[eDebate] ans Korok

Jesse Lewis jesse.lewis
Thu Aug 2 13:03:08 CDT 2007


Funny that you start off with the beginning and the end of my message, but
missed something rather important - you ignored the op-ed's questions. This
would lead me to believe that you don't have an answer to them. Pro-war
people love to say to people who oppose the war "What is your solution?" but
they have no answer to that question themselves.

I'd repost the questions...but why bother, since you're content with calling

your opposites "stupid" for not backing up their positions while you have
nothing but the standard Fox News tripe.

And I would love to hear your IQ...but since people claim that GWB is really
very smart I'm not sure how much credence to give to that number.

>MK: Iraqi standards of living higher than before we liberated Iraq. check.
>life expectancy higher and infant mortality lower than before we liberated
>Iraq. check. net lives saved. check.

How can you measure an increase in general life expectancy with only four
years of data? Oh, you just invent bullshit statistics. And sources? Nah,
you don't need no stinkin' sources. I'll just say "Heritage Foundation" and
move on.

>MK: US has military control of strategically critical middle eastern real
>estate that used to be controlled by one of its enemies and borders Iran
and
>Syria with port access to the Persian Gulf? check.

1. If we have "military control," then why are troops still dying this long
after the mission was accomplished?
2. And even if I were to take your view that the US has this "military
control," then that means we're occupiers. And occupiers create resistance.
And resistance breeds terrorism. The UN (remember them? Bush said he was
going in to enforce UN resolutions) says that resistance to foreign
occupation is a legal response.

>MK: US continues to demonstrate to potential enemies that if they fuck with
>us, nothing they care about will prosper. check.

However, American companies that profit from this debacle will prosper. And
Halliburton will welcome Cheney back with open arms and a nice fat pay
package in 2009. And in reality, we showed potential enemies that if they
fuck
with us, we'll invade some country that had nothing to do with them. That'll
learn
'em.

>MK: US learns to do nation-building and democracy-conversion, develops
>intelligence networks in hostile contexts, and takes the fight to
>terrorists. check.

Would nation-building involve electrical service to people in a capital
city? Because that's not happening. Developing intelligence networks would
work better if people who were experts in Arab languages weren't fired for
being gay. And we did take the fight to terrorists...then stopped, went into

Iraq and now they're taking the fight to us.

>JL: And if you say "When we win," you have to go sit in the corner.

>MK: When we win. You appear to be confused, however. You seem to believe
that you are my mommy. For all I know, I am your daddy. Really. It all gets
hazy a few years back.

Now now...let's not be cutesy. You couldn't be my daddy because my mother
has much higher standards than yours. Although I could be yours...does your
mother wear stilettos and work at a gentlemans' club?

>MK: The United States will never leave Iraq willingly. Not in our
>lifetimes, anyway.

Thank you for admitting this. It's about time.


>MK: why do you do that other than obvious explanations like you hate your
>daddy or you have been twisted into a grotesquery?

With your high IQ I would expect you to write a coherent sentence.

>MK: why not make the standard the number of suicide bombings per day - at
>least then terrorists and zealots will blow themselves up trying to make
>your case for you - i would be okay with that... but really, let's use
>lifespan and economic growth: that way my argument is made for me only if
>Iraqis live longer and more prosperously while you still get yours if there
>is more misery, failure, and poverty. you know, win-win.

Wow. Just wow. So because you have a so-called positive outlook because you
pick and choose your statistics (that you don't quote or reference, BTW),
your
position is superior to mine?


>JL: Second, enlighten us on how the progress we've been told is being made
>thousands of times is FINALLY actual progress and not complete bullshit.

>MK: Iraqi living standards, economic growth, lifespan, morbidity, child
>mortality. dead terrorists. US military control of Iraq. the NYT op-ed this
>weekend by O'Hanlon and Pollack. Your turn: how exactly are things worse
>than before the US liberation?

Creating more terrorists than we kill, WE replaced Saddam (Abu Ghraib),
sectarian violence, instability, loss of the world's

>JL: First it was "when we get Saddam, it's over."

