When you break it down it shows you were you have a problem and gives you some detail so you can intelligently analyize the numbers.
Your number is not useful for intelligent analysis. It exists merely as a mindless shock number to confuse peasants.
I'm not a peasant. And I'm now done entirely talking about this number. Bring it up in any capacity and i'll just ignore it. I don't even want to talk about your opinion of the nature of the number.
You want to understand the numbers better read the papers. The point is to capture more of the externalities of the conflict, it may be imprecise but it's a completely legitimate measure. Ignore it and you're not having a serious discussion.
The Iranians for example think they're going to join the US and Russians as big boys at the table with their nukes.
No they don't, they think they'll deter a potential first strike by Israel, and achieve some additional prestige in the Middle East.
As to allying with dictators or opposing democracies... where have I said that that is the basis by which I determine friend or enemy? You're not making sense. You imply I do not choose my enemies carefully and then when I call you on it you say that I will not ally with certain types of governments and I will sometimes support other types of governments. And? Why is this strategically relevant to me?
Why do I care if a country is democratic or not from a military strategic perspective? You're projecting your own ideology and morality on me. While I believe in freedom and democracy etc... I am not bound to prioritize it in strategic matters. My priority there is the well being of my own people. if allying with a dictator to assist British and European industrial needs during the Cold War helps allies resist Soviet pressure then why wouldn't I do that?
So you're no longer arguing for US interventions based on doing good for those people?
Consider the difference between North Korea and South Korea. We could have saved lives in the war by letting the north dominate the south as well. In your mind this would have been worth it? Should we have allowed that or were the civilian deaths acceptable given the outcome?
You're damned no matter what you say because your entire moral framework is naive.
If you say the North Koreans should have been allowed to dominate the south you are saying that we should never fight against anything... including fascism. So the Nazis etc should have just been allowed to take what they want. Fighting them after all cost civilian lives.
But you're also damned if you say we should fight them because it fatally undermines your position that the civilian deaths means we can't go to war.
Your entire position is goofy.
I never argued that you can never intervene because of the total casualty counts, I argued that it raises the bar.
The Korean War was justifiable on those grounds, the additional death and suffering from doing nothing would have dwarfed the consequences of the act they did. Of course I have no idea how clear that was at the time.
As to ad hominems... I'm not going to get tied up in semantics. If you attempt to invalidate my position based on a baseless character assassination then I'm going to slap it aside and tell you to try something else. You say you don't want to do that? Okay... good. When you do it again, I'll remind you of your own words. Until then... I'll just leave it there.
I didn't say I didn't want to do it. I said I didn't do it.