Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Iraq Did Have WMD 48

Journal by pudge

Some people think Iraq did not have WMD. They are wrong.

The moral of this story is twofold. First, "WMD" is inspecific. We know Iraq had some WMD agents and delivery systems. What is in question is whether they had *significant* programs for *NBC* weaponry (that is, nuclear, biological, chemical): and the answer to that question, by all indications, is No. But that doesn't mean there were no WMD: in fact, there were.

And second, following from the first, don't jump all over people who say Iraq did have WMD. Be specific, and first agree on specifically what you mean by "WMD." NBC weaponry and delivery systems? Significant quantities of material, or significant programs? Simply going by "WMD" is far too vague to draw conclusions from when people use it, without clear context.

Update: You people are all retarded. I make an absoultely accurate point about the fact that WMD does not have a specific meaning to many people, and that therefore a survey must define it for the survey to be valid, and you idiots all attack me for things I never said. Really, screw you. If you are going to intentionally or carelessly attack me over your pet straw men, go the hell somewhere else.

I realize the general rule is that when communication fails this badly, that it is rarely one side that is to blame for it. But I never even came close to saying the things you're accusing me of saying, and further, I continually denied I was saying those things. Yet you morons kept attacking me for them anyway. <cartman>Screw you, I'm going home.</cartman>

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iraq Did Have WMD More

Iraq Did Have WMD

Comments Filter:
  • If we're going to define WMD as the FBI director did post OK-city bombing, I'm sure there was fertilizer and diesel in Iraq pre-war.

    • Re:Well (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      Yes. Your point being ... ? Mine is clear, I think: we can't assume the people who responded Yes to the question of whether Iraq had WMD were incorrect or correct unless we know what definition of WMD they were using.

    • Re:Well (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      Now that I think about it, is your point that fertilizer and deisel would not justify the war? I am not talking about justifying the war. I am talking about our collectively poor communication in discussing the war and its justification.
  • When people talk about Iraq having WMD, they almost always mean that ones that were used as reason to invade, that is something that could threaten the US.

    Talking about any other kind seems kind of pointless, unless I'm missing something.
    • When people talk about Iraq having WMD, they almost always mean that ones that were used as reason to invade, that is something that could threaten the US.

      Unless that is made clear in the question being to the respondents, you cannot assume it. If I am asked whether Iraq had WMD, with no qualification or clarification as to the meaning, the only correct answer is Yes. And yet, people assume those who responded Yes to such a question are ignorant. Now, it is possible -- maybe even probable -- most of th
      • This answer is preposterous. You're basically saying that discourse using common terms is impossible.

        The definition of WMD, as applies to the rationale for war with Iraq, is not in dispute. The fact that you can find a few sources here and there which use the term differently doesn't prove anything.
        • This answer is preposterous. You're basically saying that discourse using common terms is impossible.

          He is. But it's not uniformly impossible, only impossible when it's inconvenient to have discourse. When it was thought that Saddam had WMD, most Americans happily stirred discourse that focused on that term. There was no haziness then, but there seems to be now.

          The definition of WMD, as applies to the rationale for war with Iraq, is not in dispute. The fact that you can find a few sources here and there
        • This answer is preposterous. You're basically saying that discourse using common terms is impossible.

          Your response is nonsense. I am saying no such thing at all. In fact, I am saying that this term is NOT commonly defined, and that in order to have discourse, we simply need to define the term up front. It's not that hard.

          The definition of WMD, as applies to the rationale for war with Iraq, is not in dispute.

          Legally, you could make that case. So what? Does Joe Schmoe who responded to the poll know

          • If I am asked whether Iraq had WMD, with no qualification or clarification as to the meaning, the only correct answer is Yes.

            I am saying that this term is NOT commonly defined,

            This is the part I don't understand. If the question was, "Did the Iraqi government have any bazqwiks?" would you contend that "the only correct answer is Yes." If so, is that in spite of or because the term 'bazqwik' is not well defined?

            Or are you claiming that if a pollster asked you, "Did the Iraqi government have any W

            • Or are you claiming that if a pollster asked you, "Did the Iraqi government have any WMDs?", the only correct answer is the one that includes diesel fuel and fertilizer?

