« India-China Growth Rate Comparison | Main | The Seeds of Technology »




The US never deliberately kills civilians (if we wanted to, we could kill 1 billion people in an hour). The US has accidentally killed about 30,000 innocents. The terrorists in Iraq have themselves DELIBERATELY killed about 30,000 additional innocents.

The accidental vs. intentional concept is beyond the grasp of most anti-Americans, as the US, Britain, Australia, etc. are the only countries in the world noble enough to try to prevent innocent deaths.

Plus, note that Saddam killed about 2 million people (something anti-Americans lament). The UN Oil-for-food scandal also killed about 500,000.

So it is indisputable that Iraq has become much safer for innocents after the US invasion. Now, 25 million people live in a Democracy in Iraq, and 25 million in Afghanistan.

Any other questions? How about answering mine from the article?


If you have unintentionally killed 30,000 people as collateral damage, then how many others have you killed intentionally?
What is the total carnage caused by the Coalition?

Why did you angrily dispute earlier reports of sextuple-digit casualties,
when you are now openly admitting that your errors alone amount to 30,000?

You need to understand the difference between terrorism
and resistance to occupation.

The U.S. attacked Iraq on a false pretext,
and now their idiotic circular excuse for indefinite occupation is that there is resistance.

Of course there's going to be resistance to an occupation that even the occupier himself admits was unjust.

GK, I understand you are into "future" and "modernity,"
but that really shouldn't mean callous mass murder



What is the total carnage caused by the Coalition?

The coalition has brought democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, totaling 50 million people. As I said in the article, your type is always opposed to democracy.

then how many others have you killed intentionally?

America only kills terrorists (like your hero Zarqawi) intentionally. America actually helps innocents live a better life. That is why you oppose America.

Why do you approve of Saddam DELIBERATE killing of millions? You have dodged this question in a cowardly manner, revealing your true preferences. It seems you are the friend of mass murderers.

You need to understand the difference between terrorism
and resistance to occupation.

Then why are terrorists killing innocent Iraqis much more than US troops? Of course, we both know that you support the killing of innocents (since you excuse Saddam's death chambers and poison gas), but I want to see what your phony answer to this is.

The U.S. attacked Iraq on a false pretext,

Nope, it was fully justified by the UN's own resolution. Your lie is already debunked in the article. Go learn something about the world sometime.

Plus, if you oppose the liberation of Iraq, do you also oppose the liberation of Afghanistan? How about Clinton's actions in Bosnia? Innocents died there too. Answer the question, if you have the courage.

Also, Sibylle, you have not answered the questions from the article, even though I told you to before.

This is typical anti-American cowardice. You blindly hate and envy America, yet are too ashamed to admit this deeply held belief. If it is that important to you, why are you ashamed to admit it? This is because even you know that your position is evil. I'm so glad I am not like you.

You are intellectually and morally way out of your league in this debate, and you know it.

Sibylle Rauch

You believe most of these victims to be "terrorists," so what is the problem in estimating the number?

Maybe because the number is a little too sky-high to be excused as an anti-terrorist raid?

The coalition has brought democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan

As Bashar Assad said: "What's the benefit of democracy if you're dead?"

Why do you approve of Saddam DELIBERATE killing of millions?

I'm not aware of Hussein killing "millions," you would have to brief me on that. The only 7-digit number of Iraqi victims I recall were the people killed by the cruel 13-year U.S.-led sanctions

America actually helps innocents live a better life. That is why you oppose America.

Maybe you can explain to me how rubbing an American flag in the face of a Saddam Hussein statue helps people live a better life.
That looks to me like it's designed to humiliate the "darkies"
and a lame attempt to exalt the United States as a false idol to be worshipped.

Then why are terrorists killing innocent Iraqis much more than US troops?

'Azzam al-Amriki (hafidhahullah) has been indicted for treason by the United States in 2006, and faces the death penalty.

If you reserve the right to kill your own traitors, why do you deny the same right to Iraq?

Nope, it was fully justified by the UN's own resolution.

