No I'm not, if such weapons were under threat of being used again then action should be taken. However on other supposed WMDs like nuclear arms being about, I already posted about that and how it was untrue. All in all you're taking what I'm saying as justification for said war, when that's not so. I'm simply saying that the complete whitewash that no WMDs existed wasn't true.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So Marilyn Mosby, State Attorney for Baltimore and prosecuting the case against the officers in the Freddy Grey case, has basically thrown many of the investigating police officers under the bus with accusations of intentionally trying to harm the state’s ability to bring charges and even hinted at manufacturing evidence, which is, of course, a felony. I assume charges will follow against some of the investigating officers in the case. Errr...probably not.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That makes no sense considering that if they're non-degraded the amount of Sarin with in would be enough to kill a sizable group, not to count the fact that Sarin still releases from clothing several minutes after being in contact. Also if they hadn't supposedly degraded that shows these weapons in part were maintained for a time. Considering the max shelf life is 5 years, unless certain procedures are taken to extend that. In Iraq there were cases that these weapons would only last several weeks, but these weren't high-grade.

After time (in this case the time after 1988) the sarin is no longer disposable, it forms a strong local hazard but is not capable of dispersal and therefore mass destruction.

Did I read a 1000+ page report, no and I doubt you did yourself, I read pieces that I had questions over. However, the Chilcot report isn't the end all end all.

I did read it. It's the most far-reaching body of evidence on the subject and looks closely at the evidence provided by the UK and US particularly on the key subject of the "45 min WMDs".

You have no clue if they were battle capable when attached to a delivery system

Yes, I do. We've known for many years that they weren't capable and that the delivery systems were defunct. Again, don't confuse a magazine of artillery shells (not sure why you didn't get that, a magazine is a magazine) that can be deployed with a magazine of artillery shells that constitute weapons of mass destruction when deployed.

All in all you're taking what I'm saying as justification for said war, when that's not so. I'm simply saying that the complete whitewash that no WMDs existed wasn't true.

We may be at cross-purposes there, the war was clearly illegal and both the US and UK were advised as such by their own legal experts.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So Marilyn Mosby, State Attorney for Baltimore and prosecuting the case against the officers in the Freddy Grey case, has basically thrown many of the investigating police officers under the bus with accusations of intentionally trying to harm the state’s ability to bring charges and even hinted at manufacturing evidence, which is, of course, a felony. I assume charges will follow against some of the investigating officers in the case. Errr...probably not.

Update: Apparently some of the officers have the same interpretation of Mosby's comments and are suing Marilyn Mosby for, "false arrest, false imprisonment, defamation or false light, and other assertions.".

"Marilyn Mosby's comments in her press conference today confirm that the charges brought against my clients, Sgt. Alicia White and Officer William Porter, as well as the other four officers, were politically motivated and not supported by evidence to establish probable cause," Michael E. Glass said. [....] Rice accuses Mosby of realizing the case would draw widespread media attention and speaking "in a divisive and inciting manner" while making false statements about him. Mosby's remarks, Rice alleges, broke the state's code of professional conduct, which forbids lawyers from making "an extrajudicial statement" they know will prejudice a court proceeding.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/us/baltimore-marilyn-mosby-officer-lawsuits-freddie-gray/index.html

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

After time (in this case the time after 1988) the sarin is no longer disposable, it forms a strong local hazard but is not capable of dispersal and therefore mass destruction.

Not true as I said high grade last up to five years, with prolonged stability even after that with certain upgrades. Also since we don't know when said weapons were made exactly the 1988 figure means what?

I did read it. It's the most far-reaching body of evidence on the subject and looks closely at the evidence provided by the UK and US particularly on the key subject of the "45 min WMDs".

So you read a 1000+ page report that recently was finished? Good on you I suppose, I feel perhaps you read the summary which is the only piece of had the time to read parts of.

Also I've already explained my stance on the WMDs which you seem to forget.

Yes, I do. We've known for many years that they weren't capable and that the delivery systems were defunct. Again, don't confuse a magazine of artillery shells (not sure why you didn't get that, a magazine is a magazine) that can be deployed with a magazine of artillery shells that constitute weapons of mass destruction when deployed.

Yes I know the delivery systems were defunct which is why I worded it in the sense of if they had, or anyone else who may get them that we didn't want to have them. So not sure where you get I think they had delivery systems, I said "when attached" meaning they weren't made or being produced as far as we know.

