# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/341 "2005-07-04T21:27:20Z")
> [@](#): > > furt, I will assume you have seen statistics about the war. I last read them months ago. Anyone have an updated report? Despite the _Lancet_ article from last year in which a death toll of as much as 100,000 was advanced based on one particular (and disputed) statistical sampling method, no agency who is counting actual reported deaths has yet reached 50,000. * * * Side note: Both **Scott Plaid** and **Shodan** have reached an agreement in a separate thread for a separate purpose that neither will post assertions in **Great Debates** until around 3:30 p.m. EDT (8:30 PM. UTZ?) on Monday, July 11. (They are permitted to post questions, but they are forbidden from responding to questions posed to them.) Therefore, their absence from this thread (and this Forum) for the next week should not be laid to either an inability or a lack of desirre to respond. ---
**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, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/342 "2005-07-04T22:29:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Despite the _Lancet_ article from last year in which a death toll of as much as 100,000 was advanced based on one particular (and disputed) statistical sampling method, no agency who is counting actual reported deaths has yet reached 50,000. How many are too many? For instance, do you agree with the following statement from the [Iraq Bodycount](http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/) website? > [@](#): > > We also recognise the bravery of the investigators who carried out the Lancet survey on the ground, and **support the call for larger and more authoritative investigations with the full support of the coalition and other official bodies.** > > Finally, we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures, be they of deaths under Saddam’s regime, or in other much larger-scale wars. **Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam’s government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the “more lives ultimately saved” argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein’s reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII.** Spot on from where I sit. ---
**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, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/343 "2005-07-04T22:53:23Z")
> [@](#): > > - Both **Scott Plaid** and **Shodan** have reached an agreement in a separate thread for a separate purpose that neither will post assertions in **Great Debates** until around 3:30 p.m. EDT (8:30 PM. UTZ?) on Monday, July 11. (They are permitted to post questions, but they are forbidden from responding to questions posed to them.)\* How terribly convenient for him. Just when he was about to reveal my “breathtaking dishonesty.” Almost a little _too convenient_, don’t ya think? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/344 "2005-07-05T00:31:57Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > You gotta love this stuff, you really do. > > Posted by **Sam Stone** in this thread: > > Posted by **Sam Stone** in a [previous thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3123994&postcount=1): > > 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. Really? This is what I said: > [@](#): > > Before the war I said that I thought that the war itself would result in maybe 500 U.S. casualties, but a ‘Fortress Baghdad’ scenario could result in thousands of American soldiers killed, and if Saddam used WMD, the toll could be even higher. From your own quote of me: > [@](#): > > 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.** See? It’s all about what you choose to put in bold face and large type. I noticed you were very selective about what you chose to highlight. How about posting my message again, this time only highlighting the bad stuff? It might look a little different, Mr. honesty-in-quoting. I don’t know why I said that if chemical weapons were used the number would still be below 1000, since I just finished saying urban combat could put the casualties into the ‘low thousands’. BTW, the whole point of this was that I supported the war even though I thought the casualty count could be even higher than it is today, and that quote shows that to be true - especially if you go read other threads where I say that I thought the chance of a ‘fortress Baghdad’ scenario was actually quite high and could become very ugly. In fact, just for yucks let’s quote my message again in Mr. Svinlesha dishonst style, only this time highlighting the bad stuff: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by 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.\* Gee, it’s amazing what a little selective bolding will do. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/345 "2005-07-05T00:47:20Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 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. Feh, I made the prediction that this was going to end like North Ireland vs IRA in the worst of times of that conflict. The administration however helped to expect worse things to happen when they said that their template for Iraq was EL Salvador. Now we have this prediction if we follow that path: In El Salvador, out of 5,000,000 people the civil war left 75,000 people dead, 8,000 missing, and nearly one million in exile. (take into account that the truth commission found that almost 90 percent of the dead was the responsibility of army and paramilitary dead squads.) So what do we have if “The El Salvador plan” is used in Iaq? Iraq: out of 22,000,000 people, in the end we will have 330,000 dead, 35200 missing and 4.4 million in exile. The pieces are now being put in place: A cleptocracy (hello Mr. Chalabi!), American companies in control and dead squads coming up: > **[UK aid funds Iraqi torture units](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jul/03/iraq.iraq)** > > British and American aid intended for Iraq's hard-pressed police service is being diverted to paramilitary commando units accused of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and extra-judicial killings. > [@](#): > > British and American aid intended for Iraq’s hard-pressed police service is being diverted to paramilitary commando units accused of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and extra-judicial killings, The Observer can reveal. > Iraqi Police Service officers said that ammunition, weapons and vehicles earmarked for the IPS are being taken by shock troops at the forefront of Iraq’s new dirty counter-insurgency war. > > The allegations follow a wide-ranging investigation by this paper into serious human rights abuses being conducted by anti-insurgency forces in Iraq. The Observer has seen photographic evidence of post-mortem and hospital examinations of alleged terror suspects from Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle which demonstrate serious abuse of suspects including burnings, strangulation, the breaking of limbs and - in one case - the apparent use of an electric drill to perform a knee-capping. Hey, when that is going to be your acceptable level of success, then sure, we have a chance to succeed! BTW I am not naive to ignore that currently the Al-qeda faction of the insurrection has to be taken apart, but I don’t think this is the only element of the revel forces, eventually ethnic and politics will be the biggest part of the repression to come. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/346 "2005-07-05T01:27:01Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 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… But this never happened, so your ass is still hanging out, vis a vis your prediction of only 500 American dead. Try a larger font; maybe that will disguise your woeful record of post-war predictions. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/347 "2005-07-05T01:35:04Z")
To be ruthlessly fair, the font is most likely an editorial contribution of **Big Svin**. **Sam** is Canadian, they are geneticly incapable of exaggeration. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/348 "2005-07-05T01:41:52Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > How terribly convenient for him. Just when he was about to reveal my “breathtaking dishonesty.” > > Almost a little _too convenient_, don’t ya think? wtf!!! like to “agreement” plz. gotta see this… ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/349 "2005-07-05T01:43:22Z")
what is this, the fucking league of nations. We have treaties??? more like a game of risk amongst adolescents. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/350 "2005-07-05T01:50:13Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > But this never happened, so your ass is still hanging out, vis a vis your prediction of only 500 American dead. Try a larger font; maybe that will disguise your woeful record of post-war predictions. No, it never happened. I never claimed to be clairvoyant. The point is that I supported the war _even though I thought that might happen_. And because I thought Iraq had WMD, I thought there was a good chance they might be used. And by the way, I strongly lobbied my own government to join the war. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/351 "2005-07-05T01:56:22Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > No, it never happened. I never claimed to be clairvoyant. The point is that I supported the war _even though I thought that might happen_. And because I thought Iraq had WMD, I thought there was a good chance they might be used. > > And by the way, I strongly lobbied my own government to join the war. how fortunate for your country that you were unsuccessful. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/352 "2005-07-05T01:57:46Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > No, it never happened. I never claimed to be clairvoyant. The point is that I supported the war _even though I thought that might happen_. And because I thought Iraq had WMD, I thought there was a good chance they might be used. So, in your estimation, is there any price to great to pay for democracy in Iraq? > [@](#): > > And by the way, I strongly lobbied my own government to join the war. I am gratified to see they found your arguments no more persuasive that I do. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/353 "2005-07-05T02:58:31Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > 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? Recant? Not remotely. Your arguments are reasonable and reality-based. Your view regarding WMDs has seemingly proven to be the correct one. I just ask that you view the other side as reasonable as well, although (regrettably, from your POV) wrong. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/354 "2005-07-05T03:21:26Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > If someone has some handy, then furt, can I ask you your take on them? Sure. They have been worse than some advocates hoped for, and not as bad as some opponents feared. Pre-war, some were suggesting that US troops would be gassed, that Saddam would level Tel Aviv, that women and children would rise up in that streets of Baghdad, there would be a refugee crisis, civil war, starvation, etc. As things went along, the disaster was postponed to when Baghdad became Stalingrad, when Tikrit, then Nasariyah, then Fallujah was going to be an intractable nightmare, when the elections were going to be made impossible by widespread violence … Not that those were unreasonable possibilities to consider; certainly I did at the time. But my point is, neither side has been wholly correct in it’s predictions. Cherry-picking a few erroneous predictions that were made by one side (and by individuals that had the integrity to make themselves vulnerable to second guessing) as if that unassailably proved one’s own rightness is rather weak debating form. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/355 "2005-07-05T06:59:11Z")
If you try hard enough, you can, in fact, be \*too \* even-handed. ---
**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 5, 2005, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/356 "2005-07-05T13:49:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > \Therefore, their absence from this thread (and this Forum) for the next week should not be laid to either an inability or a lack of desirre to respond. Thank you, tom. Furt, could I please ask you to link to examples of these claims? ---
**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 5, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/357 "2005-07-05T15:01:13Z")
> [@furt](#): > > civil war Well, [there’s still time.](http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines) ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/358 "2005-07-05T16:26:23Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > Furt, could I please ask you to link to examples of these claims? What, some of the pre-war claims? See the thread Mr. Svinlesha linked to. Some quick googling finds: [http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2002/11/000112.html](http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2002/11/000112.html) [http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/004645.php](http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/004645.php) And a quick search here finds > **[Fallujah: What's going to happen?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=285654)** > > This link should take you to Google news links on Fallujah: http://news.google.com/news?q=fallujah&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr Now that we have 10,000 US troops and 2,000 Iraqi troops attacking Fallujah, what will be the fate... > **[What's the best -- and worst -- that could happen with Iraq?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=165379)** > > To my mind, war with Iraq looks inevitable, however many resolutions are tabled at the UN. I’m interested in your opinions: what are the best and worst possible (realistic) outcomes of any war in Iraq? Do you see a trouble-free handover of power in... Sorry no more, but I’m leaving town in a few hours. I’ll try to check back when I return. But please note my point here. The fact that some of the pessimistic fears did not play out does NOT mean those fears were unwarranted; and indeed, they still could happen. Playing the game of “You predicted A, it didn’t happen, therefore you’re wrong about everything” is childish – and that goes both ways. ---
**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 5, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/359 "2005-07-05T16:37:10Z")
**Sam** : > [@](#): > > - See? It’s all about what you choose to put in bold face and large type. I noticed you were very selective about what you chose to highlight. How about posting my message again, this time only highlighting the bad stuff? It might look a little different, Mr. honesty-in-quoting.\* ”Mr. honesty-quoting-in?” Ooooh, **Sam** – I love it when you talk dirty to me. Seriously, though, this has to be one of the lamest replies you’ve ever posted to me, **Sam**. You entered this thread to ridiculously assert that, prior to the war, you sternly warned others that _“… the U.S. had better be prepared to spend years or decades in Iraq,”_ and to express your contempt for those who now, after a few thousand casualties, have begun to question the wisdom of the invasion. You would have the reader believe that _you_, at least, were fully aware of the risks involved in the war, that you were fully prepared allow others to bear those risks (and how very generous of you, by the way), and that you even warned everyone else of these dangers prior to the invasion. Yet you did not. Sure, you thought there was a distant possibility that the US might loose up to a thousand troops, but your honest estimate was really about 500. In your post you claim, _”Before the war I said that I thought that the war itself would result in maybe 500 U.S. casualties, but a ‘Fortress Baghdad’ scenario could result in thousands of American soldiers killed, and if Saddam used WMD, the toll could be even higher.”