[eDebate] Ans Korcok (2)

Jesse Lewis jesse.lewis
Sat Aug 4 18:21:00 CDT 2007


To the eDebate community: I will mention in advance that I have snipped a
lot of quotes that MK used of mine and quoting quotes can get confusing...I
respond to his responses, and hopefully that won't get too unwieldy.
Anything I said that he referrs to is in the record and can be reviewed.
Apologies if this winds up being too much trouble to read.


>MK: 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.

"Questionable quotes." You asked for citations where people said that it
would be easy, or elections would be the beginning of the end, and I gave
them to you. And of course they are dismissed because they don't fit in with
your narrative.

And as for a shred of evidence that things are worse than before
liberation...just wait. It'll be worth it. Okay, I'll give you a hint -
lifting sanctions (possibly by funding a coup against Saddam rather than
invasion?) wold have saved far more lives without killing off a lot of
Iraqis in the process.

And I know one thing worse than before Iraq's "liberation:" famililes in our
country destroyed due to poor planning and equipment (yeah, a bake sale for
body armor - that's how you fund a 21st Century Army), a training ground for
Al Qaeda (notice that you haven't attempted to refute THAT), and destruction
of the world's support after 9/11 (again, no comment from you on that
issue).

>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...


So standards for school should be that kids learn. So let's not bother
testing them to get actual STATISTICS that prove that they learn. Okay,
assuming (STILL without evidence from you) that child mortality, etc are
better than before the war. Well, for 13 years there were sanctions that, as
sanctions normally do, hurt the people while those in power are unaffected
(remember the palaces and the gaudy furnishings?) Again, I challenge you to
show that what you claim to be the case is actually the case. The Internet
is a wonderful place for information, but I'm not doing your research for
you.

>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...

Okay...so I can't prove that things are worse than the conditions that you
can't prove...therefore I'm losing. YOU initially posited that conditions
are much improved than they were under Saddam, therefore YOU must back up
your position with actual evidence other than repeating that "things are
better." And if you continually repeat  yourself with the SAME POINTS about
lifespan, infant mortality but ignore things like quality of life by
dismissing any reports of raw sewage, no electricity as just made up - well,
that IS bullshit.

>These are the numbers from IndexMundi ... Iraq infant mortality rate per
1000 live births:
>( http://www.indexmundi.com/iraq/infant_mortality_rate.html )2002: 57.62006:
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:
67.4years 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

I stand corrected - you FINALLY backed something up with actual numbers. I'm
so proud of you. However, there is a flip side - how many Iraqi civilans are
dead SPECIFICALLY due to the invasion and occupation, as well as the
sectarian strife that Saddam kept a lid on but our leaders didn't expect? I
know you will denouce any sources as "propaganda," but since the US
government doesn't even bother to count, we have no "official" numbers. But
here is one such site: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/. They have 68,347 to
74,753 civilian deaths reported. Which comes close to the number you
claim has been saved.

 Then there is this:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ Study:
War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths
But I'm sure the British medical journal The Lancet is just a liberal front
group.

And as far as the deaths of children...could it be that sanctions resulted
in so many deaths that the lifting of sanctions would HAVE to have a
positive effect, regardless of the chaos that has ensued? Perhaps:
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=25417

            "According to al-Dulaimi of the Health Ministry, the real figure
for child mortality during the sanctions era was 870,240,
             rather than the 3 million reported by Hussein."

Yeah, ONLY 870,240. A drop in the bucket, really. But since that's your
primary means of measuring success in Iraq you would be a massive hypocrite
to say "oh well. Saddam was bad."

             "The UN imposed sanctions on Iraq in 1991 after Saddam Hussein
invaded Kuwait. A figure of 5,900 deaths of children under
             the age of five every month, was reported by the old regime,
according to local officials."

             In response to Saddam's statistics, the World Health
Organization (WHO) printed a report in 1995, showing an average of
             4,500 deaths among children in the country every month.

             But according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF),
reports during the last eight years of the sanctions showed
             that half million children in that age group were registered
dead, due to poor nutrition and bad health conditions.

Yeah, what exaggeration. They said 5900 kids a month died, when it was
really 4500. But those 4500 kids per month are still dead.

I understand why there were sanctions - Saddam was a nasty dictator and we
didn't want his military rebuilt. However to say "infant mortality is down,
life span is up," etc without admitting that those were artificially
high/low respectively before the war is leaving out inconvenient facts -
something you are very skilled at doing.

>MK: 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.

The earlier high rate of death as a result of sanctions imposed by the US
via the UN, right...

>Now that is actual DATA about what matters.

Too bad it took a few days for you to dig it up since you give so much value
to that data from a single source - did you ever do a report using just one
source? That gets you a D if you're lucky.

