John Yamamoto-Wilson wrote:
> OK, Kevin. We seem to have reached an impasse on just about every
> front (the only thing we can perhaps agree on is to differ), but I'll
> just round off the following:
>
> You:
>
>>>> Is your theory that Bush and Blair lied
>>>> about WMDs to justify an invasion that they knew would show that no
>>>> such WMDs existed?
>
> Me:
>
>>> Not at all. Anyone with a reasonable IQ rating would see that that
>>> does not necessarily follow,
>
> You:
>
>> Sure it does. Curious that you think otherwise.
>
> Me:
>
>>> but the KQ rating evidently does not
>>> allow of the same range of possible interpretations.
>
> You:
>
>> Let's hear some of yours.
>
> OK.First of all, though, let me stress it is not a *theory*. Nor is it
> necessarily what I believe happened. It is just a possible
> interpretation of the facts,

Explain the difference.

> one of three, as I said (the other two
> being, 1. that they were mistaken, and the intelligence machinery is
> at fault and, 2. that they were right, and the forces of evil, by so
> far successfully concealing the evidence that would *prove* them
> right, are a lot more powerful and resourceful than we hitherto
> thought). This, as I see it, is one way in which the lying scenario
> could come about:

Then why did you talk about people being lied to?

> Bush, Blair and Saddam Hussein are gamblers, moral relativists,

Bush and Blair are moral relativists? That's rich. ISTM that one reason they
make the ridiculous masses so nervous is that they speak in black and white
terms when it comes to good and evil. Every time Blair mentions God, people
in his government start fitting like sissies.

> people who believe that any means - bluff, double bluff, card up the
> sleeve, whatever - are legitimate as long as they lead to the desired
> end.

Your evidence that Bush and Blair believe anything of the kind?

> Bush and Blair are - let's say - 99% certain that Saddam holds
> the cards they accuse him of holding (i.e., that he has weapons of
> mass destruction). However, they can't lay their hands on absolute,
> incontrovertible *proof* that it is so. So they take a risk. They
> gamble on being right, and present information which they know does
> not prove their case, but nevertheless present it *as if* it were
> incontrovertible.

I can't respond to this until you support your premises.

> Saddam is equally a gambler. Being starved of resources after a
> disastrous war and years of sanctions he is in no position to
> constitute any credible threat to world security, and he knows it.

Does he? Do you?

> However, he does do his best both to develop a programme and to
> convince the outside world that it is a large-scale programme.

Why would he convince the world that he has such a program? So he can get
blown up real good?

> In
> this second strategy, in particular, he is highly successful - more,
> perhaps, than he bargained for. As you say, he convinces, not only
> the US and the UK, but the entire UNSC. He is 99% sure that the US
> will not want to weaken the UN

BWAHAHA! He wasn't that stupid.

> and that under pressure from France,

BWAHAHA!

> Germany

BWAHAHA!

> and Russia,

BWAHAHA!

> the US will back down and he can negotiate on his
> own terms, with the world treating him with kid gloves because it is
> still convinced that he has a powerful strike capability and poses a
> serious threat.

Oh man. How are things out there in left field?

> He continues to bluff, playing each card one at a
> time, now denying there are any WMDs, now producing evidence that a
> certain number have been destroyed, now actually destroying a few
> missiles that only slightly exceed the range-limit. He's down to his
> last card when he's called out. It's all been a bluff - he has
> nothing left except a few die-hards in the military and a core of
> political henchmen. He puts up a show of resistance and then gets the
> hell out.

Why would he do such a thing?

> Bush and Blair, if they did lie, did not necessarily do so, as you
> put it,
>
>>>> to justify an invasion that they knew would show that no
>>>> such WMDs existed
>
> It's not impossible; they may have known that and calculated that it
> didn't matter, that they'd still be able to live it down afterwards.
> But KQ brainpower misses the more likely possibility, which is that
> they were so sure that the fabricated (or, to be more precise,
> overstated)

"to be more precise"? There is a HUGE difference between "fabricated"
and"overstated".

> evidence would prove what they strongly suspected that
> they got it wrong, misread Saddam, and fell into the trap of thinking
> he actually possessed things he was only bluffing about. The bluff
> backfired on him, but it backfired on Bush and Blair too.

My statement remains. You have to believe Bush and Blair to be phenomenally
stupid for this to happen. You also failed to refute my original statement.
You responded to one that I did not make.

> As I say, just a possibility...

Perhaps in Fantasyland. Then did everyone else lie, too?

>> Why do people put (shrug) after statements? To give it a nice
>> wishy-washy feeling? If you are not sure of your statement, you have
>> little reason to think that I will find it convincing.
>
> No, it isn't to give a nice wishy-washy feeling, nor is it because
> I'm not sure of my statement. It's a
>
"suit-yourself-I-can't-see-why-you're-bothering-to-make-a-fuss-about-such-a-
> little-detail" shrug. Don't they have those in Sepponia?

Shrugs? Yes. That's how I knew what yours meant.
(what was the little detail? what was the fuss?)

-- 
Kevin Gowen