I am of course talking about your WMD/mushroom cloud claims.
That was the reason given for the slaughter, and it was later retracted by the same people who made it, just to make sure the carnage is completely meaningless and demonic.

do you also oppose the liberation of Afghanistan?

Yes, but I do support the liberation of the Twin Towers

you have not answered the questions from the article, even though I told you to before.

Well, I have read them but I think you know my answer to all.
If there's any specific one you're unclear about, you can point it out

You blindly hate and envy America, yet are too ashamed to admit this deeply held belief.

I do hate America, I don't know where you got the idea that I am hiding this sentiment.
It's actually a rational hatred and effort to destroy it, not "blind" as you put it.

I cannot 'envy' it because it's made up primarily of working class losers.

America is nothing. You don't even understand how pathetic you look when you are praising this toilet of a country


Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a true, rabidly venomous anti-American hatemonger in 'Sibylle Rauch'. Read her words carefully, as someone this open about her hate does not come along often.

Some choice sentences from this hatemonger :

"I do hate America"

"I cannot 'envy' America because it's made up primarily of working class losers." Of course, Sibylle is ignorant about economics, which clearly show America is the wealthiest large country in the world. I don't know what country this creature comes from, but I am certain that it is a poorer, less free country than the US.

"America is nothing. You don't even understand how pathetic you look when you are praising this toilet of a country"

"It's actually a rational hatred and effort to destroy it, not "blind" as you put it."

"I'm not aware of Saddam Hussein killing any innocents"

"I oppose the invasion of Afghanistan, but I support the liberation of the Twin Towers"

These are just a few. This level of juvenile jealousy usually subsides at age 8 for normal people. Sibylle never got past that.

In fact, Sibylle has inspired me to create a new term - the Chickenterrorist. A Chickenterrorist is one who deeply supports the goals and ideology of Al-Qaeda, yet, unlike terrorists who are actually willing to die for their beliefs, Sibylle just sits around and talks about them. Sibylle is a Chickenterrorist.

Oh, and Sibylle,

I am a "darkie" as you call them. I am Indian. Let me tell you that :

India is the most pro-US country in the world.

and also that :

The US will still be the only Superpower in 2030.

Why no other country will match America's wealth.

Why do you use a computer and Internet connection, to read blogs, all of which were invented by America? Your country could never have invented these things..

Plus, why is no other country doing anything to prevent genocide in Darfur (I know you support that genocide, but anyway)? Who other than America could stop this genocide?


GK, you are just sick...

Stop crying about "Anti-Americans", it's just pathetic, bro...



Are you defending Sibylle's statements? She has openly said she hates America, and seeks the destruction of America.

What is your position on her statements?



"I am a "darkie" as you call them. I am Indian."

Then you should remember what Gaundi give your people... ;)
Now you are "pro-american"... LOL


"Are you defending Sibylle's statements? She has openly said she is anti-American, and seeks the destruction of America."

You are blind, GK, you even cannot see the true meaning in her words, pathetic...

"What is your position on her statements?"

I think sooner or later the true justice will come upon the f***-heads. Period.



So you are an anti-American, AND a racist. The latter was known from your earlier comments on this thread. The former is a bit of a surprise.

Merely saying 'you are blind' and 'you do not get it' while dodging specific questions consistently is evidence of your inability to defend your ideology, and proof that it is not based on logic.

You are blind, GK, you even cannot see the true meaning in her words, pathetic...

What, pray tell, is the true meaning of her words? And how does your approval of her words make you anything other than a rabid anti-American?


Now, GK, tell me:

1) what is wrong to be anti-American?

2) why did you conclude that I'm a racist?



1) One has every right to be Anti-American. But they should a) be open about it, and b) not lie about demonstrable facts. Almost all anti-Americans violate these two rules.

So are going to admit to being anti-American, or not?

2) You continue to insist that someone of my nationality should have political views different from those that I hold. You do not believe an Indian should be pro-US. That is racist.

P.S. You don't even know how to spell Gandhi's name, yet claim to know more about India than me. Pathetic....


GK, let me help you out here a little bit.

