# SDMB - Fair and Balanced ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353 "2005-06-29T13:25:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/321 "2005-07-04T17:39:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Would Saddam have lost prestige when it became widely known that he had actually divested himself of WMDs, for the most part, then been executed in a palace coup along with his two nasty sons? Then Iraq develops into a real country with some kind of respect for human rights. > > Or would Saddam then managed to bribe his way into having the sanctions lifted, fired up his WMD programs, and got cracking on developing nukes and bio-war while the French and Russians convinced the UN to look the other way? > > Would Ghaddafi then assume he could get away with trying to get WMD? Would North Korea then be emboldened to try even more insane brinkmanship? Would Iran develop nukes to defend themselves from Iraq, use them to attack Israel, and WWIII then breaks out? > > I don’t know. The question to ask the 8 ball is not “what happens this year in the MENA”. The question to ask is, “what will it be like fifty years from now, when all of us are dead and our children have to deal with what we did - or failed to do”. > > I don’t know. You do the best you can with the information you have. Someone is always - always - going to second guess you, no matter what. I think Bush Sr. prevented, literally, WWIII. But he left Saddam in power. And so the Kurds died, and so did the Iraqis. And here we are. > > Ask again - in fifty years. > > Regards, > Shodan That’s an intellectually fair position. On the other hand, going to war, and PARTICULARLY the unprovoked invasion and conquering of a sovereign nation, is such a grave decision, for so many reasons and in so many ways, that I think it needs something a lot more substantive and crucial than “well, our best political and economic models indicate that, if we invade, things will be better in 50 years than if we don’t invade. Probably. On average. Oh yeah, and we also predicted that we would be welcomed with open arms and the war would be over in 6 months, so you can see that we’re really good at the prognosticating.”. Particularly given how utterly amorphous and undefined that kind of discussion is, it just gives any charismatic leader who can rally the country behind him an excuse to invade anyone, any time, with any justification. Also note that the question is not just: (1) invade Iraq (2) don’t invade Iraq …and see what the middle east looks like in 50 years it’s (1) invade Iraq (2) don’t invade Iraq, have hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on other things, have thousands of Americans still alive, have international goodwill and prestige, have energy to focus on catching OBL, have lots fewer Arabs hating us …and see what the world looks like in 50 years ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/322 "2005-07-04T19:09:21Z")
**Bricker** : > [@](#): > > - I’m trying to show that there’s a rational argument to be made that exclude Mr. Bush’s deliberate lying… that it’s more likely that the problems raised above are the result of incompetence in the administration rather than deliberate lying.\* I’m still waiting to hear from you regarding this rational argument. > [@](#): > > - That the views and interpretations you offer as unassailable fact are not shared by everyone, and your inability to see these different viewpoint as reasonable people disagreeing is very Pauline Kael-esque.\* Reasonable people can disagree about things, but the debate prior to the war was anything other than reasonable. And like it or not, those who supported the war were the most unreasonable of all, as the evidence afterwards has clearly demonstrated. You can find a small sampling of the kind of trash promoted by the war mongering right on the boards here [in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236525). The fact that a small majority of voters prefer one interpretation over another does not make that interpretation reasonable _a priori_. A given interpretation can be judged reasonable only on the basis of its own merits, regardless of how many people favor it. Furthermore, a view that appears reasonable in an “information poor” environment can appear idiotic in an “information rich” one. I think those who supported, and continue to support, the war are wrong. I argued forcefully against them prior to the invasion, and I argue against them now. My arguments are, at least as far as I can see, reasonable and reality-based. Are you suggesting that just because a larger group of less-informed people disagrees with me, I should recant? **Shodan** (in response to **Red Fury** ): > [@](#): > > - You say “despite all available evidence”. I would say “because of all available evidence”. Said “available evidence” meaning the twelve years of violations of the inspection regime, unquestioned fact that Iraq was hostile to the US and her allies, unquestioned fact that Iraq had a history of aggression against her neighbors, unquestioned fact that Iraq possessed WMDs in the past, unquestioned fact that Iraq had used WMDs in the past, and so forth. **Those** are the reasons why Iraq is part of the global war on terror.\* My, what a damning list of evidence. I’ll comment on them one at a time, but before I start I’d liked to draw the reader’s attention to the conspicuous absence of the letters “W,” “M,” and “D” in the passage above, and remind everyone, once again, how incredibly integral those letters were to the case for war prior to the invasion. Why, in these parts, “WMDs,” and Iraq’s alleged possession of them, were practically all we talked about! Moving forward, then: **1) Twelve years of violation of the inspection regime.