[eDebate] ans Lewis (2)

Michael Korcok mmk_savant
Fri Aug 3 01:48:26 CDT 2007


a pile of questionable quotes that show nothing in particular does not paper over the glaringly obvious:  
not a single shred of evidence for the only claim that matters:  things are worse in Iraq than they were before we liberated it.  
nothing.  nada.  only posing and posturing.  JL musta just missed the goading, mocking, prodding, and cajoling the 45 times i did it...
 
so it isn't missed this time:  you think things are getting worse in Iraq.  I don't care except insofar as they remain better than they would otherwise be if we had not liberated it.  so time to put up:  PROVE that things are worse in Iraq than they would have been absent US liberation.
 
*****section 1: the main argument*****
 
JL challenged me for standards for success.  I accepted and named several of them, including lifespan, economic growth, child mortality, and morbidity.  You know, the critical basics of LIFE IN IRAQ.   JL now refuses to offer his own standards and can't defend the only metric he did offer, hours of electricity in Baghdad.  no response from JL on my list of CRITERIA.  uh oh...
 
JL presses for evidence that things are actually better in Iraq with respect to the criteria I present.  He has no evidence that things are worse in Iraq with respect to any of those criteria, so he just accuses me of bullshitting.  Oops... incoming...
 
These are the numbers from  IndexMundi ... Iraq infant mortality rate per 1000 live births: ( http://www.indexmundi.com/iraq/infant_mortality_rate.html )2002: 57.6 2006: 48.6 2007: 47.0
which comes to about 36,000 fewer Iraqi infants dead over the last 4 1/4 years than if the 2002 infant mortality rate had continued Iraq death rate per 1000 population ( http://www.indexmundi.com/iraq/death_rate.html )2002: 6.02 2006: 5.37 
2007: 5.26which comes to about 80,000 fewer Iraqi human beings dying over the last 4 1/4 years than if the 2002 death rate had held Iraq life expectancy at birth ( http://www.indexmundi.com/iraq/life_expectancy_at_birth.html )2002: 67.4 years 2006: 69 years 
2007: 69.31 yearswhich comes to an extra 2 years of life for every child born today in Iraq than in 2002 
 
These are the big ticket items.  Iraqis are living longer and healthier, their children are more likely to survive and there is a lot less dying these days than before the liberation.  Now that is actual DATA about what matters.  And that means, without even looking at the direct effects of getting rid of Saddam and Sons, that if we had followed your advice and left Saddam and Sons in power, that 80,000 more Iraqi adults would be dead and 36,000 Iraqi infants would not be alive.
 
That means CRITERIA is won and IMPACTS are linked to those criteria.  thank you, thank you, thank you.  no... really... you're too kind...
 
YOUR TURN.
 
oh and by the way, the OTHER argument, which I lifted from one of my posts from last year ..."a reasonable estimate is that Saddam and Sons killed about 750,000 Iraqis (over 1 million persons if you include Kuwaitis and Iranians) over the 15 years before liberation which comes to about 50,000 human beings a year. and 15 years is a good sample because some years they only butchered 10,000 while in other years they annihilated the Marsh Arabs... the LA Times and others last week estimated about 50,000 total Iraqi casualties since March 2003, the vast majority because of terrorist attacks but lets use the far left's drunken concept of causality/blame and put the whole thing on us and, since leftists just don't do math, lets assume the LA Times underestimated by a whopping 50% and the actual total is 75,000 Iraqis dead... well even you can see the bottom line: even using those numbers, net, about 80,000 Iraqis didn't get murdered over the past 3 1/4 years because the US liberated Iraq."
 
If we update for another year in paradise... that comes to about 100,000 Iraqis who haven't gotten murdered over the last 4 1/4 years because we took out Saddam and Sons.  
 
(go ahead... trot out the study...  show us that you have neither brains nor integrity and trot out the big lie...  come on... it won't hurt that bad, i promise...)
 
*****section 2: out of context lying cheating bullshit artist***** 
 
The worst part is how JL uses out of context evidence.  Whoever his coaches are/were should be mortified.
 
item 1:  I challenged his argument that the administration said the US would leave once elections/constitution occurred ... this is that snippet and JL's answer:
 
"MK: 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.
 
JL:  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, 2005U.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."
 
His answer seems pretty good.  Until you read the rest that JL does NOT quote:
 
"BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 1 - 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.


 
In his first press conference, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said that American forces would hand over control of specific areas to Iraqi forces and "withdraw its own units from these areas." He declined to say which Iraqis cities American soldiers would leave first, but said he had formed a committee with Iraqi leaders to draw up a detailed withdrawal plan.
 
"After this transfer occurs in more and more areas, there will be a smaller need for coalition forces, and elements of the multinational forces will leave Iraq," the ambassador said."
 
JL is trying to make it seem like he is answering my challenge by presenting text that seems to indicate that the US would WITHDRAW its troops once the constitution was in place.  Well, of course no such thing was occurring...  It was a redeployment of troops to other Iraqi cities and a REDUCTION of the international force.  Which is exactly what happened.  Later, because of public pressure by the Democrats and others, the force levels were increased again in the SURGE.  But this evidence was presented out of context and with the intent of deceiving the reader into believing that the Administration promised to LEAVE Iraq once the Constitution was in place.
 
item 2: also in response to the same section, JL offered this:
 
"( http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/ )Friday, November 18, 2005
Defense official: Rumsfeld given Iraq withdrawal planPlan calls for troops to begin pulling out after December elections"
 
again implying that Rumsfeld promised that the US was LEAVING after the elections.  That is, of course, misleading at best.  That article EXPLAINS that:
 
"The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn. 
Top Pentagon officials have repeatedly discussed some of those milestones: Iraqi troops must demonstrate that they can handle security without U.S. help; the country's political process must be strong; and reconstruction and economic conditions must show signs of stability."
 
So, NO, that evidence that does NOT say the US was LEAVING, only that there were plans for a withdrawal of a limited number of troops if certain milestones were met.
*****section 3: answering O'Hanlon and Pollack*****
 
JL begins with blither, claiming that I didn't answer the questions that O'Hanlon and Pollack end with.  He fumes:
 
"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. Thiswould 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?" butthey have no answer to that question themselves."
 
But when he gets to that part of my post, it looks like this:
 
"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.
 
JL: And...I see no answer in that paragraph. Thanks for writing it as a thinking person though"
 
I am confused.  My answer is clear.  We are there for the long haul.  That is meant in 2 different modalities:  we WILL be there for the long haul no matter who is President or who controls Congress and we SHOULD be there for the long haul.  I even said it a few different ways:  I called those who didn't think so fools and bigger fools respectively.  I said the US would never leave, at least not in our lifetimes.Then I explained what those 2 questions meant in O'Hanlon and Pollack's editorial:  they were warning shots to IRAQ that the US expects them to do their part.  Those are the same warning shots that Democrats send with endless resolutions to withdraw which are never actually passed.  The problem with this approach is that no one really takes them seriously, certainly not the Iraqis.  Because they know we aren't ever leaving.  Clinton and Obama are pretty clear that their withdrawals aren't really withdrawals:  each would keep enough troops there to fight terrorism and train Iraqi troops... yeah...  that means...
 
So i DID answer those 2 questions directly and i even explained what they were as pieces of text.  Reading skillz ownz.
 
night night...
 
Michael Korcok
_________________________________________________________________
Messenger Caf? ? open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. Visit now.
http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_AugWLtagline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070802/da768d56/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list