I dont think you are an Indian any more, you are an "American" now, who has a problem of the Ethnocentrism.
You have a tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of your own culture, which is "American" now. Got the point?

The real racism and hidden genocide are on the streets of Iraqi cities right now...

And US is fully in shit there, and it's even cannot pull out the troops from Iraq without creating a whole mess of the Civil War, during which more people WILL die, and we, US citizens are gonna pay for many years for doings of the f***-heads in White House.


"So are going to admit to being anti-American, or not?"


"You do not believe an Indian should be pro-US. That is racist."

What a brain-fart... Do you know what is racism?! Rasism is a doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various "human races" or ethnic groups.
Did I postulate a hierarchy in this case?
I have a lot of friends from India, and I respect their culture, and I know it has wonderful school of Life and Freedom, but you, GK is an artifact...

"You don't even know how to spell Gandhi's name"

Sometimes I even misspell my name, but it doesnt change the thing.
There can be many variations in the translation, or transliteration of foreign words, which allow you to spell a word in the way it sounds.



Why so much shame and cowardice in answering a simple question?

Sibylle says she is anti-American. You say you support her words. You say there is nothing wrong in being anti-American.

Yet you cannot admit to what is already obvious.

Why so much shame about what you believe so deeply?

Plus, you are a racist. Racism constitutes saying people of certain races should hold certain views (somehow assuming your warped worldview is the template). Virtually any Indian reading this would readily call you on your racism.


GK, if you are trying to be a psychoanalyst, you are doing a bad job.
You are jumping from one conclusion to another constantly drumming the "anti-American" drum, are you in a competition of some sort?

"Plus, you are a racist"

You forgot to add also that I'm a fascist... :D

"Racism constitutes saying people of certain races should hold certain views"

1) Did I say that?
2) That's not the racism, my friend
3) Indian is a Culture, not a race

What will be your race, GK, then: Indo-Aryan, Dravidian or Mongoloid?



You are babbling nonsensically.

You have defended ALL of Sibylle's words, including her happiness that the twin towers fell, and hope that America is destroyed. You even say there is nothing wrong with being anti-American. At the same time, you can't admit to being anti-American, nor can you explain how approval of 9/11 is not anti-American.

There is really no more substance than that to anything you are writing.

I am unimpressed with your textbook left-wing bigotry against a dark-skinned person who does not follow your approved script for what they do think.



Well, I'm unimpressed with your textbook right-wing bigotry...

I guess, you dont see the true meaning of anti-American with your simple mind.
If a person does not accept the doings of the current president, that does not mean such person is anti-American, he/she's just not accepting the currect situation in homeland politics.
An anti-American person would be who hates the American culture, and American people. I think you are mixing two different baskets here...
I dont think Sibylle hates American people, she hates what the American government did to a foreign country without a right to do that.
GK, being in dissagreement with your government is normal in a democratic country, if a country is punishing that person for such dissagreement, then such country is a dictatorship, and the free speech is forbiden.
And if you want my opinion about 9/11, here it is: that was a terrible fact that thousands people died that day, I have friends of friends who died there, so i'm not joking about that; however, I do believe that 9/11 is an inside job, which has direct relationship to the excuse why Bush administration went to Iraq.
I (and many others who were claimed by you, GK) simply cannot be anti-American, because I cannot hate my family, my friends, the history of my grand fathers, but I do hate Bush administration and what they did to the country...Amen.

But the funny fact is that the true anti-American people are those who hate native American tribes. :)
The bottom line is that the true Americans are few, and getting drunk in reservations, running their small casinos, still trying to keep their pride...
The rest of US came here as immigrants and colonists.


I dont think Sibylle hates American people, she hates what the American government

How does a statement like ""I cannot 'envy' America because it's made up primarily of working class losers." have anything to do with the US government?

You continue to surprise me with your stupidity, Alex.

GK, being in dissagreement with your government is normal in a democratic country,

Not if you take glee in the misfortune of your country, AND have no ideas to help you country. Adults see through your phony fascade. Doing this makes you are anti-American (which you are).

and the free speech is forbiden.

