All you're saying is that Saddam called the USA's bluff and was wrong and it was disastrous. That could EASILY have happened with an attempt by the US to demand inspections from Russia.

Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies' long-term goals.

I read "it" in "it served a useful role" as referring to "demanding inspections". And I took "which meant the threats were bluffs" to mean "in the hypothetical involving the USSR, the threats were bluffs". Because the prior clause had clearly established that you were talking about the USSR. Maybe instead of accusing me of bad faith, you could actually try to clear up the confusion. I'll be downvoting your posts until you do. It would be nice if you could write your sentence with correct and clear grammar, especially when dealing with complex compound sentences, and if you can't be bothered to do so, then don't complain about people having trouble parsing your sentences. When there's a failure in communication, attributing all of the blame to the other person is a very anti-rationalist position to take.

By removing one potential way for it to be a bluff, the probability of being a bluff necessarily falls

You didn't merely say that the probability is lower; you presented it as a logical certainty.

'He' is Saddam. Obviously. That was how the comment thread started and what I was objecting to and I even name Saddam in the same paragraph you claim to be confused by!

You said that Punoxysm asserted that Saddam did it for irrational reasons. I don't think that it is entirely clear as to what statement by Punoxysm you consider to be the making that assertion. If I had been unclear about who you were talking about, I would have said who, rather than what.

gwern, I was under the impression that this is a rationalist site, dedicated to the idea that people are fallible creatures, and should not act with the conviction that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. I have done more than my fair share to resolve this misunderstanding. I have politely asked for clarification. I have even gone to the trouble of asking a third party to read the posts, and this third party agrees that the sentence "Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies' long-term goals." is confusing. Now, the question is: are you willing to act like an adult, or are you going to just have a temper tantrum because someone doesn't understand you? Are you willing to go to the same effort that I have, and get your own third party (fourth party, I suppose) to read the sentence, and see whether they understand it? There are all sorts of ambiguities in your sentence, such as whether it is intended to be parsed as "(the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA) which meant the threats were bluffs" or "the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking (it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs)". Note that the latter is grammatically incorrect, in that the "which" should be a "that". And no, it's not being a Grammar Nazi to point out grammatical errors that affect readability. If you can't have a calm, rational, and civil conversation about this, then I can only conclude that it you are not a rationalist.