What's wrong (or right) with Bush's statement?

So you believe we should have erred on the side of him NOT having WMD's? Despite what our intelligence said? Seems like a rather stupid foriegn policy. Ignore the intelligence agencies of the world and avoid war because people might die...

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Brandon
I noticed that, it seems that people in general can not understand your 1+1=3 reasoning. I wonder why. Could it be you are all wet.

Perhaps, but a null post like this and the next one certainly don't show it. Why don't you sometime, just for laughs, argue with your opponent's specific logic?

I agree. I think we owe you that.

Go ahead. Say something logical...and I promise I will argue with it.

I see. You have no intention of addressing your opponents' arguments. You will simply say they're not logical and claim victory. Very, very honorable way of arguing. Something to be proud of.

Some of us only think we've won if we've faced our opponent's argument point by point.

Jeez. I give you a chance to get what you say you wanted...and you turn me down.

There just is no pleasing some people. Twisted Evil

I'm busting your cajones, Brandon.

You wrote:

Quote:

As usual, you misunderstand. The theory is that if the general category of rogue states which have WMD programs are not treated seriously, then eventually a WMD will be used, at least for blackmail.

Okay...I'll buy the essence of this comment.

Rogue states have to be "treated seriously."

Quote:

If WMD were no longer in Iraq by the time we invaded then the next time we have the same situation, or the next, the WMD will still be there.

Respectfully as possible, Brandon...there is not enough logic in that passage to fill a flea's ear...and flea's don't even have ears.

Whether we found WMD in Iraq or not will not influence whether we ever find them anywhere else.
This sentence fails every test of logic.

Quote:

That's what it means to talk about a probability.

C'mon! This has even less logic involved. You might just as well have said, "That's what it means to talk about homemade pasta."

Quote:

Even one such device used in a population center could exterminate a half million people.

Unfortunately...all too true. And my guess is that this will happen at some point...no matter whether this incredibly incompetent administration or one as incompetent as it handles matters...

...or an administration much, much, much more competent comes along.

I think that at this stage of our difficulties...a mega event is almost a certainty no matter what.

But I do agree that we have still got to do as much as possible to minimize its chances.

Quote:

It would be one thing if you folks quoted my position accurately and then argued with it, but you almost always quote it inaccurately.

Well...here I have cut and pasted your position...and your words.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

BrNDON, YOUR POST IS BUILT UPON THE ssumption that had WMDs been there in Iraq we had some moral imperative to invade them.
OK, we invaded them and guess what, No WMDS were found in the years leading up to the war or since weve been the occupying force.
So the argument now is "We must complete the job and provide a stable govt over there"\

With civil war a sure thing and a country in shambles which, whether it had any Al Qaeda ties before the war, certainly has them now.

I dont see any logic worth supporting in our adventure. Even Daddy Bush is critical.

Did we start a war on false pretenses? Probably

Did we "cook" the intelligence? I think we agree on that

Did we disrupt a flow of crude oil thus causing artificial shortages and expanding profits of Bush's oil buds--Of that there is no doubt

Please don't tell me my argument. I am talking only about the original decision to invade, not subsequent decisions after we got in. I am asserting that it was warranted by the situation. I shall now repeat the argument:

1. Hussein had had WMD, and programs to develop more.
2. In a treaty of surrender, he had 12 years earlier promised to verifiably disarm.
3. He had lied to and concealed his weapons from the inspectors.
4. He was a very bad, dangerous man, having attemtpted to annex neighborhs, and having murdered and tortured many of his own citizens.
5. Now, he asked us to accept the idea that he had disarmed, but in such a way as to furnish no proof.
6. Just based on the above, there would seem a non-negligible probability that he was continuing to conceal the weapons.
Even one of certain sorts of WMD could destroy a large city.

All this added up to a reasonable probability that was is still hiding WMD activity, a chance we could not take. Please don't split this off into 10 different discussions.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon, Try your point-by-point argument, and let's see what happens. LOL

Well, I've tried to persuade you to debate my points, and it's clear that you'll do anything at all to run from a real argument. Go ahead and try to counter the arguments of your betters with little snipes and wisecracks.

0 Replies

It was clear at the time of invasion that we didn't have to invade right then. Bush was in a hurry for some reason that he did not divulge to the American public. I think from the results in Iraq we know why he was in such a hurry.

Your argument might hold water if invasion were considered to be the last and worst choice of solutions.

0 Replies

By the way, Brandon...