>And that means, without even looking at the direct effects of getting rid
of Saddam and Sons,

Which is a good idea, because Sunni and Shia weren't killing each other
then, which is the bulk of the violence in Iraq today

>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.

No, because sanctions would still be intact and even more than that would be
dead. A net improvement in deaths (with a lot of American deaths thrown in
to balance things out) doesn't mean much for the people who will or have
become terrorists because of what they see as our war on Arabs and Islam.
But we can just kill them all...can't we? We still haven't gotten the main
guy since our "ally" Musharaff isn't too keen on getting him (or letting us
get him). And if we hadn't outsourced the job to warlords in the first place
we might have gotten him before he left Afghanistan.

>That means CRITERIA is won and IMPACTS are linked to those criteria. thank
you, thank you, thank you. no... really... you're too >kind...

No, that wasn't applause, that was the buzzer sounding which means you are
incorrect. We do have some Rice-a-Roni - The San Francisco Treat! - as a
parting gift. Thank you for playing.

>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. "

Paradise. That's impressive. Even Bush wouldn't call Iraq "paradise."

And again - explain that to all the people who have had lost their families
as a direct result of the war and see if they give you a big ol' hug in
thanks. I wish I had mentioned the sanctions last post but I don't think
that would have made much difference.

And the killing of the Marsh Arabs...you mean the ones that Bush 41's
administration encouraged to rise up, then declined to aid them. That might
have helped avoid this whole travesty. But then Bush 43 brought his father's
friends along on this fun ride we're all on today (or they took him along).

>*****section 2: out of context lying cheating bullshit artist*****

Is this a preview of your autobiography?

>The worst part is how JL uses out of context evidence.

Oh, never mind.

Wait a sec - out of context evidence as opposed to someone who cites no
evidence whatsoever until his 3rd post, and then he cites precisely 1 source
for something he's repeatedly claimed? How do you sit down with those huge
cojones?

You asked who said we would be leaving after elections. The Ambassador said
we would be drawing down forces after the election as the Iraqi army took
over (remember "as they stand up we will stand down" from 3 years ago?) Why
would we have plans to draw down forces unless people in charge believed
that things would be vastly improved? And why have so many troops had
multiple tours in Iraq, even long before the 'surge?' Because we weren't
getting out then and aren't getting out now. And blaming Democrats for the
surge would mean that you have no idea what is going on - the surge was
announced after elections as a last ditch effort to save Bush's legacy.

So why did the ideas that the ambassador laid out not come to pass? Because
the Iraqi army is a nonfactor, even this long after the war. Which goes to
lack of planning, etc. And nevermind that Bremer disbanded the original
Iraqi army without thinking "hey, maybe we should have them turn in their
weapons first!" And of course ongoing violence - violence that has resulted
in us, as occupiers, putting up walls to separate Sunni and Shia without the
Iraqi gov't being consulted. And they think the Iraqi gov't is a
puppet...why would they reach that conclusion?

>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.

But again, those milestones were there assuming that after the elections
things would roll along smoothly. They did not. Violence actually increased
in "paradise." Every prediction the administration has made has been wrong.
Yet we're told that violence will surge uncontrollably if we leave.
Suddenly, they have become Oracles? No, they know fear is all they have.

And besides, we can't have benchmarks. Or milestones. Or even guidelines.
Only Bush has the one true way to victory in Iraq! And it's classified so
that even he can't read it.

Regarding my challenge to answer the question posed by O'Hanlon and Pollack
in the Brookings op-ed, we have this:

>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...

The original question was "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?"

So you're saying we can wear down our forces inevitably? At some point the
army will break - that's not a comment on the quality of our troops, that's
the truth. And if you still claim you answered the question, you apparently
believe American troops should KEEP dying indefinitely while Iraqi leaders
fail to do their part.

Thank you for supporting the troops.

And before you decry me saying the army will break, let's look at a couple
of know-nothings who say it already has or will shortly:

*Gen. Colin Powell*: The "active Army is about broken," Powell said. Even
beyond Iraq, the Army and Marines have to "grow in size, in my military
judgment," he said, adding that Congress must provide significant additional
funding to sustain them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/17/AR2006121700494.html

*Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly*: In a "memo to other military leaders
[Helmly expressed] "deepening concern" about the continued readiness of his
troops, who have been used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and warning that
his branch of 200,000 soldiers "is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken'
force."" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51687-2005Jan5.html
Yeah, Generals are notorious for not supporting the troops. Like they know
anything about leading an army. Oh, wait. Powell believed in overwhelming
force...too bad we didn't send in 4X as many troops as Rumsfeld wanted. Iraq
might actually BE paradise today and have a flourishing democracy.
Unfortunately we left it to cold warriors who tried to do war with the "army
they had, not the army they might wish to have." Even though they didn't
HAVE to have the war at all...but then the PNAC would have worked to get
Bush in as figurehead for their guys for naught.