You are the one who wants to suppress Fox News only because it is the one network out of 8 that disagrees with your leftist religion, and you were humilated in the debate on the other thread.

however, I do believe that 9/11 is an inside job,

Why is there not a single democratic congressman who believes what you do? Isn't that a reason to question your deranged conspiracy theories? Plus Sibylle is happy about 9/11, which means she does not share your view that it was an inside job.

Are you really this stupid?


Alright, I'm going to put aside all the personal insults, because it's really childish, and I'm tired to go down to your level, GK.

"How does a statement like ""I cannot 'envy' America because it's made up primarily of working class losers." have anything to do with the US government?"

I think that phrase was said in anger, but it has a bit of truth in it... A lot of individuals in the working class are not educated and tend to make assumptions based on what opionated news channels feed them. Besides that, high credit debt, no real skills in managing money... not even real social skills... 85% of US working class is hightly in debt...

Not if you take glee in the misfortune of your country

What kind of misfortune you are talking about? US was very fortunate for never being invaded by another country, thus had a good reason/time to establish a strong economy as a very young country. However, the US dollar is very depressiated right now and may lose it's value very quickly if other developing countries let their currency free on the world market, esp. Russia and China.
Europe was hit many times, but recovered much faster then anticipated.

have no ideas to help you country

I have many ideas how to help my country and make it stronger from inside: reform education, reform medicare and taxes. Move population to the green energy and so on.
I help people with low income but promissing talents (i wish I could help everyone, but my resources are limited) to finance their college education and solar panel installation for their homes thru a private fund and non-profit org. I'm also trying to make the local energy company close the nearest electric nuclear plant and build a solar and wind energy array which will produce the same amount of energy; especially when we found that that nuclear plant violates the fire and radioactive security procedures, which can cause a 50 miles dead zone in a case of fire, and as much as 3 million people can be exposed to radiation.

Are you really this stupid?

Sure, if that makes you happy.


I refrained in order to wait until the anti-US fifth column overplays their hand, which has happened.

Because lord knows the MSM doesn't do anything without checking to see if ... what is this blog called again? ... has posted something that unmasks their diabolical plans.

Sibylle Rauch

[ I am a "darkie" as you call them. I am Indian. ]

I see. So you are like that guy Dinesh D'Souza,
who also came from India and now he wants to be 'an all american badass.'

[ I dont think Sibylle hates American people, she hates what the American
government did to a foreign country

Well yea, I don't literally hate Americans as such, that would make no sense.
However this government is endorsed by the electorate, so I have beef with tens of millions of Americans.

In fact Bush has killed no one personally, he's just an old man.

[ she does not share your view that it was an inside job. ]

9/11 is pretty complicated, you can't dismiss it with a simple
"Ha ha, you still believe in the hijackers?!"
and you can't get away with just accepting the official story either.

At this point one has to construct both scenarios in his mind, just in case one is true.

On the conspiracy side, I am most comfortable with the Gerard Holmgren theory, which states that no passenger aircraft hit anything on September 11.
A very interesting proposition that I recommend people read about



I see. So you are like that guy Dinesh D'Souza,
who also came from India and now he wants to be 'an all american badass.'

Nope. I was born in America. I know it pains you to see a person of color have opinions that deviate from your fascism. It pains you even more to know that the measure of a country is the net of how many want in, and how many want out, and the US easily comes out on top against any other country in that regard.

I also see that you are ashamed to reveal which country you are from. This is unsurprising, as you know that when comparing your country to the US, I can rip it to shreds.

so I have beef with tens of millions of Americans.

Yep. Anti-Americans tend to be opposed to democracy.

On the conspiracy side,

Why has no elected Democrat (who have the most to gain from exposing such a conspiracy) said they believe these conspiracies? This alone should reveal how detached from reality you hatemongers are.


So according to you, a Wal-Mart cashier from Baton Rouge is far above Roman Abramovich,
because the former is an American citizen while the latter isn't.