...the "particular logic" you are using with regard to "probability"...namely that since we did not find WMD in Iraq we have increased the probability that we will find them when we invade some other country...

...reminds me of an old expression that seems very quint these days.

It use to go something like this: If you are afraid to fly because you think someone might bring a bomb on board your plane...consider that the chances against that happening are tens of millions to one against it happening. But if you don't even like those odds...simply pack up a bomb and bring it on board with you, because the chances of two people bringing a bomb on board any particular flight is tens of hundreds of millions to one against.

In any case...if your logic held up in any way...we probably should invade ten or twelve fifth world countries looking for WMD...Mali, Chad, Andorra, Benin, Eritria, Panama, Mauritania, etc. Then we would really improve our chances.

0 Replies

B: 1. Hussein had had WMD, and programs to develop more.
C: Had is much different than "have." That's the reason why we had UN Inspectors in Iraq to ensure he had none. Comprende?

B: 2. In a treaty of surrender, he had 12 years earlier promised to verifiably disarm.
C: An by all evidence, he did - or the UN Inspectors destroyed them since 1992.
Colin Powell during his UN speech said we knew the location of those WMDs, but none were found after our invasion.

B: 3. He had lied to and concealed his weapons from the inspectors.
C: But the inspectors were there to verify. Bush chased them out to start his war.

B: 4. He was a very bad, dangerous man, having attemtpted to annex neighborhs, and having murdered and tortured many of his own citizens.
C: Bush I chased out the Iraqis from Kuwait. That was over ten years ago.
Many tyranical regimes are "torturing many of its own citizens." We are not the world's police.

B: 5. Now, he asked us to accept the idea that he had disarmed, but in such a way as to furnish no proof.
C: Again; that's what the UN Inspectors were doing, to destroy and verify.

B: 6. Just based on the above, there would seem a non-negligible probability that he was continuing to conceal the weapons.
C: Concealment in not a crime. a) Attacking a soverign country on the basis of false intel is a crime. b) Our involvement in Iraq have now killed upwards of 100,000 innocent Iraqis. That's also a crime. c) We have now lost over 1,900 of our men and women in Iraq on false intel used by this administration. d) It is costing American taxpayers five billion dollars every month to keep engaged in this war in Iraq. e) Many Americans now see this as a endless quagmire that is costing too much.

B: Even one of certain sorts of WMD could destroy a large city.
C: True, but first they must have it to use, and the delivery system to deliver it. Their rockets were hardly powerful enough to leave the Gulf region - no less reach American soil.

0 Replies

CI, sound defeat of brandon's point by point arguments.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

CI, sound defeat of brandon's point by point arguments.

Checkmate!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way, Brandon...

...the "particular logic" you are using with regard to "probability"...namely that since we did not find WMD in Iraq we have increased the probability that we will find them when we invade some other country..."

Frank, that was not what I said. I meant something quite different.

Let's say you find a dictatorship that once had WMD and claims to have eliminated them, but you consider there to be a probability of .3 that it is merely hiding them. You invade and find nothing. A year later, you find a country in a similar situation, with a .3 probability that it is concealing WMD. You invade this other country, but find nothing. Now a few years later, you find a third country in the same situation and invade....etc.

I am saying that if the probability is .3, eventually you will run into one that is hiding WMD from you. In fact you will do so 30% of the time.

I am certainly not saying that your success or failure to find WMD in one exerts influence over what you will find in the next one. You know I do have a couple of Physics degrees, and they do make us take probability and statistics courses before we get the diploma.

0 Replies

Brandon, When are you going to get it through your head; we are not the world's police. That responsibility belongs to the world community. Bush has already bankrupted our country. We can no longer consider attacking another country for whatever reason you may find. It's up to the world community of nations to take action against any country that they deem as threats to peace and welfare of all.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

B: 1. Hussein had had WMD, and programs to develop more.
C: Had is much different than "have." That's the reason why we had UN Inspectors in Iraq to ensure he had none. Comprende?

B: 2. In a treaty of surrender, he had 12 years earlier promised to verifiably disarm.
C: An by all evidence, he did - or the UN Inspectors destroyed them since 1992.
Colin Powell during his UN speech said we knew the location of those WMDs, but none were found after our invasion.

B: 3. He had lied to and concealed his weapons from the inspectors.
C: But the inspectors were there to verify. Bush chased them out to start his war.

B: 4. He was a very bad, dangerous man, having attemtpted to annex neighborhs, and having murdered and tortured many of his own citizens.
C: Bush I chased out the Iraqis from Kuwait. That was over ten years ago.
Many tyranical regimes are "torturing many of its own citizens." We are not the world's police.