** It’s true that Iraq violated the inspections regime, especially at the beginning. By the early to mid 1990s, however – especially after UN inspectors uncovered its covert nuclear weapons program – it appears Iraq came to the conclusion that it was useless to continue playing that game. So twelve years is an exaggeration: it was more like 5 or 6 years, after which we saw several years of, albeit grudging, compliance. Let’s not forget that under the inspections regime Iraq disposed of hundreds of tons of chemical munitions, biological agents, and so forth. And let us not forget as well that for at least a year prior to the invasion the Iraqi government complied with every single demand made upon it by UNSCOM, as far as I know. The inspectors were granted unfettered access, routinely made unannounced site inspections, etc., with full Iraqi cooperation. During this period of intensive inspections investigators failed to turn up a single shred of evidence linking Iraq to the production of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The only infraction – a missile system found in violation of the post Gulf I agreement – was scrapped. Now, we have to consider the threshold for action here. Are these violations, and false/exaggerated accusations of violations, sufficient cause for war? For the loss of 1800 American lives thus far, plus tens of thousands of American casualties, untold numbers of Iraqi dead and wounded, complete destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, and 300 billion + of US taxpayer dollars? **2) Unquestioned hostility to the US and her allies.** Naturally, the US was hostile in return. Many states are hostile to US interests. Is hostility a justification for invasion? **3) Unquestioned history of aggression against her neighbors.** Many other states also have such histories. But how does Iraq’s war against Iran two decades ago, or its invasion of Kuwait a decade ago, justify a current invasion, today? Hadn’t Iraq already been punished, harshly, for its bad behavior, by decade-long sanctions and an intrusive inspections regime? **4) Unquestioned previous possession of “WMDs.”** To be more specific, unquestioned previous possession of battlefield chemical munitions. Much like those possessed by many other states in the world, both friendly and unfriendly. Munitions, I would like to add, that were not, and never had been, a threat to the US itself. **5) Unquestioned previous use of “WMDs.”** Yes. A crime against humanity, especially the _Anfall_ program. But how is this previous usage related to the war on terror, such as to justify a “preventative” invasion? Of course, none of these events taken in isolation would be sufficient for an invasion; I’m aware our board’s right-wing militants argue that we must look at the “Big Picture;” we must consider that when added together, 1+2+3+4+5= 15! (And on the warmonger secret decoder ring, 15 is the code number for “invade!”) But do all these reasons, even added and taken together, justify the invasion? There is no straightforward answer to that question, really; it all depends on where you think the threshold for US military action should lie. Since war is such a risk-filled and terrible business, I argue that the threshold for military action should be _high_. **Shodan** , on the other hand, and others of his ilk, argue that the threshold should be _low_. (That’s why they were all such big supporters of Operation Desert Fox, and of the bombing of Kosovo. Oh wait – no, they weren’t. Oh well, as Wilde used to say, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.) And after all, if possession of chemical munitions can be included as a _causus belli_, well, the US is pretty much free to invade whoever it sees fit. But as a counter example to the above we can take the relationship between Iran and Israel. Israel meets many of the qualifications listed above: she is in violation of significantly more SC resolutions than Iraq ever was, she is unquestionably hostile to Iran, she has a history of aggression against her neighbors, and she currently possesses real “WMDs” in the form of nuclear weapons, not just battlefield chemicals. Given the above, would not Iran be justified in cobbling together a coalition of like-minded Islamic states and invading Israel in an act of preventative self-defense? Following **Shodan’s** logic, I’m sure many Iranian militants would answer that question affirmatively. Finally, I notice one thing on this list rather conspicuous in its absence: namely, a reference to actual terrorism as it is traditionally defined. Apparently, real links to terrorism or terrorist activities are not a requirement for inclusion in Bush’s TWAT. (Did I love just writing that last sentence, or what?) I’m aware that **Shodan** references Saddam’s “support” of terrorists a bit further on in the thread, but I just wanted to point this out in this context to demonstrate the wooly-headness of the pro-war contingent. Apparently, in **Shodan’** mind, “previous possession of WMDs,” aggression against neighbors,” “violations of the inspection regime,” and “not liking America” constitute acts of interstate terrorism. This is, to say the least, a unique definition of the word “terrorism.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/323 "2005-07-04T19:45:27Z")
You gotta love this stuff, you really do. Posted by **Sam Stone** in this thread: > [@](#): > > - Before the war started, I said that the U.S. had better be prepared to spend years or decades in Iraq.