As you can see, your theory of American supremacy is entirely stupid



You have not answered a single question of mine, proving that those questions leave you humiliated.

Plus, you are still ashamed to reveal which country you are from. This is because you know that your country has many more flaws than America, and that many more people seek to leave your country and move to America, than vice-versa.

It must feel terrible to be so ashamed of your own country, that you have to hate the country that draws more immigrants than any other..

Daniel M. Laenker

As it happens, alternative and probably more successful plans for Iraq:


Suppose-- work with me here-- we wanted to achieve some of our goals in Iraq: a stable state that's not a threat to itself or its neighbors, autonomy for the Kurds (almost the only people in the Middle East who seem to really like us), a republic rather than a dictatorship. What would it take?

The options don't look good, and the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission is unlikely to unearth any good new ideas. Four years ago, more commitment and more realism might have made a big difference. Now, not so much. It's easier to gain respect when you start a project than when it's been going downhill for years; and our opponents are not stupid; they can smell the blood in the water. Given our position today, here's what we're likely to need.

  • Send in the troops we've needed all along. That means doubling, probably tripling our commitment. Counter-insurgency requires boots on the ground, and not in well-fortified bases, but out on the streets, every day. Wherever we aren't, the warlords rule. It's just math: who are you, the ordinary terrified Iraqi, going to cooperate with-- the warlord who's there every day, or the American soldier who's there once every three months?

  • Finally invite in the nation-builders. Four years ago, we should have sent in teachers, lawyers, engineers, and businessmen, all loaded with cash. That's not going to be possible right now, because we can't guarantee their security. But we need some ways to improve ordinary people's lives. Rebuilding the power grid would be a big help. Pour enough security into a few universities to make them actually safe. What if, every time somebody blew up a building, the US surrounded the site and rebuilt it?

  • Build a Latin American style strong presidential system. A Peruvian once complained that his country elected a dictator every few years. Wouldn't that be a huge step forward for Iraq? Downplay parliamentary politics, which creates weak governments and encourages voters to factionalize; these are games only rich countries can afford. Have a strong president with a strong military and strong U.S. ties; but make it clear he'll be deposed in an instant if he doesn't submit to those elections. Throwing someone out of power, that we know how to do.

  • All that's going to cost a fortune. Pay it. Repeal Bush's tax cuts; Bush's friends will just have to pay to make Bush's war work. We may not have the manpower to triple our forces in Iraq; so start a draft. Triple the gas tax, both to encourage conservation and to provide a hedge in case oil supplies are disrupted.

  • Prepare the US public for atrocious counter-attacks. Again, our opponents read the papers. They know that Ronald Reagan left Lebanon after a massive attack on US troops, and Clinton left Somalia after another attack. They know all about our defeat in Vietnam and the Russians' defeat in Afghanistan. They'll try a big-profile attack, and the American people have to be expecting it, and be resolved to continue despite it.

  • Take a long-term view-- at least as long-term as the Cold War. Spend a decade cultivating Arabic speakers, especialy Arab-Americans who can infiltrate Islamist organizations. Retrain the army both in counter-insurgency and in the rebuilding of failed nation-states... the sort of conflicts they're likely to face in the decades ahead.

Now, if you support the war, that's what it'll take. If you don't think so, make me a case that something less will do. And without any Bush administration lies and denial, please. We are fighting an insurgency-- show me some cases where we've defeated one. We've been fighting in Iraq for longer than it took us to enter and win World War II. We won that war because we took it seriously; we committed everyone in the nation to it.

The base problem is, as usual, that we're fighting the last war-- not WWII or Vietnam, but the Cold War. Proxy wars worked, more or less, during the Cold War, both because the stakes in any one country were usually low (did it really matter who ended up with Chad or Laos?), and because the Soviets played by similar rules, and retreated when things got too tough. Insurgents don't play by those rules, and proxy wars don't defeat insurgencies.

If we're not going to do all that-- and I'm sure George Bush won't, and no candidate in 2008 will run on that platform-- then what do we do?

Declare victory and leave, of course.

