RichardC (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on April 21, 2017 2:13 pm wrote:
> anon (spam.delete.delete@this.this.spam.com) on April 21, 2017 11:46 am wrote:
> > RichardC (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on April 21, 2017 8:56 am wrote:
> > > anon (spam.delete.delete@this.this.spam.com) on April 21, 2017 7:55 am wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also the key to winning a land war in Asia appears to be being Russian. Maybe no one found
> > > > the equivalent of being Russian for building a wide statically scheduled CPU yet.
> > >
> > > Nope. The Afghans do just fine: against Alexander the Great, against the British in
> > > the 1840s, against the Russians in the 1980s, and against the USA and NATO over the
> > > last 15 years. If you're in a huge landlocked region with few navigable rivers, few
> > > railways, and poor roads, then the locals have the advantage over the invaders, who
> > > are most likely to starve/freeze/get sick/run out of ammunition before they can force
> > > a decisive battle.
> >
> > So a land war in Asia is a good idea again?
> > What are you even on about?
>
> You said the Russians always win.

Where did I say that?

I like how you're so serious about me poking fun at terrible analogies.

>
> For the rest, whatever. I've poked enough holes in Mill for now. Those who believe in
> it are relying on faith, not evidence, because there isn't any evidence.
>

Lack of evidence does not prove the opposite.