[eDebate] (Ans Korcok) Re: eDebate Digest, Vol 23, Issue 2

Andrew Culp acculp
Fri Aug 3 18:52:16 CDT 2007


Won't let Korcok get away with his numbers game.

100,000 Iraqis killed by American bombing in GW1 (n1 'exaggerated', 'we don't do bodycounts' engineered by Cheney <http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/sloyan.html>)
4-500,000 Children under 5 killed by sanctions ('far more' in total deaths,  http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm)
650,000+ GW2 (http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html, as of 2006)


~200,000 Iraqis killed by Saddam's gulag (n1 I would put it higher, maybe 300,000 or so) over decades.
~300,000+500,000 including the Iraq/Iran War (n1)


math:
Including the Iraq/Iran war, Saddam killed less than the United States over a comparable period of time.  However, because of Saddam's totalitarian rule, crime and standard of living was remarkably high for the majority of the population and purges prevented large-scale violent dissent.
(we can always compare infrastructure questions like sewage, water, electricity, schools, hospitals, etc, in which Saddam maintained well compared to the US who is simply bombing it and hiring bechtel/halliburton to reconstruct)

Here are some stats that are a bit more striking:
The US controls only 40% of Baghdad  http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3286183

The war has set women's rights have been set back decades, pushing women out of public jobs and shut up in homes, too afraid to come out because of fear of rape  http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/101034/ruth_rosen_on_sexual_terrorism_and_iraqi_women

Fallujah: 85% unemployment, 50%+ houses damaged or destroyed, biometric monitoring of all citizens after razing the whole city (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64292-2005Apr18.html)




n1 from Frontpage (conservative rag, who for some reason, posted a NYT article) (full quote at bottom)



-----Original Message-----
>From: edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com
>Sent: Aug 3, 2007 10:00 AM
>To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
>Subject: eDebate Digest, Vol 23, Issue 2
>
>Send eDebate mailing list submissions to
>	edebate at www.ndtceda.com
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. live in bay area? know student congress? (Jim Hanson)
>   2. Re: live in bay area? know student congress? (Jim Hanson)
>   3. Re: ans Lewis (Duane Hyland)
>   4. ans Korok (Jesse Lewis)
>   5. WDI Pre-Institute Evidence Indexes (Alfred Snider)
>   6. ans Lewis (2) (Michael Korcok)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:09:14 -0700
>From: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>
>Subject: [eDebate] live in bay area? know student congress?
>To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Message-ID: <C423BFA1D1AB4C1D938BC43D2FEECABF at JimHansonPC>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>I need to hire someone to give a real basic intro to student congress--saturday, august 11, 9am to noon, at saratoga high school.
>
>please email me if you have experience in that and can do this.
>
>jim :)
>hansonjb at whitman.edu
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070802/24c4288b/attachment.html 
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:12:59 -0700
>From: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] live in bay area? know student congress?
>To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Message-ID: <5128CF754AE0411297BBFA45DA14ECB8 at JimHansonPC>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>got a person. so this is all solved.
>
>jim :)
>hansonjb at whitman.edu
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Jim Hanson 
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com 
>Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:09 AM
>Subject: [eDebate] live in bay area? know student congress?
>
>
>I need to hire someone to give a real basic intro to student congress--saturday, august 11, 9am to noon, at saratoga high school.
>
>please email me if you have experience in that and can do this.
>
>jim :)
>hansonjb at whitman.edu
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070802/b25252d2/attachment-0001.htm 
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Duane Hyland <privethedge at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] ans Lewis
>To: Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>,	"edebate at ndtceda.com"
>	<edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Message-ID: <169157.76043.qm at web50905.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>HI, Or, we can all just vote for Obama..I hear he'll pull us out of Iraq, and then invade Pakistan - a nation with a fragile, Pro-American (even if only out of convenience) government, and..oh..yeah..nuclear weapons....Sounds good to me.
>
>H.
> 
>
>
>"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson"
>
>"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by  its collision with error." John S. Mill
>
> 
>
>"Have a Cluckity, Cluck, Cluck Day"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       
>---------------------------------
>Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070802/dc8ce512/attachment-0001.htm 
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:03:08 -0600
>From: "Jesse Lewis" <jesse.lewis at gmail.com>
>Subject: [eDebate] ans Korok
>To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
>Message-ID:
>	<4e4560b50708021103p3fd80b66s3a4eba9d446ba1cd at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>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-0001.htm 
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:26:30 -0400
>From: Alfred Snider <alfred.snider at uvm.edu>
>Subject: [eDebate] WDI Pre-Institute Evidence Indexes
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Message-ID: <46B221D6.3000504 at uvm.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>The indexes are available for your inspection at:
>
>http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wdi07cpolindex1.pdf
>
>I am very pleased with the job done by everyone.
>
>Tuna
>
>-- 
>Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna
>Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics
>University of Vermont
>Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
>Global Debate Blog http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/
>Debate Training site http://debate.uvm.edu
>World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/
>GATEWAY TO ALL THINGS DEBATE http://debateoneworld.org
>802-656-0097 office telephone
>802-656-4275 office fax
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:48:26 -0700
>From: Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>
>Subject: [eDebate] ans Lewis (2)
>To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Message-ID: <BAY111-W13F262E0C21056AF74659E4EA0 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>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-0001.htm 
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>End of eDebate Digest, Vol 23, Issue 2
>**************************************




More information about the Mailman mailing list