I didn't get it cause no such thing exists, artillery shells don't come in magazines

We may be at cross-purposes there, the war was clearly illegal and both the US and UK were advised as such by their own legal experts.

No it wasn't illegal, what it was was a legal war on faulty ground, as pointed out by others which you can refute those arguments. Shows that Iraq had broken treaty and UN resolutions. However, I do agree that War was an overkill option, I also agree and have said this countless times which is why I don't get why you're still debating this, that the WMDs supposedly their were few and far between. With the major absence of what was critical to going in the first place, that being Nuclear arms.

 

[justin credible]

Have a read.
Twelve Years Later, US Media Still Can’t Get Iraqi WMD Story Right
Jon Schwarz

Jon Schwarz

Apr. 10 2015, 5:09 p.m.

This past fall The New York Times began publishing a powerful, ongoing series revealing the U.S. military’s mistreatment of soldiers who were exposed to decades-old chemical weapons during Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to The Times, between 2004 and 2011 U.S. troops stumbled across about 5,000 Iraqi chemical munitions of various types, and at least 17 American personnel, mostly bomb disposal experts, were wounded by them. All of the ordnance was manufactured by Iraq prior to the 1991 Gulf War, during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Much of the conservative media has seized on the Times articles as long-awaited, sweet vindication of Bush’s case for war. According to Rush Limbaugh, it is now proven that “Saddam Hussein was doing and had done pretty much everything he was being accused of that justified that invasion.”

And the conservative glee is understandable: after all, Bush said Iraq had WMD, and here they are. Unfortunately for the right, however, they are just as wrong about this issue now as they were in 2003 — but for a peculiar, little-understood reason: Saddam Hussein was not trying to hide the chemical munitions found by the U.S. Just the opposite, in fact.

In an interview with The Intercept, Charles Duelfer, head of the CIA’s definitive post-war investigation of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, explained that “Saddam didn’t know he had it … This is stuff Iraqi leaders did not know was left lying around. It was not a militarily significant capability that they were, as a matter of national policy, hiding.”

It is long established that Iraq — with assistance from the U.S. and other Western countries — produced enormous quantities of chemical weapons during its eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s. After Iraq was expelled from Kuwait during the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations Security Council sent inspectors to ensure that Iraq disclosed and destroyed its entire chemical (and biological and nuclear) weapons programs. Iraq repeatedly said that it had done so, while the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations claimed it was still hiding pre-1991 weaponry.





The inoperative Al Muthanna chemical weapons complex in December 2002, after a visit by U.N. weapons inspectors and shortly before the U.S. invasion. (Photo: Jerome Delay/AP)



The chemical ordnance described in the Times series falls into two categories:

The first was munitions that had been sealed in bunkers at Iraq’s Al Muthanna weapons complex by U.N. inspectors during the 1990s. The inspectors destroyed enormous quantities of chemical weapons at Al Muthanna between 1992 and 1994, including 480,000 litres of live chemical weapons agent, but some could not be incinerated because it was too dangerous to move it. The U.N. and U.S. knew these chemical weapons were there, Saddam Hussein knew they knew, and there was no way for the Iraqi military to access them without the world immediately finding out. But after the invasion the U.S. failed to secure the site, and insurgents broke into the bunkers to retrieve some of the munitions. This is well-known to anyone who follows this issue closely. However, the U.S. media, as Duelfer puts it, periodically “rediscover this and get excited about it.” (The Intercept explained some aspects of the remaining Al Muthanna munitions last fall.)

The second category was simply ordnance that the Iraqi military had lost track of. Says Duelfer, “Keeping in mind that they used 101,000 munitions in the Iran-Iraq War … it’s not really surprising that they have imperfect accounting. I bet the U.S. couldn’t keep track of many of its weapons produced and used during a war.” And as the Times series notes, Iraq’s chemical shells often looked identical to its conventional ones: “An X-ray of internal features was sometimes the only way to tell [the difference].”

The Saddam Hussein regime was well aware of this issue when U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq in 2002, and knew that it would be disastrous for the Iraqi government if the U.N. found such prohibited weapons — even if the regime had been unaware such weapons existed. Duelfer’s Iraq Survey Group reported that four months before the March 2003 invasion, Saddam ordered his top officials “to cooperate completely” with inspectors, with army commanders required “to ensure their units retained no evidence of old WMD.” (Colin Powell played intercepted audio of Iraqi soldiers discussing this at his infamous U.N. presentation but doctored the translation to make it appear suspicious; in fact, the soldiers were following Saddam’s orders to make certain they did not accidentally have chemical munitions mixed in with their conventional ones.)