\* Posted by **Sam Stone** in a [previous thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3123994&postcount=1): > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Someone else tried one of these, but it was a little unfocused and partisan. > > I think it would be interesting for people on both sides of the debate to post their predictions here, so that we can go back in the coming months and years and evaluate why people believed what they did, and how their opinion today correlates with their belief in what’s going to happen when the war comes. > > Hopefully, enough people on both sides will answer these questions. Each question can have a ‘caveat’ where you can write your misgivings about your own position, or alternate hypotheses you think are plausible. > **Do you agree with the Bush Administration’s policy on Iraq?** > Yes. > > **How long will the war last?** > 2 weeks. > > Caveat: I believe there is a good chance that the regime will collapse at the start of hostilities, and the war will end in a day or two. On the other hand, if Saddam manages to consolidate his Republican Guard in Baghdad and dig in, it could take a month or more before it’s over. But I think that is unlikely. > > **How many American casualties will there be in an Iraq war?** > Less than 500. > > Caveat: If Saddam manages to hold together his government and draw his 70,000-strong Republican guard into Baghdad without a coup or surrender, urban warfare could cause that number to increase into the low thousands of American casualties. I think this is unlikely. Also, if Saddam uses Chemical weapons, there could be higher casualties. I believe the number would still be below 1000. > > **How many Iraqi combatants will be killed?** > Somewhere between 5,000 and 50,000, probably on the low side of that. > > Caveat: The regime could collapse very early in the fighting, in which case total casualties could be under 1000. > > **How many civilian casualties will there be in Iraq?** > 2000. Far fewer than would have died in the next year by Saddam’s hand if he were still in power. > > Caveat: If there is intense urban warfare, that number could go up by a factor of ten. Also, there’s a chance that many, many more will be killed by Saddam, either in scorched-earth destruction, or intentional atrocities in order to harm the world’s opinion of the war. > > **Will the Americans be seen as liberators or oppressers by the Iraqi people?** > > Liberators. Perhaps not at first, but as the reality sinks in that Saddam is gone and the Americans won’t let one of his cronies take his place, the people of Iraq will come to really thank the United States for freeing them. > > **What will Iraq look like a year after the war?** > I believe it will be free, and relatively peaceful. While I expect the occasional acts of violence and maybe terror, I believe there will be real progress towards a stable, prosperous country. > > **How long will the U.S. military occupation last?** > A full Japanese-style controlling occupation will last for a year or maybe two. Maybe much less, but not more. > > There will still be an American military presence there in ten years, much like there is still an American military presence in Japan, Germany, and South Korea today. > > **What will the effect be on the Middle East immediately after? After one year? Ten years?** > A rise in short-term instability as various terror organizations react. > > A year from now, the start of real change in the middle east will be happening. The dissident movement in Iran will gain strength. Hizbollah will either be under attack in Lebanon, or gone. Libya will renounce terrorism. The U.S. government will begin to pressure Saudi Arabia, sparking real change there. > > Ten years from now, the middle east will be very different. There will be a general agreement that terrorism is counter-productive to the goals of the Arab countries. The U.S. may have to take down another regime before it’s all over - Syria perhaps. But in the end, history will show that the fall of Iraq was the event that started the process of real change for the better in the middle east. > > Hopefully, some of you on both sides of the debate will fill in this little questionaire. If you think I missed some important questions, add them. > > I think this kind of recording of what our thoughts and fears are before an event of this magnitude could be historically useful. If the SDMB is still around in 20 years, it will be very interesting to go back and read this stuff.\* Yes, it has been useful. It helps us see who’s telling the truth and who’s lying through his teeth, for example. Take a good look in the mirror, **Sam** , and tell me that you aren’t engaging in a little historical revisionism vis-a-vis your pre-war claims. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/324 "2005-07-04T19:48:26Z")
> [@Big Svin](#): > > …as Wilde used to say, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds… Not Wilde. Emerson. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” > [@](#): > > …for inclusion in Bush’s TWAT. (Did I love just writing that last sentence, or what?)… Indubitably. The unfortunate coincidence of a inane policy and an adored orifice has not escaped our attention, we are simply too politely circumspect to remark upon it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/325 "2005-07-04T19:54:37Z")