              I cannot assume what the pollster means, so I logically have to provide the answer using the most reasonably broad definition. That's how Yes/No questions work. If someone asks me if I am hungry, and demands Yes/No as an answer, and won't clarify the question, then the correct answer is Yes if there is any twinge of hunger in me. it cou

              • I cannot assume what the pollster means, so I logically have to provide the answer using the most reasonably broad definition.

                Most of what is written or spoken in the English language is ambiguous. That's why lawyers make so much money. The rest of us just rely on context and reasoning to deduce the intent. So if we are asked if there are WMD's in Iraq, we disregard fertilizer and diesel, because a.) the person asking probably already knows that there is fertilizer and diesel in Iraq and b.) the pres

                • So if we are asked if there are WMD's in Iraq, we disregard fertilizer and diesel, because a.) the person asking probably already knows that there is fertilizer and diesel in Iraq and b.) the presence of fertilizer and diesel and Iraq is not of interest to them.

                  You're missing a great many important points, including the fact that Iraq had many conventional military grade explosives that count as WMD when put into the SA-2 rocket, according to US Law etc.

                  When asked if they are hungry, most people would t
          • Does Joe Schmoe who responded to the poll know what the petitioner meant? To assume he did is nonsense.

            Fine... so your argument now is that some Republicans want to invade countries that have stocks of fertilizer?

            I think I have a higher opinion of the average Republican than you do. In the same poll they indicated that having WMD was a good rationale for a pre-emptive war. I think it's clear this indicates they were talking about NBC... same as the UN resolutions, and the president, and the vice presiden
            • Fine... so your argument now is that some Republicans want to invade countries that have stocks of fertilizer?

              I said no such thing.

              I think I have a higher opinion of the average Republican than you do.

              I said nothing remotely related to the average Republican.

              The burden of proof is on you, not PIPA, to show that there are some people in the USA who disagree with this overwhelmingly unanimous use of WMD

              I already proved beyond reasonable doubt it is NOT unanimous, thus proving what you ask.

              Your con
      • S-T-R-E-T-C-H...

        We've all seen spin, Pudge, but I am surprised that you, as someone so seemingly against it, is actively engaging in spin of this caliber.

        All I can say is, wow.
  • Iraq did have WMD... Simply going by "WMD" is far too vague to draw conclusions from when people use it

    According to the latter part of your argument, Iraq neither had WMD nor didn't have it, because defining WMD is too difficult. But you begin your comment by saying that Iraq did have WMD. So... Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction because they are too difficult to define, therefore because they didn't not have it, they did. If WMD is a word which, as you suggest, means nothing, then Iraq can nei
    • But you begin your comment by saying that Iraq did have WMD.

      Yes, because when answering a yes-or-no question when the terms are not well defined, it's appropriate to use the broader definition.

      and certainly a word that means nothing cannot be used as a foundational justification for war

      Again, I am not saying anything about justifications for war. This is completely beside the point.

      No ambiguity exists.

      Uh ... you take a WordNet definition over US law and the words of the former FBI director? Um .
      • If you are not discussing the rationale for war, what is the relevance of your point?

        The important questions of fact are related to the UN resolutions which are clearly talking about NBC weaponry. Everything from Bush's rationales to the Duelfer report refer to WMD as defined in these resolutions.

        At this stage, broadening the definition of WMD does not serve the purpose of enlightening people.
        • At this stage, broadening the definition of WMD does not serve the purpose of enlightening people.

          Agreed. Indeed, only confusing people and trying to escape accountability. Not very honest or Presidential, if you ask me.

          This is endemic of conservatives, in that they do want to ride the high horse and take the low road - pudge says that WMD is too difficult to define, so the argument about them can't be had, but at the same time wants to say that "Iraq Did Have WMD." Equally: WMD meant something very spec
          • This is endemic of conservatives

            No. It's endemic to this crazy Crossfire media culture, which on occasion seeps into this discussion. I think, or hope, this happens unintentionally, as a result of one-upmanship.

            Take a look at Errol Morris' ads [errolmorris.com] of conservatives for Kerry. Can you argue these are not upstanding citizens? Morris said he almost felt like becoming a Republican after he did these spots.

