[eDebate] ans Kandeel

Johnson, Joseph B. blakejohnson
Sat Jul 1 18:58:20 CDT 2006


Kor-cock writes: "if the US had not liberated Iraq, that Sadaam and Sons would still be inpower and they would have been far far far worse than what what actually happened"
 
"in power" not "inpower," ass.

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Michael Korcok
Sent: Sat 7/1/2006 6:27 PM
To: edebate
Subject: [eDebate] ans Kandeel


several others have assured me that this argument is as simple as i think, the argumentative version of "See Spot.  See Spot run.  Run, Spot, run!" 
it appears, though, that Walid is not alone among far lefties in just not getting it.  so here goes.    
 
WK writes: "Korcok,   Stop smoking crack!!!"

you will never have enough cash to afford this much attitude.
 
WK writes: "Your argument presupposes that the current ongoing (seemingly never ending) campaign of colonization is better then Sadam's regime."
 
no it doesn't.
my argument is that the US liberation of Iraq was the right decision.  that is because the US liberation of Iraq has saved many Iraqi lives in comparison to what would have happened otherwise (a seemingly endless continuation of the nightmare regime of Sadaam and Sons).
 
WK writes: "I'm not sure how you can say this when the press (although reluctantly) is continuously releasing stories of Haditha's, Abu-Gharaib, and the like."
 
those have minimal impact on the argument.
and... yours is a transparent attempt to generate impact by anecdote.
and... those incidents, taken in toto, do not represent many Iraqi deaths and are already included in the various body counts.
here, let me do your research for you: ( http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ ) and ( http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ramsay200507260923.asp )
and... that you assign them MASSIVE symbolic significance is a dishonest con when the facts do not bear you out.
 
WK writes: "This is only a glimpse of what is really crackin on the ground."
 
prove it.
this claim is a transparent attempt to generate impact by making shit up.  
and... it is the equivalent of me claiming "If Saddam and Sons had kept power, they would have invested massively in nanotechnology and gotten to gray goo first, destroying the universe."
 
WK writes: "For your info THES ACTS ARE NOT LIBERATING."
 
irrelevant.
and... neither is the act of dropping 2 500-pound bombs on a safehouse occupied by murdering jihadist thug Zarqawi or the act of General Tommy Franks working the contingency map in Florida 3 1/4 years ago.
my argument is that the US liberation of Iraq has been a very good decision, not that each and every portion of the liberation is either liberating or good.
 
WK writes: "Furthermore, there has probably  been hundreds of these types of massacres all accross the desert that your so-called free press never even covers."
 
prove it.
another transparent attempt to generate impact by making shit up.
and... using "so-called" is a party foul.  stop it or you don't get the pipe next go-around.
and... it is not my free press.  the left-liberal press covers every single allegation of a US mistake or misdeed in lurid terms with glee.
 
WK writes: "How can you make the argument that the current barbaric and inhuman treatment of the Iraqi people that is being carryed out by your democracy loving thugs/animals is better then the awful stuff Sadam used to do?"
 
it is spelled "carried" and not spelled "carryed"
and... this is an abuse of lurid adjectives:  i suggest less vigorous emoting  in favor of a smidgen of reason.
and... the answer to your question is:  it isn't even close.  the US military has committed far far fewer human rights abuses than Sadaam and Sons did.  even blaming the US for ALL of the far far more numerous murders committed by the jihadists/terrorists/insurgents since March 2003 leaves at least 80,000 fewer Iraqis killed over the last 3 1/4 years than if Sadaam and Sons had been left in power.
 
WK writes: "I thought you had "critical thinking skills"?  you should try using them prior to making such lame morally bankrupt and ideologically driven statements."
 
sigh...
what part of "let's count the number dead with this and compare it to the number dead with what would have been otherwise" is "lame morally bankrupt" and "ideologically driven"?
and... another argumentum ad lurid adjectivum.
and... please don't equate "lame" with "bad":  that betrays inappropriate attitudes to those with disabilities.
 