As if I didn’t know from previous experience that this will do no good at all… > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **1) Twelve years of violation of the inspection regime.** > > It’s true that Iraq violated the inspections regime, especially at the beginning. By the early to mid 1990s, however – especially after UN inspectors uncovered its covert nuclear weapons program – it appears Iraq came to the conclusion that it was useless to continue playing that game. So twelve years is an exaggeration: it was more like 5 or 6 years, after which we saw several years of, albeit grudging, compliance. Your timetable is very interesting. And by “interesting”, I mean “ridiculous”. “By the early to mid 1990s” you allege that Iraq was in substantial compliance with the inspection regime. Correct? Allow me to answer my own question. No, that is [not correct.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2170275.stm) So when the inspectors left in 1998, citing Iraq’s refusal to abide by the terms of the inspection regime, they were lying? > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > And let us not forget as well that for at least a year prior to the invasion the Iraqi government complied with every single demand made upon it by UNSCOM, as far as I know. Really? > [@Han Blix](#): > > Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace. > … > “Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number.” > … > “The [Iraqi weapons report] document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.” > > "The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. > > There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. [Cite.](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.excerpts/) > [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **3) Unquestioned history of aggression against her neighbors.** > > Many other states also have such histories. But how does Iraq’s war against Iran two decades ago, or its invasion of Kuwait a decade ago, justify a current invasion, today? Because Iraq did not abide by the conditions of the ceasefire after their invasion of Kuwait. You know what? I had a much longer, line-by-line refutation of your breath-takingly dishonest attempt at revisionist history, but it is not really worth it. If you have really convinced yourself that more than five or six words of your post was true in even the loosest sense, then debate with you is a completely empty exercise. This kind of [blackwhite](http://www.orwelltoday.com/doublethink.shtml) can’t be argued with. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/326 "2005-07-04T20:04:32Z")
Oh, and, on the nature of the inspections and Sadaam’s non-compliance… we had CIA operatives mixed with real inspectors pretty much from the word go. Sadaam knew this, and for years was saying that we were using the inspections to spy on him. We, of course, dismissed this as mere rhetoric. But… I am unaware of any provision making it mandatory to accept espionage as long as the US is the one doing the spying. P.S. **luc** , I do believe it’s “…small minds.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/327 "2005-07-04T20:09:23Z")
Discreet selectivity in quotation, **Shodan**. Tsk. > [@](#): > > …Hans Blix reports to the Security Council that Iraq has cooperated by providing an “open doors” policy of unfettered access to requested sites. According to a later statement from Blix, "the most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."9 IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei likewise reports on 9 January that “Iraqi authorities have consistently provided access without conditions and without delay”… January 9, 2003 (from [http://www.fourthfreedom.org/Applications/cms.php?page\_id=4](http://www.fourthfreedom.org/Applications/cms.php?page_id=4)) > [@](#): > > …So when the inspectors left in 1998, citing Iraq’s refusal to abide by the terms of the inspection regime, they were lying?.. > [@](#): > > Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler has ordered all non-essential staff out of Iraq as a precautionary measure in case of U.S. military action… [http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/11/iraq.02/](http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/11/iraq.02/) November 11, 1998 Contrast and compare. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/328 "2005-07-04T20:15:22Z")
**Shodan** : > [@](#): > > - Your timetable is very interesting. And by “interesting”, I mean “ridiculous”. > > “By the early to mid 1990s” you allege that Iraq was in substantial compliance with the inspection regime. Correct? > > Allow me to answer my own question. No, that is not correct. > > So when the inspectors left in 1998, citing Iraq’s refusal to abide by the terms of the inspection regime, they were lying?\* As you know so well yourself, Hussein refused access to the inspectors because they were _spying_. That does not change the fact, as documented by both Kay and Duelfer, that Iraq had en essence given up its “WMD” programs in the mid 1990s. Let us note as well how you whistle past the graveyard; in the opening section of the report you cite, Blix states flatly: > [@](#): > > \*\* On Iraqi cooperation > > "Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. _It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access_. > > “A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course.” \*\* But okay, **Shodan** , put your money where you mouth is: list those demands made by UNMOVIC or the US, in the year prior to the invasion, that Iraq _did not_ comply with. > [@](#): > > - You know what? I had a much longer, line-by-line refutation of your breath-takingly dishonest attempt at revisionist history, but it is not really worth it. If you have really convinced yourself that more than five or six words of your post was true in even the loosest sense, then debate with you is a completely empty exercise. > > This kind of blackwhite can’t be argued with.\* Translation: I can’t beat you in a fair debate, so I’ll just call you names instead. