[eDebate] ans Lewis (3)
Sun Aug 5 00:40:44 CDT 2007
1) Life in Iraq: the US Liberation has saved around 100,000 Iraqi lives compared to leaving Saddam and Sons in power.
Nothing resembling a decent attempt to answer in JL's latest post, just some spastic thrashing about...
a) desperate, 4.5 years too late counterplan with no hope of solvency which has nothing to do with the argument that the liberation has made things much better.
JL: "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."
MK: I kept wading through the slop, sentence after sentence, buoyed by his promise that "It'll be worth it" only to find that, in fact, there was NO, exactly ZERO evidence offered that "funding a coup against Saddam" would have WORKED but it would have certainly resulted in MUCH MORE HORROR than the liberation.
stupid idea, not a shred of solvency evidence, no solvency advocate worth spit. and a more articulated version from Sanchez was CRUSHED 4 years ago if the stupidity is not immediately obvious to you: ( http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-May/048935.html ).
REALITY: sanctions lifted, Saddam and Sons killed.
JL: sanctions lifted, Saddam and Sons left in power, but with huge additional billions to spend on military repression.
only idiots think that is a tough call.
b) random bullshit because he has no argument or evidence
JL: "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)."
MK: the leftist twerp poses with fake sympathy for the families of American soldiers, thinking that he doesn't need argument if he can only pander to the audience: it is disingenuous bullshit for JL to shed alligator tears for a few soldiers while using their deaths for political purposes. US military personnel have suffered very few deaths in the liberation of Iraq: 3,665 have died as I write this, those deaths over the 1601 days since the liberation began, which comes to 2.3 deaths per day. Those men and women should be honored for the sacrifice they have made for their country: those 3665 lives lost are responsible for saving over 100,000 Iraqi lives. I certainly think that the US has obligations to its soldiers which transcend any obligations for the lives of non-US citizens. But those cannot be infinite: the US cannot let, for example, 100,000 Tibetans die just because 5,000 US soldiers might be killed trying to save them. Right? because... you know... human beings matter.
too, if there was poor equipment and poor planning, it was the direct result of a left in this country that has, for my entire lifetime, acted to cut, slash, and decimate military spending.
the "training ground for Al Qaeda" argument is not especially important to me. many on the left seem to believe terrorism is all threat construction anyway, but my view is that crushing Al Qaeda in Iraq will serve much more effectively than anything else we could do to stop terrorism. And even clowns like Greenwald aren't disputing that the Surge is making great progress against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Or have you just missed the news that the Iraqi people are crushing Al Qaeda in Iraq themselves. have I written my quota of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" yet?
and "the destruction of the world's support since 9/11" is crap. it is easily manipulated, every asshole has an opinion, and "being liked by France" is a criterion that only makes sense to posers and panderers. "peace through smiles" does not a foreign policy make. Libya gave up, North Korea dismantled, Israel is talking peace with the Arab League, Sarkozy won, so the world is warming up nicely again. That the US is 30% of the world's economy and 75% of the world's military has nothing to do with that...
c) 2 paragraphs written before he read a few lines down which makes him look really really foolish.
JL: "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: 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.
MK: unh... my advice is this: read the whole post then think about it some then re-read it before answering. that way you will only seem an imbecile rather than an idiot.
d) THE EVIDENCE
this is where I presented the actual evidence of what has happened to Iraqi infant mortality, the Iraqi death rate, and Iraqi life expectancy since the liberation. the synopsis is: 36,000 infants lived and 80,000 adults didn't die and 2 years more life expectancy for each baby born these days than if the pre-liberation numbers had held.
MK: 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: 47.0which 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
JL: "I stand corrected - you FINALLY backed something up with actual numbers. I'm so proud of you."
MK: another piece of advice: around here attitude is purchased with argument. intellectually penniless clowns like you can barely afford to say "hello" much less emote like a monkey eating it's own shit for the tourists.
JL: "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."