B: 5. Now, he asked us to accept the idea that he had disarmed, but in such a way as to furnish no proof.
C: Again; that's what the UN Inspectors were doing, to destroy and verify.

B: 6. Just based on the above, there would seem a non-negligible probability that he was continuing to conceal the weapons.
C: Concealment in not a crime. a) Attacking a soverign country on the basis of false intel is a crime. b) Our involvement in Iraq have now killed upwards of 100,000 innocent Iraqis. That's also a crime. c) We have now lost over 1,900 of our men and women in Iraq on false intel used by this administration. d) It is costing American taxpayers five billion dollars every month to keep engaged in this war in Iraq. e) Many Americans now see this as a endless quagmire that is costing too much.

B: 7. Even one of certain sorts of WMD could destroy a large city.
C: True, but first they must have it to use, and the delivery system to deliver it. Their rockets were hardly powerful enough to leave the Gulf region - no less reach American soil.

Interesting analysis. Okay, let's take point 6. If there was, at the time of invasion, a non-negligible probability that Iraq was still hiding WMD and lying about it, as point 6 concludes, then the following two scenarious had to be prevented:

1. Hussein is stalling for time as he completes WMD development. A dozen years has already passed since he promised to disarm. At some point, he simply says, similarly to North Korea, "I have now have a few WMD, I am throwing the inspectors out, and now no one had better get in my way ever again."

or

2. The inspectors miss Hussein's well hidden WMD, declare Iraq free of the weapons, and the UN declares him in compliance and lifts sanctions. Now Hussein, very quietly completes his WMD development.

In either of these two scenarios, he might within some few years use one of his WMD to destroy a city of his enemies, and then deny all knowledge and condemn the incident.

Now for point 7, you are wrong when you say they need a delivery system. The delivery system for the anthrax attack a few years ago was postage envelopes. They could smuggle the pieces of a WMD device into the target country, and then reassemble it and detonate it from within.

0 Replies

Point 6 is moot; we had UN Inspectors looking for WMDs. Bush wanted his war, so he chased out the weapon's inspectors.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon, When are you going to get it through your head; we are not the world's police. That responsibility belongs to the world community. Bush has already bankrupted our country. We can no longer consider attacking another country for whatever reason you may find. It's up to the world community of nations to take action against any country that they deem as threats to peace and welfare of all.

If a country run by an evil, agressive dictator, such as Saddam Hussein, has a WMD program, we must act or face the real possibility of being attacked with WMD in a few years. Such an attack could cause many more deaths and much greater expenditures of money than the war in Iraq has.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Point 6 is moot; we had UN Inspectors looking for WMDs. Bush wanted his war, so he chased out the weapon's inspectors.

It is not moot.

If there was a non-negligible probability that Hussein was just hiding his WMD better than previously, then it raised the possibility of a WMD useage in the future. Such an event would make 9/11 look very tiny indeed by comparison. Such a large danger must always be addressed. After a dozen years of inspections, the situation had to be resolved to prevent the two possible scenarios I listed above, as well as others.

0 Replies

cicerone,
what would be the purpose of n.korea bombing the west coast of the US? What would be gained?
they'd just be hit by the US in response. a no-win situation.
Where do you get your info that they have the capability to send a bomb as far as the US?

0 Replies

Isn't all this baloney about disarming Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, all about protecting the Jews from a nuclear attack? If you look at a map you'll notice that these countries surround Israel. Afganistan has been rendered a pile of rubble. The Pakis are in America's pocket (little puppet gov). And making a buck from oil and rebuilding in the process ain't so bad, either. Just ask Bush/Cheney/Halliburton. I hope the 'christian' prez can sleep at night knowing he is responsible for killing 100,000 innocent women, men and babies. Not to mention the 2,000 National Guard troops who got sucked into the mess. Hitler must have reincarnated into Bush.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
By the way, Brandon...

...the "particular logic" you are using with regard to "probability"...namely that since we did not find WMD in Iraq we have increased the probability that we will find them when we invade some other country..."

Frank, that was not what I said. I meant something quite different.

Let's say you find a dictatorship that once had WMD and claims to have eliminated them, but you consider there to be a probability of .3 that it is merely hiding them. You invade and find nothing. A year later, you find a country in a similar situation, with a .3 probability that it is concealing WMD. You invade this other country, but find nothing. Now a few years later, you find a third country in the same situation and invade....etc.

