[ExI] israelis defeat physics

[Jeff Davis]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:14 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> credibility.


Spike, spike, spike!  Where ARE you coming up with this stuff? The
Lancet lost credibility?!?!?!  With whom,?, Cheney, Rice, and
Limbaugh?  Show me some sources.

George Bush shows up on the tube and says, "Their methodology has been
discredited."  Where's his Nobel prize?  Puleeese.  He's the clown
with the non-existent credibility.

Everyone who isn't a creation scientist (is this oxymoron or just
plain moron) acknowledges that the two Lancet studies were conducted
using what has been referred to as "best practice".

>
> Recall that Iraq was facing a war with Iran in 2002.

What?  I mean .......WHAT!!!???  I've been following this business
quite closely since day one and this is the first I've heard of this
alleged 2002 imminent war between Iran and Iraq.  And I haven't had a
9 to 5 and a newborn to distract me.  Sources, bro, sources
(non-Israeli, non-Murdoch).  I forgive you bro, but you gotta get out
more.  Outta the Lock-Mart echo chamber.


> That is why Saddam
> tried to convince the world that he had nukes, so that it would scare Iran
> away from attacking.

So let me get this straight:The aformentioned unsourced fantastical
assertion of a looming-in-2002 war between Iran and Iraq, has Iran in
the aggressor's role?  Source it, bro.  Otherwise it has to be filed
as the fever dream of a fact-indifferent neo-con Iran basher.

> 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.

Ex-post-facto France, Russia, and Germany bashing which you no doubt
got from someone still pissy about F, R, and G's refusal to toady
along with GB's faith-based ego-driven
"Let's-take-America-over-the-Cliff" invasion plan.  Sounds thoroughly
neo-con to me.

More clues.  Give me more clues.  Your source is no realist.  A
realist would have said that F, G, and R opposed the invasion because
they were first in line -- and the US and Britain not in the running
-- for contracts to rebuild Iraq and exploit its oil after the lifting
of sanctions.

> The US threatened to invade anyways, fearing Saddam really had nukes.

Nukes was the sales gimmick.  Where you been for the last 5-6 years?

> 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
> nukes.)

George Tenet.  Now there's a guy with credibility.  He presides over
the CIA's failure re 9/11, and then becomes Bush's bitch out of
gratitude for not being held to account.  Has anyone else noticed this
pattern?  GB loves super-screw-ups (like himself).  Nothing compares
to the unswerving loyalty of a screw-up desperate to avoid
accountability.
>
> 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.

I have to apologize.  I was taking you seriously.  Obviously you've
been talking about some Fox made-for-tv movie, right?.  Excuse me,
please.  I should have read through the thread more carefully.

Best, Jeff Davis

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more
and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron..."  H. L. Mencken