IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

The thread is not about how you might still think the invasion was justified, according to your own arguments, anyway. It's about the finding that the presence of WMD, claimed by the government as the primary reason to go to war, has turned out to lack any shred of evidence.

nimh wrote:

The thread is not about how you might still think the invasion was justified, according to your own arguments, anyway. It's about the finding that the presence of WMD, claimed by the government as the primary reason to go to war, has turned out to lack any shred of evidence.

If this thread is just to trumpet that no WMD have been found, this would have been a mighty small thread. None have been found. Yes, this is a fact. Next thread! ....

Do you honestly think this thread was not about more than that? Are you claiming the intent of this thread is not to suggest that because there were no WMD found that the US should not have invaded Iraq? There have been so many of that kind of thread, that it seems reasonable to conclude that was the poster's intent.

What Brandon is doing is identifying the issue for him is broader than the fact that WMD were not found. A lot of governments, organizations, entities, and individuals believed the WMD were there. Saddam certainly did nothing to dispel these beliefs. The issue for the anti-war folks posting here might be, "There were no WMD - the US shouldn't have invaded." But the issue for Brandon is broader than that. He is stating the case for why the invasion was justified, even though WMD weren't found ... to which you don't agree.

If the point of this thread is not to discuss these issues, then there really is no point to this thred, IMO.

Iraq's history with WMD left too great a probability that he still had the weapons or the development programs.

He was correct to invade on the basis of WMD.

What Bush did or didn't say doesn't alter the fact that the totality of our history with Iraq and WMD left an unacceptable likelihood that they still had WMD or WMD programs.

How telling that you did not in any way address my argument. I am not at all mistaken, you are, and it really is approaching the point of annoying stupidity. In a world in which a few guys can smuggle a single weapon into your country and kill a million people, one has to be very sure that people like Hussein do not have WMD, as you, yourself, may finally see when a WMD is someday used against the west.

The question is not whether or not he ultimately turned out to have WMD. The point is that at the time of the invasion, the remaining probability that he might have retained WMD or WMD programs was large enough that we had to go in and be sure

Your lack of comprehension of the invasion of Iraq is really extraordinary. It is just this simple:

In the future, various nations and private groups will attempt to acquire WMD. Of these, some - terrorist groups and the worst of the worst dictators with ties to terror - simply cannot be allowed to have them. The world simply cannot allow weapons so powerful that one single use of one single weapon can kill a million people to propagate without restraint

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:

The thread is not about how you might still think the invasion was justified, according to your own arguments, anyway. It's about the finding that the presence of WMD, claimed by the government as the primary reason to go to war, has turned out to lack any shred of evidence.

If this thread is just to trumpet that no WMD have been found, this would have been a mighty small thread. None have been found. Yes, this is a fact. Next thread! ....

Do you honestly think this thread was not about more than that? Are you claiming the intent of this thread is not to suggest that because there were no WMD found that the US should not have invaded Iraq? There have been so many of that kind of thread, that it seems reasonable to conclude that was the poster's intent.

What Brandon is doing is identifying the issue for him is broader than the fact that WMD were not found. A lot of governments, organizations, entities, and individuals believed the WMD were there. Saddam certainly did nothing to dispel these beliefs. The issue for the anti-war folks posting here might be, "There were no WMD - the US shouldn't have invaded." But the issue for Brandon is broader than that. He is stating the case for why the invasion was justified, even though WMD weren't found ... to which you don't agree.

If the point of this thread is not to discuss these issues, then there really is no point to this thred, IMO.

I'm sure Brandon appreciates the help...but he has talked exclusively about WMD...and nothing broader than that.

Some exerpts:

Quote:

Iraq's history with WMD left too great a probability that he still had the weapons or the development programs.

Quote:

He was correct to invade on the basis of WMD.

Quote:

What Bush did or didn't say doesn't alter the fact that the totality of our history with Iraq and WMD left an unacceptable likelihood that they still had WMD or WMD programs.

Quote:

How telling that you did not in any way address my argument. I am not at all mistaken, you are, and it really is approaching the point of annoying stupidity. In a world in which a few guys can smuggle a single weapon into your country and kill a million people, one has to be very sure that people like Hussein do not have WMD, as you, yourself, may finally see when a WMD is someday used against the west.

Quote:

The question is not whether or not he ultimately turned out to have WMD. The point is that at the time of the invasion, the remaining probability that he might have retained WMD or WMD programs was large enough that we had to go in and be sure

Quote:

Your lack of comprehension of the invasion of Iraq is really extraordinary. It is just this simple:

In the future, various nations and private groups will attempt to acquire WMD. Of these, some - terrorist groups and the worst of the worst dictators with ties to terror - simply cannot be allowed to have them. The world simply cannot allow weapons so powerful that one single use of one single weapon can kill a million people to propagate without restraint

The point about probability as a justification is a bit misplaced. As far as we can tell, the actual probability was zero - thus, it was not too high to take the risk of inaction (I'm leaving behind all other justifications, which have no place in this thread but may tip the scale in the other direction). What Brandon appears to be saying is that the believed probability at the time of our decision was too high. As a stand alone statement, that might be correct. However, it only shifts the debate from the question about whether there was a mistake in our calculation of costs and benefits to the question about whether there was a mistake in our calculation about probabilities and risks. Both elements are indispensable to a meaningful debate about WMD as a justification for war.

....

Brandon9000 wrote:

Since the use of even one WMD in our cities could, in some cases, cause a loss of life much greater than the tsunami in Asia has, Iraq's history with WMD left too great a probability that he still had the weapons or the development programs. Your quotations are irrelevant.