Just because we've messed up doesn't mean that we should or must keep throwing our money and our troops away. If we feel responsible-- and we should-- then continued military occupation isn't the only way to discharge that responsibility. Would the best approach to Vietnam be to go back and start the war up again?

Naturally, we shouldn't just pull out in disarray, as we did in Vietnam. At the least, we want to reward our friends and discomfit our enemies. To wit:

  • Arm the hell out of the Kurds. Make it clear to the neighbors that these are Our Pals, that we care very much what happens to them, that we will support them if anyone gets the bright idea to invade them.

    (Non-intervention is the best policy... but screwing your friends is the worst. We've made bad situations worse before, e.g. in Bosnia, by pretending till far too late that we were entirely impartial. And when the US is widely perceived as having inspired and then betrayed anti-Hussein rebellions in 1991, it seems pretty foolish to do the same thing again.)

  • Set a date, in negotiations with the elected government, when we'll withdraw 100,000 of our troops. Provide money and training so that there will be at least triple that number of Iraqi troops to replace them.

    (The main idea here is to have Iraqis, not Americans, take responsibility for the timing of the withdrawal and what sort of help they need. They have little incentive to take their work seriously so long as the decisions are made by Bush and the fighting is done by the US.)

    (Can the Iraqi army get ready in time? That's the wrong question. If you want to "win the war", see the plan above. Failing that, what we want is to favor the factions best disposed towards us.)

  • Make it clear to all parties, inside and outside Iraq, that the US is no longer in the business of suppressing warlords, only wars. The armed gangs of thugs are the Iraqi government's job to oppose-- or co-opt. But if neighboring states invade, or an armed gang gets strong enough to try to overthrow the elected government, the US will help respond.

    (Yes, this is the opposite of the strategy above. That's because the first strategy was to win; this is to withdraw without disaster. To win, we have to defeat the warlords. If we're not going to defeat them, we have to live with them and seek only to minimize the trouble they can cause.)

  • Carrots for everyone. Pledge a tasty sum, like $250 billion, as a Marshall Plan for Iraq, on condition that everyone keeps the peace. (If the peace is partially kept, send money only to the peaceful regions.) Talk to Iran and Syria-- we have plenty to talk about, drop the stupid notion that we're too good to talk to certain people and yet they should do things for us anyway.

What about partition? We already have partition between Kurds and Arabs, and we shouldn't mess with it. It's very tempting to apply the same logic to Sunnis and Shi`a. But that, so far as I can see, is perhaps the one thing we can do that would make a desperate situation worse. It would probably lead to immediate civil war, and very possibly a regional war. In that case about the only goal we could accomplish is getting our troops out of there.



As a combat veteran of the war on terror I have to ask

Have you ever served in Iraq? Because you seem to know very little about the country except for some very naive talking points. You don't seem to understand Sunnis, Shiites or Kurds, and underestimate the hell out of the national identity of the Iraqis.

The key to warfare, Sir, is don't quit. Which we seem to be doing. Will you take the responsibility for the aftermath, if it ends as it did in Vietnam, with the death and torture and execution of over 3 million?


On the WMD point, I would add that inspections and post-liberation searches were not thorough enough to discount their existence: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

For example, UN inspectors failed to find over 500 arty shells containing Sarin and Mustard. The Lefty argument is that these were "degraded" and don't count, while missing the more central point: they escaped detection by the UN. What else did the UN miss?

Also, the entire "where are the WMDs?" argument is a strawman. We have evidence that Saddam farmed part of his chemical weapons program out to Sudan, and that he farmed his nuclear program out to Libya.


Let me preface my statements on the topics of the thread by stating my general position. I am basically for the war in Iraq, with evidence mainly compiled from blogs I read, like the Mudville Gazette, Michael Yon and Michael Totten, and a few others. I believe that Bush and co. made several mistakes leading up to the war, both in its execution and in selling it publicly. They may even have deliberately mislead the public on several points. Also, regardless of the general argument about torture, I believe that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were incredibly bad for the war once the press got ahold of them, and that there was a good deal of improper action in those places.

