"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you say you didn't use SN to inflate your numbers, I'll take your word for it."

I'm still struggling to come to terms with the fact that you think using SN can somehow inflate numbers, and was thus being used nefariously.

"The more we claim to to have a foundation of truth the more it slips through our fingers like a fistful of sand."

Well, I can agree whole heartedly with that sentiment.

"I thought it worthwhile to point out Gary's unsavory tactic. Carry on then."

Yes, now that we have admonishingly exposed Garry to be the fraud that he is by highlighting his CLEARLY and UNQUESTIONABLY devious motives with regard to using scientific notation in a post, we can carry on being the pompous buffoon’s we are.

You Sir are a hypocrite

And I do plainly and ingenuously admit it, sir. In fact, I believe I have admitted to being a hypocrite in the past. I have never met anybody, nor read of anybody, who is not occasionally hypocritical, so your accusation is not in any way revelatory to me.

I would first bank $9x10^8 with Lloyds and in various bank accounts in Switzerland.

I feel no need to defend this usage, sir. The page on which it appears was not a real debate, merely a question. When there is no targeted reader, no principle of debate, I will write in whatever manner pleases me, without reference to anybody, as the only person who can possibly reflect upon my answer with any relevance is myself.

I qualified my quoting of the figure with "up to" precisely because it is the highest credible estimate of casualities from the Iraq war

As I have said, sir, and supported, it is not considered credible in many instances of peer reviewed literature.

If you're so sure it's as low as 150,000 then I'd advise you to publish your findings

Why publish my own findings, sir, when I can publish reliable, professional findings? Would the leaked documents compiled by the United States military satisfy you? [1] [2] [3]

many people beleive based on the available evidence that the true figure is much higher.

I am unconcerned with what many people believe, sir.

Here's the email address of Professer Les Roberts one of the primary researchers in both Lancet publications (in 2004 and 2007) : [email protected]

What input could I possibly have, sir?

I'm sure he'd be very interested to find out the exact number is 150,000,

I have not stated that the exact figure was 150,000, nor have I given you any link that suggested this was the case.

and that all other estimates have been conclusively disproven.

I did not imply that they had been disproved. How often is it that any survey of such a large population is disproved? I demonstrated quite clearly that the ORB estimates were not considered reliable by many of the statisticians involved in the project.

If you had any backbone you would have admitted to Bohemian that you engage in the same practice, and don't feel that there is anything wrong with it, but clearly you do not.

I don't recall ever deliberately using S.N to unnerve an opponent, or to demonstrate my numerical facility, so I do not consider myself to be susceptible of the same practice.

If you had any backbone you would have admitted to Bohemian that you engage in the same practice

I have already messaged him with the relevant information. As we are very clearly conspiring against you, I cannot imagine that he will renounce our alliance.

Are you seriously accusing me of trying to obfuscate my own ignorance?

Not in this case. I have already said what I consider your aim to have been.

Yes of course, your silent omniscience is quite a unique trait.

Incidentally, I missed an opportunity to say video et taceo, as Gloriana.

The text emboldened above is pointlessly venomous, and is at any rate misleading. I did not claim omniscience, nor did I claim to be unique.

I am absolutely perplexed

I shall endeavour to elucidate my sentiments. First of all, 'petit jeu' means 'little game'. Many people of this site have some ploy they commonly use to enhance, or at least to give the appearance of enhancement to their arguments.

I occasionally write in French and Latin (though I use Latin mostly for proverbs, rhetorical devices and when writing Latin words that have been adopted in English; all of these instances are italicised exempli gratia), I sometimes adopt a critical we, I infrequently paraphrase Shakespearean literature, et cetera.

why on earth does the use of scientific notation imply that a debator is using some tactic?

If it does not, why the effort to implicate me in the same practice? Why not merely dismiss the charges, with a reason for why they should be dismissed? I am not your enemy. I am not unreasonable and will not consider your actions to be malicious if there is some other reason for you to have committed them. If my presumption was unjustified, then I recognise your right to defend yourself, but this you have not done. You have merely contrived, as afore stated, to implicate me in what you purportedly do not consider to be a deceptive practice.

This is ridiculous.

It is all quite ridiculous.

I think the only possible explanation

I find the explanations that commonly follow this phrase to be either intentionally humorous or disappointing.

assuming you are aware of your own practices on this site

I have never consciously tried to obfuscate my own practices or beliefs. There is little apparent point in hiding one's views and practices on a debating site populated by strangers.

is that you simply couldn't pass up a mutual ego massage with Bohemian

Bohemian does not need his ego massaged; I do not consider him to be egotistical. His motivations are his own.

I'm sorry to say this but I find that quite pathetic.

One cannot site artillery upon a moral highground.

Are you saying you beleive the majority of Arabs to be enemies of the West?

I believe an expansionist Islam threatens Western philosophies, and more relevantly, my philosophy. I also consider it to be one of the major organising principles of the Arabian peoples, as it has been for over a millennium. So therefore their society cannot peacefully coexist with ours so long as their rule is fundamentally theocratic. It is therefore expedient to topple all theocratic regimes in the area.

War has metamorphosed into something qualitatively different to what it has been in previous centuries

No, in principle, sir, I believe it to be the same: the use of violence to enforce one society or government's will against another.

From the government's point of view the enemy can be as much their own people as the people they are fighting.

It has always been necessary to subdue or placate one's own population before embarking upon adventures against another people. It is only when a state is fighting for its survival that this ceases to be the case.

And who is to judge whether the cause is "sensible" or "insensible (senseless)."