>MK: dishonest crap. no one i know said that. instead they said things like
>"this will take a long time" and "we need to commit to this for the long
>haul" .

>From your Brookings friends:

"Fortunately, it is quite likely that taking Saddam out of the picture will
have important effects on the ongoing war. We certainly have not won yet.
But the basic structure of the insurgency was in our favor before last
weekend, and that is even more the case now. "
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20031221.htm

And regarding the "long time" angle...

"The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I
think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you
will, of the insurgency." Dick Cheney, 5/31/05

"My answer is bring 'em on." ?President George W. Bush, challenging
militants attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, July 2, 2003

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." ?Vice
President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the
United States and our allies have prevailed." ?President Bush, standing
under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier,
May 2, 2003

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide
stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself
and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard
to imagine." ?Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the
House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy:
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days,
six weeks. I doubt six months."

Google is your friend.

>and major combat operations were over in a few weeks. then the hard part
>began. the part that no one prepared for because no one knew what to do
next
>or how to do it. the part that we are still learning how to do.

Bullshit. See above, "greeted as liberators," "I doubt six months," etc. And
don't say
"But they were right! This isn't the same war!" Rumsfeld said "conflict."

>JL: Then it was "how about a new Iraqi flag that spits in the face of Arab
>tradition?" Then it was "okay, elections! That'll be victory!" Then "A
>constitution will mean we are victorious!"

>MK: good milestones for progress. i take it you don't think that elections
>and constitutions matter? or are you one of those who think that democracy
>is good for white people but brown people, they will only ever know
burkhas,
>theocracy, and beheadings?

On the contrary, you seem to believe it's the "white man's burden" to bring
democracy
to the savages. Nice try on the race angle, though. I'm for
self-determination. Even
giving aid to opponents of a regime. But intervention and the first
preemptive war
in our nation's history - no.

>feel free to cite anyone who wrote that once there were elections we would
>leave or once there was a constitution we were finished... oh wait that's
>just crap you were writing... my bad.

You're obviously projecting your tactics onto others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/international/middleeast/01cnd-iraq.html?ex=1186200000&en=bfc47f121b81e7f5&ei=5070

August 1, 2005
U.S. Ambassador in Iraq Discusses Withdrawal of U.S. Troops

As Iraqi leaders reaffirmed their decision to finish writing the country's
constitution by the middle of the month, the new American ambassador here
spoke in specific terms about the pending withdrawal of American troops from
the country.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/
Friday, November 18, 2005

Defense official: Rumsfeld given Iraq withdrawal plan
Plan calls for troops to begin pulling out after December elections

>JL: Now the right wing is down to "Only 100 people were killed today in
>sectarian violence." Hell, the Pentagon is proud that "only" 73 American
>soldiers were killed last month.

>MK: dishonest bullshit. 155,000 people died today around the world. about 2
>of them were American military in Iraq. that is .000013 of the grand total
>of dying.

So you support the troops by denigrating their deaths.

And no, they're not victims. They're not pawns. However I'd rather them die
for something other than a right-wing crusade hatched in the 90s.

>MK: your turn. put up or shut up. what would YOU consider to be acceptable
>justification for the continued US military presence in Iraq? anticipating
>an idiotic answer like "NOTHING!!! IT IS AN IMMORAL WAR OF AGGRESSION
>AGAINST THE DESIRES OF ROSIE O'DONNEL!!"

Nice. Don't answer my question. An acceptable justification would be that we
were doing something other than giving Al Qaeda a wonderful training ground
for future attacks. If the administration would be frank with us instead of
glittering generalities it would be a nice start. But since I opposed the
war from the beginning, why would I want us to stay after it's been botched?


Perhaps if there seemed to be a plan to get out at some point rather than,
as you said, not in our lifetimes.

>JL: And as far as the Brookings op-ed, they say we're making progress on
the
>military front. Sure. We kicked ass on the military front in Vietnam - we
k>illed a metric assload of Viet Cong and NVA and still wound up humiliated.

>MK: yes we did. cut and run murdered more than 2 1/2 million Cambodians and

>South Vietnamese in cooperation with those lovely commies that Hanoi Jane
>embraced. the left seems to be enamored of strategies that leave America
>humiliated and hordes of brown people slaughtered.