            On the other hand, I'd like to see someone go up to Lee Buttrill [errolmorris.com] and tell him he's wrong.

            Anyway, I guess Pu
          • Agreed. Indeed, only confusing people

            People are already confused, that's the problem. "WMD" is not well-defined, and yet we throw around the term like it is.

            and trying to escape accountability

            It's amazing to me how almost everyone thinks what I wrote has something to do with justification or accountability regarding the war, despite me explicitly saying this is not the case.

            Is there some school you all go to, to learn how to jerk your knees in unison?

            Equally: WMD meant something very specific when
        • At this stage, broadening the definition of WMD does not serve the purpose of enlightening people.

          Exactly, at this point broadening the definition serves as a last ditch (desperate?) effort to muddy a discourse (increasingly bad for Bush) that could decide a (close) Presidential race.

        • If you are not discussing the rationale for war, what is the relevance of your point?

          If you read my post, where I clearly explained this, why are you asking?

          At this stage, broadening the definition of WMD does not serve the purpose of enlightening people.

          Nothing is being broadened. I am being descriptive, not prescriptive; I am saying what the existing definitions ARE (and have been since long before 9/11), not trying to say what the definition should be.
  • Interesting way of looking at it. I agree that we see so many uses of the acronym WMD because it connotes that the holder or maker of such can (and will) use them against us to cause "mass destruction".

    Rather than question whether Iraq had WMD or plans to generate WMD, I think the better argument would be based on this question:

    Would Iraq have passed if the U.N. Inspectors had been allowed to do their job? The reason we pushed into this war, as I recall, was because the inspectors were being kept from d
  • I think you will have to explain a little further the value of redefining WMD. According to this article [wikipedia.org]:

    The modern use of WMD to refer to NBC weapons was coined by UN Resolution 687 [wikipedia.org] in 1991. This resolution refers to the "threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security", and mentions in particular nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and the three relevant treaties:

    It also says that the FBI has chosen to use a non-standard definition. Right. And Vermont tried to get L

    • I think you will have to explain a little further the value of redefining WMD. ... The modern use of WMD to refer to NBC weapons was coined by UN Resolution 687 in 1991.

      It did not define the term specifically. And that article makes clear the very problem I am referring to: their continue to be many definitions, that go back decades, and to assume that a given person or group thinks you mean one thing when you say WMD, and not something else, is unreasonable, unless you define your terms first.

      It also
  • Yes, we know that you love Bush. But to try to defend Bush's war by pointing out that Bush's own phrase used as the primary rationale for war is vague is going a bit far. The fact is that Republicans are ignorant of reality [slashdot.org], and you need to accept this and move on.

    The little flaw in your argument is that our administration did define "WMD," and did so frequently and consistently:

    "The point that I would emphasize to you is that the threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, chemical, b

    • But to try to defend Bush's war by pointing out that Bush's own phrase used as the primary rationale for war is vague is going a bit far.

      I never did any such thing, or anything remotely similar to that. Please read the journal entry again, along with my followup comments.
      • I think you are just being purposefully obtuse... and I did read them...
      • I am trying hard to see what the point of this entry was. What would be the point of claiming that Iraq did have WMD by some broad definition anyhow? It seems that the primary reason to do so would be to justify the war, using a much more liberal justification that the administration used.

        If your point is simply about communication, fine, but I would think that the burden should be on the person claiming that there were WMD to define what they mean by that. Simply claiming that there were WMD without a

        • If your point is simply about communication, fine, but I would think that the burden should be on the person claiming that there were WMD to define what they mean by that.

          Not in a survey, no! The burden is necessarily on the people asking the question.

          And why do you say "if"? I made it clear, multiple times, that this is the point.
          • Sorry, I hadn't clicked the three or four links up the chain to get to the original article to know that we were discussing responses to a survey. I agree that the survey questions are probably very flawed. The article is certainly misleading, switching from discussing "significant WMD" to a discussion of the survey results about WMD in general, when it isn't clear how the survey was worded
    • When I read that "Separate Realities" report, I thought of all the other GOP fans I keep encountering on the net.

      Some time ago I came across another Bush fan, a friend of a friend. He's a super nice guy and loves his country... but he gets his information from cranks. He believes the Duelfer report shows that the WMD were moved to Syria.