Anybody can. However, sir, the only opinions that really matter are those that direct the resources required to prosecute the war.

Ultimately, the vast majority of people consent or object to a war based solely upon personal reasons of conscience or economy. Thus, I recognise no universal moral constraints to the matter.

I don't beleive the difference is a large as you think.

In some cases, you are correct, and in others you are not.

Are you saying you endorse Mr. Hitchens vitriolic propaganda and rhetoric even though it led to so much death and destruction, and very little to do with the true motivation for the invasion?

I am saying, sir, that if he considered the war to be conducive to his aims, then it was logical that he should endorse it.

Why not ask an Iraqi if they agree with that assessment.

I do not have any to hand, sir. However, I do not believe that such an interview would materially improve our understanding of how Western societies have benefited from the invasion.

This is simply isn't the case, the US position and in the Arab world, and perhaps globally, in many ways, is much worse off.

Diplomatically speaking, you are correct. But I consider Arabian society as it is to be inimical to that of the West. It is for this reason that I support increased ties with the Israeli state, and continued persecution of Iran.

Prior to the invasion the US had a constellation of pro-american states in the region aligned with its interests, most of the states not aligned with the US were contained and relatively weak. Iran is a perfect example, prior to the invasion Saddam's regime acted as a kind of counterforce to the perpetuation of Iranian power and domination in the region, now large segments of Iraq are in the control of Iran, and they control considerable proxy forces and political power in the country. This rise of Iran allowed Hamas and Hezbollah to make large gains and they have both now been legimated electorally.

Then it is possible that future American policy will be to prosecute a war against an increased Iranian threat.

The populace have not benefitted at all, no american has reaped the rewards of the Iraq war, in fact it has the overwhelming majority a great deal, this should be immediately apparent, the wealth accrued was largely transferred to the corporations and elites that have hijacked the american government and its institutions.

I believe one of the motives for the war to have been the maintenance of a tenable gasoline price within the Untied States. Saddam had planned to take all payments for its oil exports in Euros [1], which would have been injurious to American interests. I believe the average American citizen to have benefited from the avoidance of an unnatural hike in the price of their fuel. [2]

I do not beleive the world will ever be ideal, if not simply because of finite resources and lebenstraum, but also because everyone has a different idea of the perfect world

In a post-scarcity EqT society that is a moot point. Artificial spaceborne environments could be constructed and used to harbour radically different societies.

The UN is about balancing power

Yes, I believe I said that.

it was estbalished in order to mitigate against the rise of unchecked and rapacious power, the reason you cite is in my mind irrelevant.

The only moral basis I recognise for repudiating the international policy of a government is, if that government admits discourse to the will of its citizens, popular dissent. The UN does not have a moral right to dictate anything to the UK or USA, only a technical right which is based on coercive power and the assent of those two nations. If those nations decide to dissent, and are immune to the coercive power that the UN possesses, then its ability to influence their decisions is, de facto, entirely diminished. Not having elected either government, it has no moral right to repudiate the action.

This is, incidentally, a philosophy I derived from arguments I held with Anarchists, with whom I find myself in almost unmitigated disagreement. However, I came to recognise the logic behind their belief that political power is fundamentally coercive in nature, and is not to be confused with morality.

Well your country and the US have agreed to something different

Previous governments of my country and the United States agreed to it. I do not consider the current governments to be bound by the same oath, unless I am ignorant of some fundamental reendorsement , in which case their crime would be heavy indeed.

and consequently Britain (who behave like their lap dog)

This is not true, sir. I ask you to retract this spurious accusation against my country.

the balance is quickly being re-established, and the more the US tries to push against the rise of China, Russia, and yes Iran, the more likely a third world war becomes.

There is almost no chance of a Sino-American war. Any conflict between Ian and the United States would be one-sided indeed, and of little threat to the native territories to the West.

A conventional war with Russia is quite infeasible; nuclear states cannot sanely engage in unilateral war without risking mutual annihilation. Assuming, of course, that nobody of particular stupidity is elected to the presidency of either nation, their conflicts are likely to retain the form of mere posturing.

I think the US has grown stupid with power, they have all but contradicted everything they purported to represent

I do not think the first point is correct, but I agree with the latter. They have certainly lost societal maturity.

"The trouble with these people is that their cities have never been bombed and their mothers have never been told to shut up."

I consider that to be an intentionally facile and facetious assessment of a society.

And what about when you (i.e. US and/or Britain) frustrate their diplomatic overtures and flout international treaties.

You must have forgone reading the entire paragraph, as I wrote very clearly about my perception of such events.

I am watching what is happening in Iran with a keen eye, the opinion you express is irrational as you fail to recognise the magnitude of the potential threat to your own safety.

I do not think mine own safety to be endangered by US interventionist policy in Iran, at any rate until that state acquires the resources to launch Class 2, 3 or 4 weapons at my coordinates. I do recognise the threat that such a government would pose were it allowed to develop uninhibited, however. I do not think appeasement is a wise policy.

I am not suggesting that is the case, what I am saying is that I wish it were.

I do not think that civilizations are advanced by boundless peace and unity.

That failed to account for the fact that much of the material wealth started flowing through foreign (as opposed to Iraqi) hands.

I considered that to be obvious detail.

Sorry I should have been more specific, the allegation has considerable evidence to back it up, it is more of fact than an baseless allegation

Please provide this proof, that I might consider the claim.

but as always that depends on your interpretation, which reminds me of Nietzsche's famous quote.

In that case, Mr. Nietzsche's belief coincides with mine own.