[ExI] israelis defeat physics
pharos at gmail.com
Fri Mar 13 20:47:35 UTC 2009
On 3/13/09, spike wrote:
> Ja, either invasion, Iran or coalition. Actually it isn't at all clear how
> to estimate the number of deaths from any political action, but the Lancet
> doesn't seem to suffer from uncertainty. How does one estimate how many
> would have been slain had Iran and Iraq gone at it again? If we acknowledge
> that stopping another Iran and Iraq war has enabled the apparent upcoming
> larger war between Iran and Israel, how do we count that?
> There are plenty of amateur political commentators. The Lancet should stick
> to medicine and let the political jaws ratchet as they do so early and
I've been away on holiday this week and just got back to the usual
holiday mountain of email! It makes you frightened to go on holiday.
Spike, you are speculating about Saddam's possible thinking and double
bluffs. Piro is repeating what Saddam (the master manipulator) chose
to tell him as a justification for his gross mistakes.
You are speculating that Iran was in a fit state to think that they
could successfully invade Iraq in 2002. (They weren't).
After the disastrous Iran-Iraq war, Iran politics was forced to
change. From 2000 to 2003 Iran had a more friendly relationship with
Iraq than ever before.
The Lancet is trying to deal with real numbers and real people.
What actually happened, not speculation.
You can speculate that anything worse *might* have happened, but
'might-have-been's cannot compare with real deaths.
This is the logic that says that it is right to nuke a few Muslim
cities, because in the long-term it might mean fewer wars and fewer
More information about the extropy-chat