WK writes: "Your numbers analysis does not impress me."
 
that's okay, Walid.  
it is at this point that most people thought "man, this Kandeel guy is a moron."
Don't worry, I got your back.  
Walid is not any stupider than Stannard and that guy is a faculty member somewhere.  
chin up Walid!  i am doing my best to make it make sense.  when you understand it, explain it to Stannard, will you?
 
WK writes: "So what are you saying?  That because US troops killed less people then Sadam, the US should recieve some type of applause."
 
no. i am saying "yeesh..."
and... "receive" not "recieve"
and... my argument is that if the US had not liberated Iraq, that Sadaam and Sons would still be inpower and they would have been far far far worse than what what actually happened.  That means the decision to liberate Iraq was a good one.
 
WK writes: "That argument is riduculous."
 
yet you have nothing remotely resembling a good answer to it.
and... "ridiculous" not "riduculous".
and... let me see if i can explain it more clearly:
 
Walid, the meth dealer has broken your arm and is about to shoot you in the head.  You face a decision.  A) you can sit there and get killed or B) you can lunge for the gun.  You pick B) and lunge.  You grab the gun but while wresting it away from your sister, you get shot in the groin.  SUCKS TO BE YOU!  No doubt the choice to lunge was bad bad bad - groin shot.  But wait!  If you had NOT lunged, you would be DEAD.  And, once you come down, you realize that any fool understands that the rational comparison is between what actually happened and what would have happened otherwise.  Choice B) to lunge saved your life!
 
get it? please, please, please explain it to Stannard.
 
WK writes: "Under your analysis Sadam is a great guy because he killed less people then Hitler."
 
not close.
does not compete. no tradeoff.  no forced choice.  absent Sadaam you don't get Hitler.
and... both very very bad.  Hitler worse than Sadaam, but no tradeoff -- both anti-semitic genocidal maniacs happened.
and... Walid, I bet you believe that the US entering WW2 to help get rid of Hitler was actually a morally bankrupt colonization worse than Nazism.
do i win?
 
WK writes: "Furthermore, we cant even begin to know how many people are actually killed by US bombs b/c no one releases credible data to that regard."
 
yes we can.  lots of folks are doing just that, including lots of websites and the Los Angeles Times.
and... that doesn't mean you get to make up crazy numbers like "150,000+" just because you want to.
and... even using the LARGEST estimates that anyone with half a brain makes, you still lose.
 
and... if you are right that we just can't get even close to a reasonable guess, then the best you will ever get to say is "I just don't know if the US liberation of Iraq was a good or bad decision.  That depends on whether or not more people have died than would have otherwise and that data is just not available."   But, using the BEST estimates that we have available of both how many have died since March 2003 and how bad Sadaam and Sons were, we CAN fairly confidently conclude that "the US liberation of Iraq was a very good decision."
 
here, let me do some more research for you: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_in_the_conflict_in_Iraq ) and 
 
WK writes: "The US media only cares about the number of US troops killed in battle, they could care less about the Iraqi civilians you claim were there to liberate."
 
irrelevant.
and... the LA TIMES (4th largest newspaper in the US) cover story last week was 50,000 Iraqis dead. reprinted EVERYWHERE. 
here, let me do some more research for you; ( http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-deathtoll25jun25,0,4970736.story?coll=la-home-headlines ).
and... nothing prevents you from reading THE AL-JAZEERA estimates: ( http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10210 ).
and... even more anti-US than that, The Seattle Times  (42nd largest US paper( http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002583742_civilians26.html ).
and... they only care about the number of US troops killed because they think that helps them make a case against Bush and the liberation of Iraq.
 
WK writes: "Moreover, I did not see any data relating to the over 1/2 a million Iraqi's that were murdered do to US sanctions on the country for over 10 years.  You know the ones that Madaline Albright concluded that were worth sacrificing in her 60 minute exclusive."
 
her name is "Madeline" not "Madaline".
and... my argument was that the US decision to liberate Iraq in March 2003 was a good one:  whether or not the sanctions were good or not impacts my argument only indirectly.
and... turn:  the liberation of Iraq ENDED those sanctions that you abhor.

WK writes: "all power to the people"

unh hunh.
Michael Korcok


________________________________

Express yourself instantly with Windows Live Messenger <http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=joinmsncom/messenger>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060701/2ef47d2b/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list