MK: yeesh, what an idiot. the death rate is the TOTAL death for the year, including heart attacks, car accidents, blown up by terrorist homicide bombs, shot by thugs, and every other cause of death. so... 80,000 fewer deaths over the last 4 years TOTAL than if the 2002 rate had held...
and NO, i do NOT denounce IraqBodyCount as propaganda. they are a good source for information about Iraqi casualties. I will beat you repeatedly about the head and neck with them shortly. They are a good reference but when I look at casualties below, I treat the IraqBodyCount number as TOO LOW: I assume about 100,000 Iraqi casualties in the fighting when i do that SEPARATE calculation below. In any case, the DEATH RATE numbers INCLUDE any and all actual casualties.
and what a dishonest bullshit twist. those 72,000 casualties are due to the invasion and occupation and not due to Al Qaeda in Iraq suicide attacks, car bombs in markets built by religious fanatics, and shia and sunni murdering each other? what's wrong with your head?
JL: "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."
MK: yah, you did it. posted the single worst example of advocacy research of the last 50 years as support... A study that no one finds credible except other left-wing zealots who can't do math. do you have any frikkin idea at all about what you are doing in this discussion?
hey... JL... how is it that this study reports a possible number of casualties that is 10x higher than what IraqBodyCount and the UNDP and the Iraqi Health Ministry and nearly every other analysis finds? This study has been CRUSHED by its critics for a LOT of reasons.
Your people over at IraqBodyCount, for example, mock this study's results by noting that the authors claimed to have collected over 550,000 death certificates even though only 50,000 were ever issued: no explanation has ever been forthcoming from Les Roberts.
Other critics have pointed out that an easy explanation is that good old Les based ALL of it on what was reported to him by 8 local surveyors from Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad and that those folks likely FUDGED the data. This was the same faculty that conducted the surveys for Richard Garfield's anti-sanctions study under the direction of Saddam Hussein's Ministry of Health: Les picked those locals because Richard recommended them. AFTER ALL, GOOD HELP IS HARD TO FIND AND WHO BETTER TO GENERATE HUGE NUMBERS THAN THE ONES WHO GENERATED THEM FOR SADDAM? And the study used so few cluster points that a little exaggeration here and a tiny increase there and, suddenly, to everyone's amazed embarrassment, 600,000 extra people are pronounced dead.
Look, let's face it, you are full of shit and have no idea what's going on. Start by reading THIS:
( http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/03/01/nature-on-iraq-mortality-study/ )
and the stupidity continues with...
JL: "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."
MK: wow. you really don't have even a SLENDER grasp do you? That quote blows away any argument you might have. Richard Garfield did the mid-90s Iraqi sanctions child mortality study. He used data from Saddam's Ministry of Health (and Saddam picked the same faculty that the Lancet study used to generate its numbers...) to get his conclusions. SADDAM LIED to him. The evidence you just presented EXPLAINS that Saddam LIED to Garfield to create excess child mortality figures which would make the sanctions look horrible, even though they weren't having much of an effect on child mortality.
your "ONLY 870,240" number explains it all. Hey, doorknob, children die in every country: that is measured by child mortality numbers. that 870,240 number is not EXCESS child mortality from sanctions, it is only the TOTAL number of children that died during the sanctions years 1992-2003. Once one corrects for Saddam's manipulated child mortality rate, the EXCESS child mortality from SANCTIONS almost entirely disappears.
But that doesn't change the fact that child mortality has been dropping since the baseline 2002 figure. So about 36,000 child haven't died since we liberated Iraq.
So congratulations, you just took out your own "sanctions bad" argument while saying nothing that answers my "liberation good" argument.
JL: "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: oh shut up you poser. I am leaving out no inconvenient facts. You challenged me to prove that things were better now than before the liberation by claiming that i was making it all up. I proved it and now you are accusing me of more duplicity.