But to locate all of Iraq’s old chemical ordnance was an impossible task. As Duelfer’s report predicted in 2004, the U.S. would continue to find chemical shells — not because the Saddam Hussein regime had been hiding them, but because they had been “abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war [since] tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward deployed along the frequently and rapidly shifting battle lines.”

As Duelfer points out, the U.S. military itself is itself not immune to losing things; the federal government’s General Accounting Office found $1.2 billion worth of equipment was misplaced in just the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And in a situation oddly analogous to the munitions found in Iraq, in 1993 contractors digging the foundations for new mansions in one of Washington, D.C.’s most expensive neighborhoods discovered a cache of chemical weapons manufactured by the U.S. Army in 1918. Similarly, during the 2004-11 period in which 5,000 chemical munitions were found in Iraq, about the same number dating from World War I were apparently found in Europe.

But the conservative media is not alone in its confusion about WMD in Iraq — many centrist and liberal media publications also misunderstood the issue. Outlets such as Salon, MSNBC, The New Republic, The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post and The Times itself all accurately reported that the Times series did not vindicate the case for war. However, their recollection of what Bush’s justification for war actually was — as the Times put it, “Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program” — is not the whole story, either.

It’s certainly true that most of the Bush administration’s justification for war was that Iraq had active, post-1991 WMD programs. However, the administration also repeatedly claimed that Iraq was hiding elements of its pre-1991 chemical warfare program. In his State of the Union address two months before the invasion, Bush accused Iraq of concealing “30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents” from before the Gulf War. Colin Powell spoke of those munitions in his U.N. address, as well as “550 artillery shells with mustard” and “enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents” — all from before 1991.

The complicated truth, then, is that part of the U.S. case for war was that the Iraqi government was hiding old, pre-1991 chemical weapons; such old chemical weapons were found in Iraq; but the U.S. case for war was still totally false because Saddam’s regime was not hiding those weapons.

Thanks in part to the failure of centrist and liberal media to explain this clearly, it’s now cemented as an article of faith on much of the right that Iraq was concealing weapons of mass destruction. Given this, many conservatives have been asking plaintively why Bush never took his own side in the argument. In fact, according to a recent story in The Daily Beast, during the Bush administration some Republican lawmakers wanted the president to hold a press conference with some of the old Iraqi chemical munitions while wearing a protective suit. However, the Bush White House — in what was surely a first for them — declined to do something incredibly foolish, rash and dangerous involving Iraqi WMD.

 

[Danoff]

@justin credible

It's a good writeup, but it's still lazy and sloppy with wording. The writeup is correct to claim that most of the articles are sloppy with how they address the issue.

"Bush claimed Iraq had WMDs"

is not the same as

"Bush claimed Iraq had WMD programs"

which is not he same as

"Bush claimed Iraq had ongoing WMD programs"

which is not the same as

"Bush claimed we have proof that Iraq had ongoing WMD programs"

which is not the same as

"Bush claimed we have proof that Iraq had mature ongoing WMD programs and delivery mechanisms"

Likewise, and this is the mistake the article you posted makes.

"Bush's justification for the war was that Iraq had ongoing WMD programs"

is not the same as

"Bush's reason for the war was that Iraq had ongoing WMD programs"

which is not the same as

"One of the many reasons Bush gave for war with Iraq was the failure to comply with inspection requirements regarding potential ongoing WMD programs"

All of it has to be kept straight, WMDs vs. WMD programs vs. ongoing WMD prgorams, and especially, justification for action vs. reason to take action. One of the many reasons to take action in Iraq which nobody speaks about anymore was to create a democratic government in the hopes the Iraq would become a leader for representative government in the middle east thereby creating a long-lasting way of combating terrorism.

 

[Sanji Himura]

There could be a fight brewing for military pay in the near future. According to Military.com (registration required, sorry but no link), the House recently proposed a pay hike of 2.1% for 2017 while the White House wants a 1.6% pay hike.