They are irrelevant to your argument for the Iraq war; they are not irrelevant to the government's main argument to go to war, which is the one this thread is addressing.

OMG. Listen carefully. The issue to me is not broader than issues regarding WMD, but it is broader than the mere fact that they were not found. My point is that the fact that they were not found does not lead to the conclusion that the invasion was not justified. At the moment of invasion, the probability that Iraq still had something that could one day be used to strike a crippling blow against us was high enough that we had to go in and resolve it.

We did not go to Iraq to protect ourselves. By your argument, we we invaded Iraq 'to be sure' that they were not an indirect threat. That's a rather new and very low threshold.

Brandon9000 wrote:

OMG. Listen carefully. The issue to me is not broader than issues regarding WMD, but it is broader than the mere fact that they were not found. My point is that the fact that they were not found does not lead to the conclusion that the invasion was not justified. At the moment of invasion, the probability that Iraq still had something that could one day be used to strike a crippling blow against us was high enough that we had to go in and resolve it.

In a round-about way Brandon, I get what you're saying...but I don't agree with it, or the logic that leads one to conclude the war was justified.
Are you trying to say that the US knew that Saddam Hussein presided over what was potentially a dangerous regime, and that potential alone was enough to sned in the Marines?

Steppenwolf wrote:

The point about probability as a justification is a bit misplaced. As far as we can tell, the actual probability was zero - thus, it was not too high to take the risk of inaction (I'm leaving behind all other justifications, which have no place in this thread but may tip the scale in the other direction). What Brandon appears to be saying is that the believed probability at the time of our decision was too high. As a stand alone statement, that might be correct. However, it only shifts the debate from the question about whether there was a mistake in our calculation of costs and benefits to the question about whether there was a mistake in our calculation about probabilities and risks. Both elements are indispensable to a meaningful debate about WMD as a justification for war.

Actually this is just wrong. I have taken graduate level classes in probability and statistics, and a type of question that is ofetn asked in the topic called Combinatorics is:

"A bag contains 10 socks which are known to be either white or black. An experiment is performed in which four socks are removed and examined. All four turn out to be white. What is the probability that the remaining six are also white?"

I'm a little rusty, but I think this is the Bernoulli distribution. A probability that all remaining socks are white can be calculated. Now if the bag is then emptied and the final six socks discovered to contain black socks as well, the probability previously calculated that they were all white was not wrong based on what was known at that time. Your argument that the probability that WMD or WMD programs existed was zero for us at the time of invasion, because they were ultimately found not to be there is simply false.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Steppenwolf wrote:

The point about probability as a justification is a bit misplaced. As far as we can tell, the actual probability was zero - thus, it was not too high to take the risk of inaction (I'm leaving behind all other justifications, which have no place in this thread but may tip the scale in the other direction). What Brandon appears to be saying is that the believed probability at the time of our decision was too high. As a stand alone statement, that might be correct. However, it only shifts the debate from the question about whether there was a mistake in our calculation of costs and benefits to the question about whether there was a mistake in our calculation about probabilities and risks. Both elements are indispensable to a meaningful debate about WMD as a justification for war.

Actually this is just wrong. I have taken graduate level classes in probability and statistics, and a type of question that is ofetn asked in the topic called Combinatorics is:

"A bag contains 10 socks which are known to be either white or black. An experiment is performed in which four socks are removed and examined. All four turn out to be white. What is the probability that the remaining six are also white?"

I'm a little rusty, but I think this is the Bernoulli distribution. A probability that all remaining socks are white can be calculated. Now if the bag is then emptied and the final six socks discovered to contain black socks as well, the probability previously calculated that they were all white was not wrong based on what was known at that time. Your argument that the probability that WMD or WMD programs existed was zero for us at the time of invasion, because they were ultimately found not to be there is simply false.

That's incorrect. The actual probability was zero (the actual existence of WMD is binary), but the calculated probability was not. Regarding the socks in the bag, the calculated probability is limited by your knowledge of what is inside the bag. If the bag were transparent, you would be able to better refine your calculation of probability.

My allegation is that the administration failed to use all the available facts to make a good estimate of probability. When I said that the probability was zero, I meant the actual probability, not the calculated probablility. The rest of my post focused on the question of whether the calculated probability was shoddy, hence my focus on the CIA's shallow probability calculus.

To clarify further, my point was that what you posted before made it sound like the administration's calculation of probability was uncontroversial, and hence a cost-benefit analysis based on that probability redeems the administration.

When Al Qaeda deliberately spreads a genetically engineered hemorrhagic fever throughout the US (for example), the situation may become a little clearer to you.

Brandon9000 wrote:

When Al Qaeda deliberately spreads a genetically engineered hemorrhagic fever throughout the US (for example), the situation may become a little clearer to you.

...al Qaeda huh?
That's that Iraqi group right?

Steppenwolf wrote:

To clarify further, my point was that what you posted before made it sound like the administration's calculation of probability was uncontroversial, and hence a cost-benefit analysis based on that probability redeems the administration.

When Al Qaeda deliberately spreads a genetically engineered hemorrhagic fever throughout the US (for example), the situation may become a little clearer to you.

Brandon9000 wrote:

When Al Qaeda deliberately spreads a genetically engineered hemorrhagic fever throughout the US (for example), the situation may become a little clearer to you.

...al Qaeda huh?
That's that Iraqi group right?

candidone1 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

When Al Qaeda deliberately spreads a genetically engineered hemorrhagic fever throughout the US (for example), the situation may become a little clearer to you.

...al Qaeda huh?
That's that Iraqi group right?

You're just doing that on purpose now. Why?