I am saying that if the probability is .3, eventually you will run into one that is hiding WMD from you. In fact you will do so 30% of the time.

I am certainly not saying that your success or failure to find WMD in one exerts influence over what you will find in the next one. You know I do have a couple of Physics degrees, and they do make us take probability and statistics courses before we get the diploma.

Actually....I have taken three courses in probability and statistics myself...one in the math department, one in the economics department and one in the psychology department. Of course, that was many years ago.

But I am telling you that you are incorrect...and you are attempting a bogus use of statistics...in exactly the way I pointed out.

I am making an attempt to get a statistics professor to comment on this...someone who can make the illogic of your position more clear than I can.

In any case...even the scenario you have painted is defective...since, as ci pointed out, we would bankrupt ourselves long before any good would come from repeated invasions.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
By the way, Brandon...

...the "particular logic" you are using with regard to "probability"...namely that since we did not find WMD in Iraq we have increased the probability that we will find them when we invade some other country..."

Frank, that was not what I said. I meant something quite different.

Let's say you find a dictatorship that once had WMD and claims to have eliminated them, but you consider there to be a probability of .3 that it is merely hiding them. You invade and find nothing. A year later, you find a country in a similar situation, with a .3 probability that it is concealing WMD. You invade this other country, but find nothing. Now a few years later, you find a third country in the same situation and invade....etc.

I am saying that if the probability is .3, eventually you will run into one that is hiding WMD from you. In fact you will do so 30% of the time.

I am certainly not saying that your success or failure to find WMD in one exerts influence over what you will find in the next one. You know I do have a couple of Physics degrees, and they do make us take probability and statistics courses before we get the diploma.

Actually....I have taken three courses in probability and statistics myself...one in the math department, one in the economics department and one in the psychology department. Of course, that was many years ago.

But I am telling you that you are incorrect...and you are attempting a bogus use of statistics...in exactly the way I pointed out.

I am making an attempt to get a statistics professor to comment on this...someone who can make the illogic of your position more clear than I can.

In any case...even the scenario you have painted is defective...since, as ci pointed out, we would bankrupt ourselves long before any good would come from repeated invasions.

I am 100% correct. My reference to statistics is elementary. I have said nothing more exotic than if you toss a fair coin and fail to get heads the first time, then you may get heads the second time, but, if not, you will likely get heads sooner or later. This is not really subject to debate, since it is so simple. Let me try to be even more explicit:

You invade a series of countries each of which has a chance of .3 of having WMD hidden. The first one may be clean the second one may be clean, etc., but if for each, the probability is really .3 of hidden WMD, then you should, from time to time, encounter countries for which the proposition is true - WMD are hidden. As the number of invaded countries approaches infinity, the fraction you have found with hidden WMD approaches .3.

Therefore, if we are confronted every few years with countries which have a probability about that large of having hidden WMD, it is to be expected that even if the first, second, and third turn out to be clean when we get in, some of them will not be clean.

Go get the whole Courant Institute, this is barely more than the definition of probability.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Go get the whole Courant Institute, this is barely more than the definition of probability.

Here is the way you originally stated your premise:

Quote:

If WMD were no longer in Iraq by the time we invaded, then the next time we have the same situation, or the next, the WMD will still be there. That's what it means to talk about a probability.

That is an absurd contention...and a misapplication of probability theory and of logic.

If I can get someone more adept at explaining your error...I will, but from your comment above, if several statistic/probability experts were to show you that you were wrong...you would insist that you are correct anyway.

In any case, here are a few appropriate comments stated without attribution (simply because I do not know who wrote them.)

Our first intuitive ideas about probability can be fraught with fallacies, in that they sometimes do not obey the axioms they should

The appeal to probability is a (A fallacy in logical argumentation), often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen, irrespective of how unlikely it is. The fallacy is often used to exploit paranoia.

Some examples are:

There are many hackers that use the internet. Therefore, if you use the internet without a firewall, it is inevitable that you will be hacked sooner or later

AMD has been catching up to Intel in recent years. In a few years they will definitely take over Intel's position, and eventually put them out of business altogether.

When soccer becomes popular in a town, hooliganism will become a major problem. Thus, if we allow a soccer team in our town, we will be overrun by hooligans.

While not considered a "true" fallacy by some (owing to the fact that it is rarely used by itself), the appeal to probability is a common trend in many arguments, enough for many to consider it a fallacy of itself.

0 Replies

What's wrong (or right) with Bush's statement?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know