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/329 "2005-07-04T20:23:07Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > …P.S. **luc** , I do believe it’s “…small minds.” [http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/foolishconsi.html](http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/foolishconsi.html) “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” From the essay “Self-Reliance” Cringe before you correct me, mortal! ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/330 "2005-07-04T20:25:09Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This kind of [blackwhite](http://www.orwelltoday.com/doublethink.shtml) can’t be argued with. I thought I’d seen it all but I never thought I’d see the day when a card-carrying member of Bush’s Apoligentzia would quote Orwell’s doublethink in order to score points for _his side_! > [@](#): > > …But since in reality BIG BROTHER is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. **Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known as doublethink.** (bolding mine) If that doesn’t describe the Usual Suspects to a T, I don’t know what does. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/331 "2005-07-04T20:27:14Z")
See, that’s the difference. Emerson might have written “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” but it was Wilde who wrote the far more eloquent “Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,” first. At least that’s what they tell me over here in Europe. By the way, did y’all ever here of the Svensson Brothers, Thor-Ulf and Leif, who were the first men to actually build an airplane? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/332 "2005-07-04T20:28:36Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > You can find a small sampling of the kind of trash promoted by the war mongering right on the boards here [in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236525). Would you rather we note: A) the fact that you offer no indication of what _you_ were saying would happen? or B) The fact that several of the anti-war war folks in that (and other) threads made equally incorrect predictions of hundreds of thousands dead, starvation, etc. etc. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/333 "2005-07-04T20:37:59Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > …By the way, did y’all ever here of the Svensson Brothers, Thor-Ulf and Leif, who were the first men to actually build an airplane? But, of course! Their contribution to aeronautics is often overlooked, but they did demonstrate beyond any question that reindeer antlers lack any aerodynamic applicaton. IIRC,the “takeoff” site of their expermental vehicle has been renamed “Mt. Domfuk” in thier eternal honor. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/334 "2005-07-04T20:38:13Z")
> [@furt](#): > > B) The fact that several of the anti-war war folks in that (and other) threads made equally incorrect predictions of hundreds of thousands dead, starvation, etc. etc. furt, I will assume you have seen statistics about the war. I last read them months ago. Anyone have an updated report? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/335 "2005-07-04T20:40:50Z")
If someone has some handy, then furt, can I ask you your take on them? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/336 "2005-07-04T20:43:41Z")
**luc** , you were right. I offer up my underbelly to your steely claws of bartleby’s quotations. That’ll teach me to trust a cite called [brainyquote.com](http://brainyquote.com). Motherfuckers. (And I so remembered the quote using the word ‘small’, too. Drat!) Although… [I can’t help but wonder if there wern’t alternate editions with different phrasing?](http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/1997-December/030054.html) As for Wilde, I thought his quote was “Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” Or some such… ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/337 "2005-07-04T20:50:45Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > See, that’s the difference. Emerson might have written “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” but it was Wilde who wrote the far more eloquent “Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,” first. Oh, and, not to totally hijack this thread, but the latter formulation would, IMHO, be inferior to the former. The idea isn’t that all consistency is bad, but that a foolish consistency is bad. Seems an essential difference to this 'murkan. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/338 "2005-07-04T21:14:41Z")
Not to futher any such hijack, but, boiled down, its just “foolish is dumb”. I had Emerson thrust upon me once, and it seemed even than that he delivered the blazingly obvious as if he expected gasps of surprise. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/339 "2005-07-04T21:15:00Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The fact that several of the anti-war war folks in that (and other) threads made equally incorrect predictions of hundreds of thousands dead, starvation, etc. etc. [Over 100,000 dead and still climbing](http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/). [Iraq on brink of starvation](http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,953524,00.html). What else ya got for us? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/340 "2005-07-04T21:21:03Z")
The full quote, from Wikipedia: > [@Ralph Waldo Emerson](#): > > “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” (“Self-Reliance”, 1841) Translation: You can lie through your teeth about what you just said, and if anyone calls you on it, it’s \*their \* fault for “misunderstanding” a “great soul” like yourself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=18)