What the White House actually wants here is against the law, which states that troops are to receive a pay hike within 0.5% of the Employment Cost Index, which tracks civilian labor costs. The index for 2017 is projected to be 2.1%, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

If the 1.6% pay raise is actually passed into law, this will mark the fourth year in a row that troop pay has not kept pace with the private sector. The pay proposal is part of a larger $582.7 billion Pentagon budget for fiscal year 2017, which begins October 1st.

 

[Dotini]

The reason Bush I did not invade Iraq was that there was no viable exit strategy. Bush II found that out the hard way. He is a fool, and of unsound mind. Many of our leaders have the same problems, rising as they do from the consent of the people.

Assange wikileaks released emails said to prove Hillary Clinton pushed weapons into Syria, and to ISIS.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/25/assange_why_i_created_wikileaks_searchable

Question: If our leaders bring about death and destruction, do the people in general who elected them deserve death and destruction, and have it coming?

 

[FoolKiller]

There could be a fight brewing for military pay in the near future. According to Military.com (registration required, sorry but no link), the House recently proposed a pay hike of 2.1% for 2017 while the White House wants a 1.6% pay hike.

What the White House actually wants here is against the law, which states that troops are to receive a pay hike within 0.5% of the Employment Cost Index, which tracks civilian labor costs. The index for 2017 is projected to be 2.1%, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

If the 1.6% pay raise is actually passed into law, this will mark the fourth year in a row that troop pay has not kept pace with the private sector. The pay proposal is part of a larger $582.7 billion Pentagon budget for fiscal year 2017, which begins October 1st.

If the White House wanted to reduce military spending they could always, I don't know, stop bombing the crap out of everyone.

 

[Joey D]

I guess this is as good as place as any to rant about this.

I just spent the past couple days flying to and from the east coast, and while the flights were fine, I have developed a new, lower opinion of the TSA. First off I was stopped both times due to "gun powder" residue on my hands. I'm not entirely sure what swabbing my hands with these patches were supposed to accomplish since the x-ray machine clearly showed I wasn't carrying anything other than my belt (which was deemed a threat to national security I guess). Some guy whom didn't have a firm grasp of the English language asked me why my hands had gun powder residue on them, to which I replied, "because maybe I shot a gun?" Clearly that meant I had to frisked (I typically make people buy me dinner before feeling me up) and the contents of my bag had to be checked. I'm not sure how some clothes that were x-rayed were threatening but because I shot a gun I must be hiding something.

I'm also not entirely sure how some upscale version of a rental cop is supposed to make me feel secure, but it doesn't. I'm also not sure when they started hiring people that look they should be trying to sell me something at a mall kiosk instead of "protecting" me.

 

[Danoff]

I guess this is as good as place as any to rant about this.

I just spent the past couple days flying to and from the east coast, and while the flights were fine, I have developed a new, lower opinion of the TSA. First off I was stopped both times due to "gun powder" residue on my hands. I'm not entirely sure what swabbing my hands with these patches were supposed to accomplish since the x-ray machine clearly showed I wasn't carrying anything other than my belt (which was deemed a threat to national security I guess). Some guy whom didn't have a firm grasp of the English language asked me why my hands had gun powder residue on them, to which I replied, "because maybe I shot a gun?" Clearly that meant I had to frisked (I typically make people buy me dinner before feeling me up) and the contents of my bag had to be checked. I'm not sure how some clothes that were x-rayed were threatening but because I shot a gun I must be hiding something.

I'm also not entirely sure how some upscale version of a rental cop is supposed to make me feel secure, but it doesn't. I'm also not sure when they started hiring people that look they should be trying to sell me something at a mall kiosk instead of "protecting" me.

Well, since the TSA makes law, surely we can vote them out! Nope, and that's why administrative law is unconstitutional.

Man I hate the TSA - not necessarily any individual officers (though I can think of a few), but the policies. My suggestion from a practical standpoint is to buy pre-check and go back to pre 9/11 security. No lines, no plastic baggies, no microwave scanner, no taking your shoes or belt off, no taking your laptop out - just a metal detector and x-ray of bags and you're done.

It's like being a human being again (instead of livestock).

Edit:

After you get pre-check you'll refuse to fly frontier ever again because they don't accept it.

 

[Pupik]

My suggestion from a practical standpoint is to buy pre-check and go back to pre 9/11 security. No lines, no plastic baggies, no microwave scanner, no taking your shoes or belt off, no taking your laptop out - just a metal detector and x-ray of bags and you're done.

It's like being a human being again (instead of livestock).

