The Observation Deck

Excuse me for my misinterpretation, Stephen. I'm sorry.

Mr. Calhoun,

You said
"As far as anybody--rational--knows, there were no WMD in Iraq when the war started. Obviously none have been found."

I think I understand your thinking, remarkable as it may be.

If I can't find something then it doesn't exist. Got it.

Kevin, you have now joined Stephen center stage.

If you can't find something, it may exist.

So what? Really, the point is that having not found something, the likelihood of its being later found diminishes. This isn't a rule. Mileage varies. In fact, one can't assess the odds precisely, but those odds can approach the vanishing point.

If WMD were found tomorrow in Iraq, then I would be wrong in supposing today that this discovery tomorrow isn't possible. Alas, I haven't stated it's impossible.

Meanwhile, in the land of ontological sillies...

We might discover a flying pig tomorrow.

We might discover that Brittany Spears can solve Poincare's conjecture.

We might discover that liberals have all been implanted with nano-sized thought control devices.

Heck, the clouds over Lake Erie could resolve an absolutely astonishingly realistic formation looking just like a naked George Bush.

Still, since those pesky WMD haven't been found by Blix, Kay, et al, where do you stand on the question at hand?

Have you discovered where they are? Please, speak up.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:Kevin, you have now joined Stephen center stage.

If you can't find something, it may exist.

So what? Really, the point is

that having not found something, the likelihood of its being later found diminishes

. In fact, one can't assess the odds precisely, but those odds can approach the vanishing point.

If WMD were found tomorrow in Iraq, then I would be wrong in supposing today that this discovery tomorrow isn't possible. Alas, I haven't stated it's impossible.

Meanwhile, in the land of ontological sillies...

We might discover a flying pig tomorrow.

We might discover that Brittany Spears can solve Poincare's conjecture.

We might discover that liberals have all been implanted with nano-sized thought control devices.

Heck, the clouds over Lake Erie could resolve an absolutely astonishingly realistic formation looking just like a naked George Bush.

Still, since those pesky WMD haven't been found by Blix, Kay, et al, where do you stand on the question at hand?

Have you discovered where they are? Please, speak up.

But, unlike a flying pig, WMD's existed in Iraq. The 1999 UNSCOM report validated the destruction of some of these WMD's. Have we ever destroyed a flying pig?

PS Gravity existed before we discovered it.. just sayin

Stephen, you still aren't brining any evidence to the table.

A report in 1999 can only commit positively to retrospective facts or prospects. Yes, it can also be prospectively suggestive. But, as I won't tire of stating, so what?

It's not that I don't get where you're coming from. It's that you've not made any evidentiary case in favor of your original assertion.

It's also besides the point that Saddam had active WMD programs throughout the 80s and reaching into an uncertain point in the 90s. If you asserted that Saddam at one time had WMD, I'd agree because the evidence is certain on that point.

But this isn't the claim under review here, is it?

What I think is amusing is that you've danced around the request for evidence with lots of incidental albeit irrelevant stuff. I certainly can understand that if you view this subject as you do you would urge upon our leadership action to end the threat.

I don't view it this way today and thought in the fall of 2002 that it was quite possible that WMD wouldn't be found by inspectors or imperium. As it turned out, so far, my guess was on the money.

But why not admit you don't have any indicative evidence so we can move onto something less settled?

Mr. Calhoun wrote:

"Kevin, you have now joined Stephen center stage.

If you can't find something, it may exist. "


You also said:
"As far as anybody--rational--knows, there were no WMD in Iraq when the war started. Obviously none have been found."

Mr. Calhoun,

You made both of the above statements. The top one is what I was saying. I made no mention of likelihood. It was simply a comment regarding logic.

As a reviewer of police reports submitted by subordinates I would not approve a report that was written with the second of the above comments that you wrote.

My reasoning was simple. The reporting officer would be on the stand and a lawyer would ask If the officer was positive. When he would have to admit in court that there was a possibility then his credibility would be damaged. I know nothing of your background so I don't know how often you would have been involved in a criminal proceeding but I can tell you that once your credibility is put into question in front of a jury, they tend to look more skeptically at the rest of your testimony.

This is why officer are taught to say things like "No fingerprints were found, no evidence was located, no witnesses were on the scene or came forward." This prevents the officer from looking foolish.

If you had said it is nearly impossible for there to be WMD's in Iraq at the start of the war, then I would not have commented at all. You simply can't have it both ways. You can't say they weren't there and that they might be there. Saying they might, includes the possiblity that they don't exist. Saying they don't excludes the possiblity that they might.

You also seem to assume that I agree with Mr. Eisel. I don't know the man at all and occassionally agree with him and occasionally disagree.

In this case my opinion is that it doesn't matter. To me it's like arguing over going in the first place. I believe people that insist on saying we were wrong to go are not being constructive. We need to deal with the fact that we are there and discuss ways to get out.

I believe the crying over spilled milk saying is appropriatte. We have got to stop complaining about how it got spilled and someone needs to grab a mop.

I don't view it this way today and thought in the fall of 2002 that it was quite possible that WMD wouldn't be found by inspectors or imperium. As it turned out, so far, my guess was on the money.