Nonetheless, those mistakes should not invalidate the war, to my mind. I believe that the war to free the Iraqis is one that should be fought. I think it's had ups and downs like any war, and we're currently on the up with the recent improvements in Iraq. I'm optimistic about how the war will run its course, and hope that it will bring about larger changes once over. Overall, I think the War in Iraq is a horrible, awful thing, but ultimately just, and I support the course of action we are taking now in fighting it.

On a side note, I also happen to think that Saddam had WMDs and shipped them to Syria when he found out he'd be invaded. There's no conclusive evidence, but the fact is that that's what he would have done, had he had them, and it seems more likely that he still had plenty lying around than that he somehow ran out. I don't expect to be able to defend this view, but I do hold it.

I'm stuck somewhere between GK and the people arguing with him.

On the "flypaper" method: This is partially the case. AQ has made Iraq a central part of its fight, and it is losing. However, there are also many insurgents in Iraq who fight because their relatives were insurgents, because they don't want the US there to begin with, because they believe that the US occupation is a holy war, etc. etc. Some of these people could have their passions directed to terrorism against the US by cunning operatives from terrorist organizations. Then, too, there's the argument that terrorists are far less likely to attack the US because they know we'll strike back Meanwhile, since they're fighting over there, they're not coming over here in strength. It's complicated, but I believe that Iraq has not increased the chance of an attack in the US. However, a FAILED Iraq War would certainly increase those chances, which is one big reason why I support the continued fight there.

On Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan: Until we eliminate the economic foundation of Al-Qaeda in the poppy trade in that area, AQ will persist (well, there's the money AQ gets from certain governments, too, but I'm betting the trade there is doing most of the heavy lifting). The intense focus on Iraq has made Afghanistan kind of a distraction, and we need to refocus our efforts there.

aravi: I like the plan you made. It probably is better than the one Bush and co. came up with. However, I would argue that the popular belief that the US is fighting a war on Islam is more a distortion by our enemies and/or the media than an actual truth. The solution, then, would not be to avoid Iraq, but rather to have good and accurate reporting of the sort that Michael Yon does, on a broader scale.

Whoo, that was a lot at once. Time to stop writing and start listening. In other news, the Sox just won the World Series. My sister in Boston doesn't care. Hehe.


I have found that when countering the "Iraq War longer than WWII" accusation with....well we ended WWII with two nuclear attacks, would that satisfy you?



Brilliant! With your permission, I would like to add your line to the original post - it is that good.


Protecting ourselves from a virtually non-existent threat for close to a half-trillion dollars sounds like typical Republican fiscal restraint.

Where (to who) is that money going, anyway?


BTW, we have to stay in Iraq or it will look like we are weak.

That's right, our soldiers are dying for our own vanity.



You're way out of your league, kiddo.

Each of your logic-challenged, memorized sound-bites could also apply to the War in Afghanistan, or to the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. So do you oppose those equally, as a result? Or do you think the world only began in March 2003?

You are stumped. I predict a deafening silence of chirping crickets.

Scott Phillips

The situation in Iraq is reality. Being reality, it does not lend itself to facts that fit neatly into uniform ideological categories. When one approaches Iraq first from an ideological position and works backwards, they find themselves working with facts that are at times supportive and at other times downright inconvenient.

Your solution for "debate" when faced with this reality consists of dodging by widening the scope and using conclusory language. It is in fact poor form and is easily defeated by anyone who has taken a freshman level logic class.



You couldn't be more wrong. In fact, you are committing exactly the error you accuse me of. As they say, when someone makes a waaaaay off-base accusation, projection is invariably the cause.

My points are fact and logic based, and are in response to typical leftist phoniness. You could not rebut them (and are a couple years late, since Iraq is now peaceful after the victory in 2008), so instead use vague and inaccurate fluff.

Scott Phillips

I commit no error. The accusation I make is that you advocate dodging and widening the scope of the debate in order to minimize points that are inconvenient to your position. These are not my words. They are yours:

"You can also counterattack by widening the scope of the debate"

"The way to corner your opponents is to test their knowledge of (or willingness to acknowledge) the numerous other terror attacks"

My comments are towards your tactics. I do not seek to "rebut" this tired topic. However I am willing to bet you're employing these same tactics to any current issues of discussion.

It is further interesting that you find the notion of nuanced reality controversial. It should not be news to anyone who has been paying attention the last several years that both "sides" of the Iraq issue (or just about any modern issue of one's choosing) cherry pick the facts to their liking.


Scott Phillips,

My rebuttals are fact and logic based. It is perfectly appropriate to expose statements where the utterer actually wants Iraq to fail, and for US troop casualties to be high, due to an anti-American, left-wing position.

Debating people on principle is effective, particularly when both sides are invested in a narrative.

As far as facts, I choose non-partisan sources and easily-verified numbers. The critics are short on this, therefore exposing them on principle is effective and appropriate.

Ethan "Aestu" Farber

All your arguments are faulty and will work only on people who have the right idea for the wrong reasons.

"The Iraq War has put us in more danger/has not made us any safer."

Your argument to the contrary is faulty because:

1. You do not establish a causal link between the Iraq War and American safety, as many other things have happened in that time.

2. If an increase in American safety can be causally attributed to the invasion of Iraq, then it would logically follow that safety would improve in all other countries, whether or not they participated. However, since the putative improvement in security is uneven between nations, it is therefore logical to attribute said improvement to factors that are not global in impact. Therefore, any improvement in security cannot be the result of invasion of Iraq.

"Saddam had no ties to 9/11"

Burden of proof is on party making positive contention. Shifting burden of proof to other party's proof of a negative is a fallacy of the red herring variety.

"The Iraq War has gone on longer than World War II"

It is a fact that the Iraq War has gone on longer than WWII. Citing random facts that have nothing to do with the topic in the attempt at cloaking inconvenient facts is a red herring.

"Bush lied about WMDs"

The fact that others went along with the faulty claims does not change the fact that a lie was told. Guilt by association is - again - a red herring.

"More Americans have died in Iraq than on 9/11"

Questioning this statement on the basis of the the relevance of 9-11 to Iraq contradicts your premise that the two are connected. Questioning this statement on the basis of relevance also contradicts your premise that the former was the appropriate response to the latter.

A sound argument must be internally consistent.

"600,000 (or 1 million, or whatever) civilians have died in Iraq"

Your response is a fallacy of circular reasoning.

Your contention is that Americans and British forces are actively combating terrorism by being in Iraq.

If that is your contention, then you cannot use said contention to dispute the facts and reasoning that call your logic into question. Doing so is circular reasoning - the argument only makes sense if the conclusion is assumed to be true independent of the supporting facts.

Furthermore, you have not established that the UN number is the only correct number and that all other numbers are "bogus". This is a fallacy of the ad hominem variety.

You can also counterattack by widening the scope of the debate to corner them on their broader principles...

Simple red herring.

If the topic of your inquiry isn't relevant to the matter of contention, then it doesn't belong in the debate.

"What are the 3 main groups in Iraq, and what percentage of the population are each?" "Name any 5 cities in Iraq. One is Baghdad, I would like to see if you can name four others."

Trivia is another form of red herring.

Random facts don't matter unless they in some way support your position or undermine your opponent, and recitation of names and numbers does not necessarily establish understanding of their context and implications.

The entire point of debate is to bridge that gap with logic.

If you fall into this category, the best way for you carve out your own turf is to offer alternative ideas to help fight the War on Terror.

Circular logic. You are assuming the proof, which is that the war is just, appropriate and necessary.


Ethan Farber,

Not only is your comment about 3-5 years late, but you are moving the goalposts to fit your discredited narrative.

The quotes are what opponents of the Iraq War state in order to make their case. I provide rebuttals based on logic.

Your points do correctly point out the weakness of typical points used by anti-Iraq-War people, however. For example, you correctly point out that the WW2 comparison is illogical, but in doing so you make my case, rather than yours. Why are opponents of the Iraq War using that as a means to say the Iraq War is bad?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)