_ In fact, you thought no such thing: you estimated that at most the US would lose 1000 troops, “probably less,” and that only if Iraq employed chemical weapons against US forces. Anyone with two eyes in his can read this quite plainly in your pre-war post. You thought the actual fighting would be over in about 2 weeks, and a “Japanese-style occupation” would last a year or two – _”Maybe much less, but not more.”_ We search in vain for your stern, pre-invasion warning that the US should be prepared to spend years, maybe decades, in Iraq. No: you bought the administration’s rosy-eyed version hook, line, and sinker. You don’t get to go back now and pretend like you warned us then this might happen all along. As for what I chose to format in bold in your post, as if that somehow “twists” the plain meaning of what you wrote: I simply put in bold those passages which I felt were relevant to the point I was making – which, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to do with your clairvoyance, and everything to do with your demonstrated lack of anything resembling integrity. The contrast between your opening statement above: > [@](#): > > - Before the war started, I said that the U.S. had better be prepared to spend years or decades in Iraq.\* …and what you _really_ said cannot, in my opinion, be more telling. The accusation that by bolding certain sections of your text I misconstrued your plain meaning is too ludicrous to require further comment. > [@](#): > > - I don’t know why I said that if chemical weapons were used the number would still be below 1000, since I just finished saying urban combat could put the casualties into the ‘low thousands’.\* Allow me to help you figure this paradox out. You said that because, as usual, you don’t what the fuck you’re talking about, and prefer bullshit to matters of weighted fact. > [@](#): > > - BTW, the whole point of this was that I supported the war even though I thought the casualty count could be even higher than it is today, and that quote shows that to be true - especially if you go read other threads where I say that I thought the chance of a ‘fortress Baghdad’ scenario was actually quite high and could become very ugly.\* This is a very nice attempt at a reversal, **Mr. Stone** , but what does “very ugly” mean, exactly? In other words, put up or shut up: either provide quotes – more than one, by the way – in which you claim US casualties could number in the thousands, and that the US should be prepared for a decades-long occupation of the country, or retract the gratuitous revisions you’ve posted in this thread. **furt** : > [@](#): > > _But my point is, neither side has been wholly correct in it’s predictions. Cherry-picking a few erroneous predictions that were made by one side (and by individuals that had the integrity to make themselves vulnerable to second guessing) as if that unassailably proved one’s own rightness is rather weak debating form._ Excuse me? I’m not concerned with the erroneous predictions in **Sam’s** post; were that my beef, I’d have been forced to set virtually the entire thing in bold. Rather, I’m concerned with **Sam’s** gratuitous misrepresentation (in this thread) of the dire warnings he allegedly posted prior to the invasion (in other threads). > [@](#): > > - But please note my point here. The fact that some of the pessimistic fears did not play out does NOT mean those fears were unwarranted; and indeed, they still could happen. Playing the game of “You predicted A, it didn’t happen, therefore you’re wrong about everything” is childish – and that goes both ways.\* Agreed. **Bricker** : > [@](#): > > - Recant? Not remotely. Your arguments are reasonable and reality-based. Your view regarding WMDs has seemingly proven to be the correct one. > > I just ask that you view the other side as reasonable as well, although (regrettably, from your POV) wrong.\* I cannot honestly say that, after my experiences on this board, I view the other side as reasonable _a priori_. The only thing I can promise is that I’ll do my best to acknowledge reasonable arguments from the other side when I see them, and weigh them accordingly as I work towards what I hope to be the correct conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/360 "2005-07-05T18:56:59Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > No, it never happened. I never claimed to be clairvoyant. The point is that I supported the war _even though I thought that might happen_. And because I thought Iraq had WMD, I thought there was a good chance they might be used. It seems to me, reading your prediction post, that you clearly meant that the “war” would be quick, with little or no resistance, and the after-war occupation would be minimal and relatively peaceful. Now, it seems to me you are trying to weasel out of your predictions by saying that “urban warfare” somehow includes the almost daily insurgent attacks in all of Iraq. Am I missing something? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=19)