First off, Vietnamese would be pissed that you called them "brown." Second,
you give Jane Fonda credit for defeating the United States military? The
issue is there was no political solution, just like Iraq. Well, none except
giving the "wrong people" (in our eyes) power. But that's what happens when
you get into a war because you really want to. None of these problems would
exist if we hadn't invaded. Period.

>JL: The difference here is we got sucked into Vietnam - Iraq was a war of
>choice from the beginning.

>MK: every war is a war of choice. always, every time. We didn't have to
>fight in world war 2 or world war 1 or the civil war or the revolutionary
>war any more than we had to fight in the korean war or the vietnam war or
>the first gulf war. but peace is no safer or more sure a guarantor of
>justice or liberty or prosperity than is war. sometimes the right choice is
>to fight and sometimes the right choice is to make peace. the rest is just
>political bullshit for hucksters.

You're right. However there was justification for each of the wars you
mentioned. When Pearl Harbor was attacked we didn't bomb Brazil. Saddam
gassed his own people - with weapons OUR PRESIDENT gave him in the 1980s. Do
a Google image search for "rumsfeld saddam" and you'll see a lovely photo.

>MK: more dishonest bullshit. the same crap that allows the left to move
>effortlessly from calling US troops terrorist thugs that rape in the middle
>of the night to donning wounded pouts when someone dares to mention that
>they are defaming the men and women fighting for this country. it starts
and
>ends here: lets argue about what United States policy should be, but you
>don't caricature US troops as either perpetrators or as victims and i won't

>caricature you as either a coward or as unpatriotic. fair?

So you favor the Iranian tactic of human waves then? Fuck you for saying
that the left calls troops rapists etc. Show me where THAT has been
said. No, I will not agree to your terms because you're constructing a straw
man. How about you put down the Kool-Aid when you smell a bitter almond
scent rather than guzzling it because God's President handed it to you.

>JL: I do applaud the authors for finishing with "How much longer should
>American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi
>leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our
>forces in this mission?" Perhaps you might answer that DIRECT question
posed
>by the authors you applaud.

>MK: those are good questions from mature persons. the question is asked for

>the purpose of pressuring Iraqi elites to make it work. And it has become
>clear that the Bush Administration has not previously put enough pressure
on
>the Iraqi people to make it work. O'Hanlon and Pollack have roasted the
Bush
>administration for that over the last couple of years, the Democrats have
>run with that theme and convinced some centrist Republicans. It makes sense
>to me that the United States needs to push the Iraqis to do more, faster.
>Because we are there for the long haul: it would be nicer if things were
>more pleasant for everyone.

And...I see no answer in that paragraph. Thanks for writing it as a thinking
person though.

>MK: so you are training to be a poster-boy of the far left? man, you have a

>long haul before you... even for the debate-world nominee for poster boy
you
>have a long way to go... there are 20 to 30 people reading this exchange
>that are muttering "newbie" while rolling their eyes because they are sure
>you won't be challenging their status as elite poster-children of the loopy
>left any time soon.

Considering I was invited by one of those "loopy lefties," for the purpose
of writing on this subject, I'm calling bullshit once again. "Newbie." If an
example of a veteran edebate participant is you, then I'm glad to be the
opposite.

I actually think those 20-30 people are laughing at you for asking for
evidence repeatedly while you provide none.

>Finally, you are invited to present actual evidence for any of the stupid
>ideas you wrote in the previous post. I doubt I will reciprocate with
>evidence of my own because I doubt you will manage to keep my interest. how
>is THAT for POMPOSITY?!? I WIN!!!

See above. And that is beneath you - setting us up for your lack of evidence
in a reply by saying "oh, I'm bored..." rather than actually putting your
money where your foot is. I'm sure there's room in there for both feet and a
few bucks. I doubt you will reciprocate because you have none, are a coward,
or just full of shit.

I do like the ending though. Kudos.

PS Apologies for any typos, punctuation errors or confusion as to what's
being quoted - my lunch break is over.

PPS God Bless America.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070802/b42a690c/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list