I'm on Pre-Check with a KTN; but curiously, I am denied usage of the lane about a half-dozen times a year, due to some unanswerable quirk. There are lines, but usually just on Monday mornings and Friday afternoons at the busier airports. So much better, especially if you're running late...but I wonder what happens in 5-10 years from now when lots of people have it. I think those who fly infrequently would rather save the $85. Seems to be a bit of a racket, but at least I can expense it.

I still get my hands (or sometimes my shoes) swabbed randomly. My old work laptop did too, probably since the extra battery backups and cords looked like a movie prop from Total Recall.

 

[Brett]

I guess this is as good as place as any to rant about this.

I just spent the past couple days flying to and from the east coast, and while the flights were fine, I have developed a new, lower opinion of the TSA. First off I was stopped both times due to "gun powder" residue on my hands. I'm not entirely sure what swabbing my hands with these patches were supposed to accomplish since the x-ray machine clearly showed I wasn't carrying anything other than my belt (which was deemed a threat to national security I guess). Some guy whom didn't have a firm grasp of the English language asked me why my hands had gun powder residue on them, to which I replied, "because maybe I shot a gun?" Clearly that meant I had to frisked (I typically make people buy me dinner before feeling me up) and the contents of my bag had to be checked. I'm not sure how some clothes that were x-rayed were threatening but because I shot a gun I must be hiding something.

I'm also not entirely sure how some upscale version of a rental cop is supposed to make me feel secure, but it doesn't. I'm also not sure when they started hiring people that look they should be trying to sell me something at a mall kiosk instead of "protecting" me.

It is security theater.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Crime in Chicago Update:
Vote #Chiraq
Source

While I am listening over police scanner of another murder in Chicago, I figure it was a good idea to brief you on the stupidity of living in a liberal city. Through July 31st, we have the most violent year in the city since 2012. Here is the stats:

Year to date: (August 2nd)
Shot and Killed: 367
Shot and Wounded: 2,067
Total Shot: 2,434
Total Homicides: 405

Final July Totals:
Shot and Killed: 66
Shot and Wounded: 382
Total Shot: 448
Total Homicides: 71

Definitions:

1. All murders are Homicides, but NOT all Homicides are Murders. This post counts homicides, whereas the Chicago PD counts murders.
2. Homicides are applied to the date and time of the incident, NOT the time of death. (for example, if someone is shot on July 4th, 2013, but passed on July 4th, 2014, it will count towards July 2013's tally, not 2014's.)
3. Gun related homicides do not count towards the shot and wounded stat.
4. Police shootings and justifiable homicides do count to the statistics presented here. CPD does not count either towards their totals.
5. Suicides and attempted suicides are not counted.
6. Accidental, negligent or self-inflicted gunshot wounds are counted.
7. Reckless homicides may be included depending on the determination of the Medical Examiner. Involuntary Manslaughter committed by use of a motor vehicle or drunk driving fatalities are not counted in the post stats.

 

[LeMansAid]

While I am listening over police scanner of another murder in Chicago, I figure it was a good idea to brief you on the stupidity of living in a liberal city. Through July 31st, we have the most violent year in the city since 2012.

Are you suggesting that being "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas" makes for a hotbed of violence?

 

[DK]

A poll carried out in Georgia - considered a red state - shows Clinton and Trump as within the margin for error. Significantly, 56% of independent voters favoured Clinton, but she trails Trump by 31% among rural women.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Are you suggesting that being "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas" makes for a hotbed of violence?

Nope, I'm suggesting it's worse:

Here is Front Page, Another from Truth Revolt, Once more from Breitbart.

Basically the common theme is this, America's 10 most dangerous cities, as measured by federal crime statistics, have one notable feature in common - all were led politically by Democrat mayors. Most, in fact, were led by Democrats for a very long time. Proof: (from the 2015 statistics)

1. Detroit, has not had a Republican mayor since 1961.
2. Oakland, a Democrat stronghold since 1977.
3. Memphis, in Democrat hands since 1991.
4. St. Louis, which has been led exclusively by Democrat mayors since 1949.
5. Cleveland, no Republican mayor since 1989.
6. Baltimore, Democrat-led since 1967.
7. Milwaukee, elected only Democrat mayors since 1908.
8. Birmingham, Democrat-run since 1975.
9. Newark, a Democrat bastion since 1933.
10. Kansas City, MO, no Republican mayor in 25 years.