[ExI] israelis defeat physics

spike spike66 at att.net
Tue Mar 10 02:14:09 UTC 2009


> ...On Behalf Of BillK
> The Lancet survey tried to compare mortality rates before and 
> after the war. During the war, having only rudimentary 
> medical care, no medical supplies, no power, no sanitation, 
> poor food, no police, rampant criminal activity, sectarian 
> war, etc. obviously made the mortality rate much worse.
> BillK

BillK, to compare the death rate before and after the invasion and counting
the difference as deaths due to war is exactly why the Lancet lost a lot of

Recall that Iraq was facing a war with Iran in 2002.  That is why Saddam
tried to convince the world that he had nukes, so that it would scare Iran
away from attacking.  Saddam played a gambit, knowing that France, Germany
and Russia would veto an invasion because they had illegally carried on
weapons trade with Iraq while under UN sanction.  The US threatened to
invade anyways, fearing Saddam really had nukes.  Saddam bet Bush was
bluffing, Bush bet Saddam wasn't.  Both were wrong.  (Source: Tenet, Eye of
the Storm.  He was there, and he was in charge of the intelligence as head
of the CIA, and he uttered the infamous "slam dunk" comment that Saddam had

But since Bush invaded, Iran didn't.  So the Lancet should estimate how many
would have perished had Iran attacked.  Then the number of deaths from the
invasion would be negative several million.  Who even has a good guess how
many millions of lives were saved?  Now of course, if Iran and Israel go at
each other with nukes, we can argue that had Iran fought Iraq in 2003, then
Iran would be in no condition to take on Israel today.



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list