But why not admit you don't have any indicative evidence so we can move onto something less settled?

There is the probability that the unaccounted for WMD's ended up outside of Iraq pre-invasion. Yes, to date your guess has been on the money. But, I think that you have grossly under estimated the mindset Saddam and Al Qeada.

Kevin, why exactly is my credibility subject to the standard of a police officer on a witness stand?

When he would have to admit in court that there was a possibility then his credibility would be damaged.

The possibility that a fingerprint could exist but was not discovered is implicit, simply as a matter of the very logic you've brought to bear in your apples and oranges digression.

Sure, it makes sense not to explicitly contextualize the unexamined possibility but that doesn't change what's--by definition, or structurally--necessarily implicit. Yes, it makes sense that a police officer respond in the way you describe, but it seems to me that the protocols of that context are relieved from obvious logical burdens, to whit: the slim possibility exists where it must exist, whether the witness admits of it or not.

I might sit on a jury and hope the defense attorney ask the officer on the witness stand two questions:

1. Did your search for fingerprints eliminate all possibility that you might have missed a fingerprint?

2. If the answer is "yes" then: do you mean to say that the error rate for your search is zero?

I suppose an affirmative answer, question begging as it is, might evoke a third obvious question.

Am I right that the questioning rarely goes like this?


Sure I can have it both ways. That acknowledges the implicit error rate. What we did know is: none had been found by the inspectors, some thought they still might be there, others thought otherwise, and none have been found to date. We do know in the run-up to the war unequivocal assertions were made that were later found to be baseless. (I presume the witness's credibility is severely undermined should they claim 'I have fingerprints, but i can't show them to you.'

My guess is that the odds of finding them in the future approach zero but cannot obtain zero. The conclusion that there were no WMD in Iraq remains tentative. This is due to being 'scientific' about the structure and methods of physical search; and in doing so, being logical.

Thanks for the thought-provoking response, Kevin.


Stephen,

There is the probability that the unaccounted for WMD's ended up outside of Iraq pre-invasion.

No, it's a possibility only, unless you have credible evidence suggestive of its being probable. Do you?

I think that you have grossly under estimated the mindset Saddam and Al Qeada.

Would you please quote back to me where I have made any comment on the mindset of either subject? It's a fascinating subject in any case.

Probability:something (as an event or circumstance) that is probable

Stephen, it appears that your logic does not apply to this real world situation. Yes, no and maybe are all possible answers to the question that WMD's still exist in Iraq or were moved from Iraq.

we can sit here and pour our thoughts and feelings into a page long post to prove our thinking to be the most rational, when US troops are dying by the dozens every day. That should be reason enough to pull out. Iraqi forces and government officials are sitting back in their chairs and sipping margaritas as US troops lay their lives on the line. Until we make them do something, we will go nowhere. The ball is in their court.

I can't sit here and think that I have the answer to this mess, and I highly doubt anyone has the answer. We are fighting a faceless enemy, and we are in the middle of a civil war with a whistle and a rule book where there are no time outs and no holds barred.

there's a difference between a war and a civil war. a big difference.

The only time we can make an impact on this is when we vote for our president. I don't think people realized that when they voted Bush back into the oval office for a second strike.

If there were weapons, where are they now? We can't seem to control where our weapons go either, and the people that are supposed to be arming our soldiers were arming the enemy all this time.

Now we're left with uncertainty, and it doesn't matter if there's a republican or democrat in the oval office come next term. Whatever that President is, or whoever he (or she) is, they will not be able to get rid of the horrible stench on our shoes from the pile of crap that this regime has stepped into.

Great post Igor.

Ivor Karabatkovic wrote:we can sit here and pour our thoughts and feelings into a page long post to prove our thinking to be the most rational, when US troops are dying by the dozens every day. That should be reason enough to pull out. Iraqi forces and government officials are sitting back in their chairs and sipping margaritas as US troops lay their lives on the line. Until we make them do something, we will go nowhere. The ball is in their court.

I can't sit here and think that I have the answer to this mess, and I highly doubt anyone has the answer. We are fighting a faceless enemy, and we are in the middle of a civil war with a whistle and a rule book where there are no time outs and no holds barred.

there's a difference between a war and a civil war. a big difference.

The only time we can make an impact on this is when we vote for our president. I don't think people realized that when they voted Bush back into the oval office for a second strike.

If there were weapons, where are they now? We can't seem to control where our weapons go either, and the people that are supposed to be arming our soldiers were arming the enemy all this time.

Now we're left with uncertainty, and it doesn't matter if there's a republican or democrat in the oval office come next term. Whatever that President is, or whoever he (or she) is, they will not be able to get rid of the horrible stench on our shoes from the pile of crap that this regime has stepped into.

What about the choice of the soldier? If a soldier chooses / volunteers to serve their country with the knowledge that they could lose their life then should we not honor that decision? I have a friend who is currently serving in Iraq. He volunteered to serve in Iraq. Why should your opinion bring him home?

Why would you light votives for peace and promote the war?
Just sayin.

sharon kinsella wrote:Why would you light votives for peace and promote the war?
Just sayin.

Because peace would end the war ..