But getting back to your "answer:"

>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 >rhey 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.

No, still bullshit. Skills in answering the question you wish was asked - at
that you excel. Answering questions directly? FAIL.

Again: "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?"

You apparently say "indefinitely" and "to infinity."

I sincerely thank for for actually posting ONE source prior to shitting all
over the SEVERAL I used to prove that there were some who said we would draw
down our forces after the constitution/elections and that those events would
be HUGE turning points. However I notice you skipped Rumsfeld and Cheney
saying that the war would in effect be a cakewalk ("last throes," "greeted
as liberators," "I doubt six months") so I must deduce that you grant those
are true?

So we should leave rebuilding Iraq to the same people whose incompetence has
thrown it into turmoil. Oh, excuse me, I meant "paradise" but if I'm not
careful the damn spell check keeps turning it into "turmoil." There - now
it's disabled.

I do admire your skill at quoting scads of text to make it look like you're
responding line-by-line while surreptitiously (sorry, don't know if that's
right since I disabled the spellcheck last sentence) leaving out the
inconvenient bits that you can't think of a response to (damn need a
dangling participle checker). What I left out of yours was for the purposes
of length. If you want a more specific response to them feel free to
resubmit them.

And thank you for not using any straw men, although you can't help but use
the *ad hominems* to distract everyone from your lack of actual evidence.

And as a parting shot, we have these articles regarding life in paradise:

             *
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/30/iraq.humanitarian/index.html*<http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/30/iraq.humanitarian/index.html>
*WASHINGTON (CNN)* -- About eight million Iraqis --
          nearly a third of the population -- are without water, sanitation,
food and shelter and need emergency aid, a report by two
          major relief agencies says.

              Oxfam and the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Coordination
Committee in Iraq have issued a briefing paper that says violence
              in Iraq is masking a humanitarian crisis that has worsened
since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

              http://www.thestar.com/News/article/243231 Iraq's water, power
systems failing  Aug 04, 2007 02:31 PM Associated Press
             BAGHDAD ? Iraq's electricity grid could collapse any day
because of insurgent sabotage, rising demand, fuel shortages and
provincial
             officials who are unplugging local power stations from the
national system, electricity officials said today.

Yes, partly due to the insurgency, but isn't that a consequence of the war?
How is there insurgent sabotage in paradise?

And I apologize profusely for saying that Baghdad has an electricity
crisis...it's electricity AND potable water. From that liberal rag the
Christian Science Monitor:

             http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0811/p01s03-woiq.html  Iraqis
thirst for water and power
             BAGHDAD ? This summer, the third since the fall of Baghdad, has
been the worst yet when it comes to basic services. Interruptions
             to electricity and water supplies - caused by both decay and
sabotage - are driving up the frustrations of millions of Iraqis.

Yeah, all the problems that MK says aren't occuring. So by all means avoid
doing a quick news.google.com search since it needs to pass through MK's
filter - he is the kidney that filters out liberalism produces the urine of
truth. Bathe in his golden shower of victory!

And as far as the Brookings op-ed that started this whole thing, we have
this explanation as to the optimism:


http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/81e511e5-3b54-4ba1-ac84-3087115abcfd

              Regarding a consultant specializing in managing information:
             HH: Why don't they put him in charge of war message management,
because the
             Bush White House is just not good at this.
             MA: Right, and this is part of the talent drain that's
occurring in this White House -
             HH: Yeah.
             MA: - because as you know, Steve was a very high official in
the Vice
             President's office -
             HH: Right.
             MA: And he also went over to Iraq to look at the communications
             capabilities, and he came back with a number of recommendations
about even
             some of the logistical things to help people get those stories
out. Now I
             think the military's getting smarter about it, as you know. . .
.
             HH: Yeah.
             MA: The military organized the O'Hanlon-Pollack tour, and I
didn't know
             until I read your interview with Mike O'Hanlon that they'd had
an interview
             with General Petraeus . . . .
             HH: Right.
             MA: That had not been reported before. That was very
fascinating. But I
             think that shows you that the military's getting better at
this.

Who would write a positive piece when they're shuttled around by people who
have been told to only show the "good side" of
Iraq? Well, O'Hanlon & Pollack might be 2 very good examples.

I've got more. Let me know if  you're interested. I can autograph your ass
before I hand it to you (once again) for a nominal fee.

Game, set, match. Don't go and pull a McEnroe and throw your racket, now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070804/f4fc0eb2/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list