I don't know how much of an effect the sanctions had on the death rate, life expectancy, or the child mortality rate. And neither do you. The early Lancet studies on child mortality were discreditted by everyone as gross exaggerations, leaving only Richard Garfield's bombastic 250,000 excess child deaths study. The problem with that is Garfield relied on statistics from Saddam's Ministry of Health and survey data from Saddam-selected faculty at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. That analysis has since been CRUSHED and ironically enough, you yourself present the correction above. So you have no evidence left that the sanctions killed anyone.
In any case, the liberation resulted in the sanctions being removed. If you get to claim Iraqi deaths caused by car bombs set off by Al Qaeda in Iraq as the fault of the liberation, i sure as hell get to claim any benefits of lifting the sanctions as good done by the liberation.
JL: "The earlier high rate of death as a result of sanctions imposed by the US via the UN, right..."
MK: prove it. how much of it? liberation lifted the sanctions so i don't really care.
JL: "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."
MK: look doorknob, you have exactly ZERO NADA ZILCH NO evidence that the liberation of Iraq has made things worse, raised the death rate, raised child mortality, lowered life expectancies, or even caused a paper cut. NONE. did you ever do a report using NO SOURCES?
JL: "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."
MK: you are stark raving insane.
Sunni: Saddam Hussein and Sons
Shia: mass murder victims on the order of 300,000 - 500,000
Kurd: mass murder victims on the order of 200,000 - 300,000
I must admit, of all the absolutely, bottom-line idiotic things you have written, "because Sunni and Shia weren't killing each other then" is the most idiotic.
but then he just begins to incoherently rant away...
JL: "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."
MK: you are an idiot.
AND THAT IS ALL FOR 1a. No evidence offered for things are worse than before the liberation and no evidence that they are getting worse now. Just idiotic nonsense from JL, who has pretty much not a clue about what he is discussing. The liberation has saved about 80,000 adult Iraqis from death, has allowed about 36,000 Iraqi infants to stay alive who would have died, and has added about 2 years of life to everyone in comparison to a continuation of the situation of 2002.
1a) The Liberation vs Saddam and Sons Casualties Comparison
I know it is difficult to believe that someone could do even worse than they did on mortality/lifespan, but JL does it...
my argument was this:
"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. "
JL: "Paradise. That's impressive. Even Bush wouldn't call Iraq "paradise."
MK: you are an idiot.
JL: "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."
MK: wow, more smarmy crap. you explain to those people who Saddam and Sons would have butchered but are alive today why you chose to have them murdered. let's see if they return you the favor. oh and there are an extra 100,000 people you have to explain it to than I do.
well, let me give it a try. The vast majority of your dead relatives are dead because Al Qaeda in Iraq and religious zealots killed them in car bombs and suicide murders. Let's go kill those fuckers, okay?
sanctions wouldn't have saved you. but you didn't mention sanctions, so live with it - no new arguments in 7ar! really, sanctions are not the answer you are looking for because 1) no estimate of the effect of sanctions that anyone reputable still believes and 2) the liberation lifted the sanctions. you'll figure it out if you keep trying though...
JL: "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)."
MK: you are an idiot. just so everyone can catch their breath... the annihilation of the Marsh Arabs was not the fault of Saddam Hussein but of George Bush?
oh, i forgot. the sunnis and the shia weren't killing each other before the liberation, so it MUST have been George Bush that diverted the rivers.
AND THAT'S IT FOR 1b. Even adding about 50% to the total Iraqi casualty figures over the last 4 1/2 years that come from IraqBodyCount, the UNDP, and most other counting organizations, the Liberation has NET saved about 100,000 Iraqis from death at the hands of Saddam and Sons.
The rest I am uninterested in.
JL presented evidence out of context and doesn't try very hard to justify it.
JL is just clueless about O'Hanlon and Pollack too.
Whoever this guy is learned to pose with an attitude without actually learning how to think critically. Debate can only do so much, I suppose.
Recharge--play some free games. Win cool prizes too!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman