[eDebate] ans Kandeel

walid kandeel khemicalraydon
Sun Jul 2 12:46:29 CDT 2006

Korcok, you should be an english teacher because your good at correcting peoples grammer, but thats about all your good for.

check this out.   NOBODY, not one Iraqi had called on the US to "come and liberate them".  In fact, most Iraqi's (per al-jazeera) would have perferred Sadam and sons to the current occupation.  If the iraqis wanted your false generosity so bad, why is the resistance to US occupation growing not decreasing over the last 3 years?  (are you gonna call these resisters terrorists too?---can nobody defend themselves w/o being labeled terrorists?)  Why are US colonial rapists not being greeted w/ open arms by the Iraqi population?  (maybe its b/c they are too buisy trying to defend there homeland from OCCUPATION)  

Furthermore, take a look at history.  since when has the US government ever gave a shit about the liberation of the oppressed.  If you do any real research (not the bullshit ass links you sent me) then how do you account for the US overthrowing popularly elected leaders and replacing them w/ dictators all throughout latin America?(guatamala, nicaragua, etc, etc)  How do you account for the Puerto Rico, Guam, Phillipines, Hawaii?  (Are these the territories the US has liberated?) How do you explain fort benning, in Georgia? (aka school of the assassins--where people are trained to violently overthrow the peoples governments)  How do you explain millions of dollars spent to fund Isreal smashing on the Palestinian people?(for over 50 years)  how do you explain Abu-Gharaib, Guantanamo, Haditha? (Are these acts of liberation)  How do you explain the lack of compasion for the victims of Katrina? (last i checked the survivors are being evicted from the temporary shelter they
 recieved)  How do you explain the fucked up conditions in every hood accross america?  Why is your compasionate government not doing anything to help the people here, yet quick to run and save iraq?  Shit old folks cant even get affordable medicine.  (see montels latest commercial)

Am i really supposed to believe that a nation that is responsible for killing more people of color then any other empire in the world suddenly now has compasion for these same people?  (See the extermination of most of the native indigenous pop.,  or the holocaust of african enslavement, or the internment of the Japanese,  or the mistreatment and dehumanization of latino immigrants, See currently the mistreatment and dehumanization of Arabs) How many examples of massacres and injustices that occur all across the world have to smack you in your face before you realize this country dont care about nothing except preserving the privilige of an elite few?  Really, i am at a loss to see why you blindly defend these monsters. Whats in it for you, an oil contract?  weapons contract?  are you getting paid off of the rebuilding of iraq?  Or do you just enjoy watching people of color suffer?  Do you just get a kick out of watching bombs bursting in air?  does it remind you of the 4th
 of july and make you feel all fuzy and patriotic/neurotic inside? 

Keep it real, the only thing your colonial army has even tried to liberate are Iraqs oil fields. 

Stick to practicing for the spelling bee.

all power to the people

Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com> wrote:     P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma }  -->  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."
 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."
 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."
 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_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com

Why keep checking for Mail? The all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta shows you when there are new messages.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060702/85c85053/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list