[eDebate] Ans Korcok (3)
Sun Aug 5 10:40:56 CDT 2007
"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?" - O'Hanlon and Pollack
Shuck and jive - MK
I'll get back to that much later. But for now, I thought I'd try something
different - only responding to things that weren't personal attacks. So this
post will be MUCH SHORTER than it could be. Some, however, remain as they
are in context of something that had to be answered.
>a) desperate, 4.5 years too late counterplan with no hope of solvency
I agree. The surge is a HUGE mistake. And there is not hope of solving the
Iraq situation with the current people who created it still in power here.
>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.
Poor boy. Yet you felt the obligation to wade through it to enlighten the
public. You are a true warrior - Fighting Keyboardists!
Nowhere did I endorse "funding a coup" - notice the qualifier "possibly" - I
was referring to lifting the sanctions for a post-Saddam Iraq that the
Iraqis created for themselves. Of course you avoid that because the
sanctions argument throws the "less children are dying" out the window as
the bar was set artificially high in the first place. And that's all you
>stupid idea, not a shred of solvency evidence, no solvency advocate worth
We were not discussing solvency - we were discussing whether things were
better since "liberation." And the "paradise" you referred to doesn't
>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.
If the Iraqis were people yearning to breathe free, only needing the White
Man to come along and save them, why wouldn't a CIA funded revolt work? Hell
- assassinate Saddam & co. Or, if you MUST invade a country without a
pretext that pans out, how about sending in enough military force to get the
job done BEYOND the immediate toppling of the regime?
>b) random bullshit because he has no argument or evidence
Yes, we know your tactics. I suggest seeing a therapist about the projection
of your faults onto others.
Man, I'm really tying my hands here. All you have is personal attacks on
someone you know NOTHING about. For all you know the person typing these
words could be playing "devil's advocate," like debaters are SUPPOSED to be
able to do. You claim to be able to peer into my soul for my true self,
seeing someone crying "alligator tears." You and Bush should discuss your
ability to see deep into someone's psyche - he saw into Putin's soul and saw
a great guy who would never poison someone with Polonium.
>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.
So we'll be seeing your post advocating intervention in Darfour soon? With
the army that's currently enmired in Iraq and stretched to the breaking
point. Which is something else you're "uninterested in" and snipped rather
than replying to.
>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.
Somehow, in the 90s under Clinton, not a soldier sent into battle came home
in a body bag due to enemy action. Kosovo - 0 deaths. Bosnia - 0 deaths. And
before you say "What about Somalia?" Bush Sr sent the troops into Somalia in
the last weeks of his presidency. Whether that was to save his legacy or
give the new guy something to deal with is up to you.
>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?
So you think that giving the enemy a place they can attack us without
packing a lunch is good for America's future security. And "crushing Al
Qaeda in Iraq..." Is it possible that terrorists are learning their trade
with convenient targets, then rotating out and being readied for missions
here in the US? No, terrorists don't work like that. You can see into my
mind and see what I'm thinking, so obviously you know exactly what the
terrorists think too. Why are you sitting there reading this and
typing instead of using your powers for the Pentagon?
>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
Yes, only France. You got me. I'm a French agent who only cares if France
loves America. Leave that to O'Reilly, it's beneath you. Or above you.
"Peace through smiles." No, peace through fighting the people who attacked
us. Remember Afghanistan? Yeah, we're still there, but we are at mininmal
levels because Rumsfeld, Cheney et al just HAD to get their Iraq war on
while the American people could still be counted on to support war if Bin
Laden was mentioned within a sentence of Saddam.
And then more criciticism that something is stupid...tactics for a position
of weakness - like intellectual terrorism.
>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.
The "actual evidence" that was asked for some time ago.
>MK: These are the numbers from IndexMundi ...
Actually they're from the CIA World Factbook and reproduced in IndexMundi so
you get partial credit.
>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
And yet you continue to engage me...which makes you the tourist
giggling like an idiot.
He helpfully points out the sectarian violence (amid many personal attacks)
as if this wasn't mentioned previously...as if it's not happening in
"liberated" Iraq but it's just something that normally goes on.