      We've had polite discussions before. So I read the whole damn Duelfer report and posted relevant quotes to show that he has been misinformed. He just deleted them from his
      • Some time ago I came across another Bush fan, a friend of a friend. He's a super nice guy and loves his country... but he gets his information from cranks. He believes the Duelfer report shows that the WMD were moved to Syria.

        And I am not denying there are many people like that. I am only saying that unless the survey questions defined "WMD" for the respondents, we can't reliably trust its results.

        Although this last-minute moving of the WMD goalposts was not exactly impressive

        Who did such a thing? N
        • No, "ignoring information" is exactly what you're doing. The "separate realities" report showed that Republicans are largely ignorant of the basic facts about Iraq: WMDs and Al Qaeda support. Not one responder in a thousand knew of this little Louis Freeh cop-out that you are so proud of, but apparently it allows you to ignore how ignorant people are.

          People who claim Iraq had WMD are wrong. That phrase has a common and well-understood meaning, thanks to our administration's defining it very precisely, rep

          • No, "ignoring information" is exactly what you're doing. The "separate realities" report showed that Republicans are largely ignorant of the basic facts about Iraq: WMDs and Al Qaeda support.

            If WMDs was not defined by the people doing the survey -- and I found no evidence they were -- then it is not at all incorrect to say Iraq had WMDs. This is a fact. And the same thing goes with "support" for al Qaeda, since we know affiliates of al Qaeda were operating out of Iraq.

            Not one responder in a thousand
            • The survey's terms were consistently defined by this administration over the past several years.

              Your clever word games deflect discussion of a war that has cost over 1000 Americans their lives.

  • The definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", in every context I've EVER seen it in before that idiot from the FBI tried to redefine it (and hell, I didn't remember that and had to look it up) has been the same:

    "Nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons with delivery systems."

    Because that's the only sane defintion. All three of those things have components highly useful for civilian applications (power, vaccinations, pesticides), and without finished warheads and delivery systems (or concrete plans for
    • The definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", in every context I've EVER seen it

      Claiming you disagree because you are ignorant is not a very good tactic. As some of the comments showed, the definition of "WMD" has changed much over many decades.

      The definition you give, itself, is a redefinition. Try to know what you are talking about, please.
      • Admittedly the earliest references I'm working from are the 1968 editions of the U.S. Navy Enlisted Man's Training Manual (aka "The Bluejacket's Manual"), but I'd be interested in seeing some references from similar or older sources giving a definition of "WMD" substantially different from "NBC weapons, deliverable".

        As for your unwarranted accusation of ignorance, I think you miss my main point, which is that the term has descended into uselessness due to the sheer multiplicity of competing definitions. W
        • Admittedly the earliest references I'm working from are the 1968 editions of the U.S. Navy Enlisted Man's Training Manual (aka "The Bluejacket's Manual"), but I'd be interested in seeing some references from similar or older sources giving a definition of "WMD" substantially different from "NBC weapons, deliverable".

          As the Wikipedia article mentions, "The phrase weapons of mass destruction is the source of various semantic disputes. The phrase originated in 1937 to describe the use of strategic bombers by [wikipedia.org]
          • FILO Stack-order response. =P

            I'm going to disagree, and say that if you're going to discuss it meaningfully, you need to arrive at definitions FIRST and then talk about it, otherwise the debate's going to just travel in circles.
            That you think this is disagreeing with me is remarkable.

            I'm disagreeing here with your response earlier in the thread, quoted here exactly as written:

            Unless that is made clear in the question being to the respondents, you cannot assume it. If I am asked whether Iraq had WMD,
            • it's either a in-person/phone survey (in which case you can ask for clarification)

              You can ask, but the questioner should not answer. If the questioner does clarify, that further invalidates the results. Proper social science methodology calls for asking everyone the same questions, in the same order, in the same way. No additional clarification is allowed, because then the different respondents are not necessarily responding to the same thing.

              Communication sucks. We need The Great Link or something.
              • *nods* I also confess to having no idea how a proper social science survey should be run, being an engineer/manager by trade and education. =)

                It's amazing how many problems in the world are caused by simple communications deficiencies, at that.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Close