But that violence is DIRECTLY RELATED to the invasion! Were those happening
under Saddam? There was a strong central government in power, it was
deposed, then everything blew the fuck up and we weren't prepared. If we had
landed on them with 500,000 troops this most likely wouldn't have happened.
Again with the poor planning by recycled Nixonians.
You say things are better after "liberation." Those bombings and murders are
occuring after "liberation." Yet you want to discount them, even though they
are part of the metric for "things are better after liberation." If you have
a million dollar a year job, a lovely wife, great kids, a house overlooking
a lake, but have to dodge car bombs to and from work every day and your
shopping has to be done in fear of a suicide bomber, how is your quality of
And then he takes the bait regarding the Lancet report:
>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
You have essentially done what Greenwald did on the original Brookings
op-ed. Pointing out the people who did it had alterior motives for making
things look better/worse. Unfortunately you snip the part later where I
point out that Greenwald was RIGHT because O'Hanlon and Pollack were
"managed" by the military to give the "correct" view on the war.
More personal attacks...and then this:
>MK: I am leaving out no inconvenient facts.
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
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.
>(after showing that Saddam and Sons killed a lot of Shia and Kurds, which
somehow is religious violence) and 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.
It wasn't Sunni-Shiia violence, fucktard (sorry...you're rubbing off on me),
it was Saddam-everyone violence. He was a secular leader who only got around
to putting "God is Great" on the Iraqi flag prior to the first Gulf War in
an attempt to turn the war into something noble - an attempt that failed.
The atrocities weren't because Saddam was waging a holy war - he was killing
people he saw as threats to his power.
The average Iraqi sees no net improvement...unless you have a military
minder who knows who you need to talk to. Like O'Hanlon & Pollack had in the
part you neatly snip away as something you're "uninterested in."
>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.
No argument, just personal attack. Another deduction. And you say
others have no debate skills...
>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
Sanctions. Mortality levels - artificially high. No sanctions after. Levels
drop after artificial causes eliminated. Apparently I can't be too wordy or
you'll get lost in *ad hominems. *And again - evidence presented at the end
of the post that things are worse - just snipped away.
>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.
Once again - can't defend YOUR words so we get another *ad hominem.*
>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.
"Hello sir. My crystal ball tells me you WOULD be dead had Saddam stayed in
power. However it also tells me that a US funded coup may have worked as
well...oh, and you die in a car bomb attack tomorrow along with your entire
family. So never mind."
There were other ways to depose Saddam & Sons. And where to next? Zimbabwe?
If we're deposing dictators to save people, we have a lot of work to do. The
White Man's Burden that you have vicariously taken never ends...
>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...
Yes, liberation lifted the sanctions - that's the point. You compare current
mortality against prewar mortality as if there were no outside influences
that may have inflated the *ante bellum* mortality rates.
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
>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.
They were revolting against Saddam and we didn't aid them - another way he
could have been deposed without the hellhole (sorry, "paradise") Iraq has
become. But you're right - that's inconvenient so let's dismiss it.
Remember what was said earlier:
>MK: I am leaving out no inconvenient facts.
Now, when you get to the final part of my post that was NEW MATERIAL showing
that "liberated" Iraq is a hellhole - for example no electricity, which was
previously claimed by MK to be untrue...we get this:
>The rest I am uninterested in.
No shit. Especially the ones that reference your "paradise" of Iraq. People
are living longer (thanks to your single source) yet their lives are
hellish. Yet from your air conditioned home you call it "paradise."
Here is the information that he's "uninterested in:"
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.
*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'
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 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.
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
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
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
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:
*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
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:
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!
>JL is just clueless about O'Hanlon and Pollack too.
And he snipped out the relevant post regarding them as well. Here it is
Regarding a consultant specializing in managing information:
HH: Why don't they put him in charge of war message management,
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 -
MA: - because as you know, Steve was a very high official in
President's office -
MA: And he also went over to Iraq to look at the communications
capabilities, and he came back with a number of recommendations
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. . .
MA: The military organized the O'Hanlon-Pollack tour, and I
until I read your interview with Mike O'Hanlon that they'd had
with General Petraeus . . . .
MA: That had not been reported before. That was very
fascinating. But I
think that shows you that the military's getting better at
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman