A Just War: George W. Bush Saved 600,000 Muslim Lives


UPDATE 4 April 2009: Made some corrections to the calculations.

UPDATE 7 April 2009: This post is in letter to the newspaper form as well.

Are you anti-war? Do you oppose the use of force and the loss of human lives in order to achieve an objective?

What about just war? That is, a war that has justified reasons and is based on justice. Do you oppose the use of force and the loss of human lives if it would save more lives?

Picture this scenario: You see a woman just about to be raped by an unarmed man in a secluded alley. Do you ignore what is happening and walk away? Do you keep your distance and call the police, who will arrive in 15 minutes… AFTER the rape has been finished? Or do you rush in to try and stop the rapist, even if it means you will end up in a fist fight with the rapist?

Now put it in the context of nations and war. If a thousand people a day are being slaughtered in state-sponsored genocide, do you stay out non-involved because “It’s a matter of national sovereignity”? Do you file a complaint with the United Nations, who will take a few months… To even VOTE on a resolution to FORMALLY COMPLAIN regarding that state’s actions (just look back at the Rwandan Genocide)? Or do you send your army in, together with whichever nation is willing to stand up to gross injustice, and save as many innocent lives as you can?

Now put it in the context of Iraq. If Saddam Hussein is killing and torturing thousands of his own citizens and letting them literally starve to death while he himself lives a life of luxury (thank you UN and Oil-for-Food), do you close a blind eye because he is “A duly elected leader” or “A Muslim brother”? Do you appeal to the UN, who will basically ignore the dozen plus resolutions while cosying up to the UN Secretary General? Or do you march right in there, unilaterally or not, weapons of mass destruction or not, international condemnation or not, KICK THAT B*STARD’S A$$, and free millions of Iraqis from tyranny and death?

Yes, you heard that right: George W. Bush freed 29 million Iraqis and directly saved thousands of lives.

Don’t believe this rightwing neocon? Here are the facts:

George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq: From the 57 months of 20 March 2003 until end 2008, using the Iraq Body Count estimate, a total of 98,882 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the war and occupation. That is a rate of 1734.772 deaths per month. The overwhelming majority of these deaths were caused not by US military forces following Bush’s orders, but by Islamic militants and terrorists (most often foreigners from outside Iraq) who targeted their own Muslim brethren. The death rate has now trailed off as Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups have been soundly defeated and pushed to the margins of the country (see conclusion).

[SIDE NOTE: This proves the point that it is JIHADISTS who have been causing all the death and suffering, and if they hadn't meddled in Iraq then the US forces would have been long gone out of there! So blame the mujahideen, not the US troops for the prolonged occupation of Iraq by 'kaffir' American infidels.]

Saddam Hussein’s reign: From the 285 months of Saddam Hussein’s reign from 16 July 1979 to 9 April 2003, using just six of the war crime events listed by U.S. War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer, a total of 865,000 Iraqis civilians died as the result of Saddam’s ethnic cleansing, political oppression and ‘arrests’. That is a rate of 3035.088 deaths per month1.75 times greater than Bush’s death rate. This figure does not count the deaths of non-Iraqis, nor the casualties suffered during the wars against Iran and Kuwait, nor the countless other documented human rights abuses Saddam committed.

Bill Clinton era embargo: From the 108 months of 6 August 1990 to 6 August 1999, using the United Nations estimate, a total of 1 million Iraqi civilians died as result of the sanctions. Of these, as many as 567,000 of the casualties were children. That is a rate of 9259.259 deaths per month5.337 times greater than Bush’s death rate. Justify that, anti-war liberal Democrats. (Clinton actually only gained the Presidency on 20 January 1993, but the sanctions also lasted past the date of the UN estimate – to 22 May 2003, while Clinton stepped down on 20 January 2001.)

RECAP: Bush’s per month Iraqi civilian death rate was 1.742 times less than Saddam’s and 5.334 times less than Clinton’s.

CONCLUSION: Considering that now Iraq has a FAR LOWER violent death toll than any one of Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela, New Orleans, Washington, Baltimore, Atlanta and even Obama’s Chicago (and dropping every day!) and there is clearly visible peace in Iraq, I stand by my claim:

The just war initiated by George W. Bush saved 601,895 Muslim lives.

[Figure calculated using total deaths over span of Bush's Iraq invasion and occupation (98,882), multiplied by higher rates of Saddam and Clinton and totaled (173,044 + 527,733), and subtracting the Bush total from that (700,777 - 98,882), to find the total of how many more lives would have been lost if Saddam still ruled under continued sanctions (601,895).]

Now just try and call Bush a genocidal crusading murderer with a clear conscience.

PS. This post was inspired by preliminary calculations and comparison I had done earlier, Let’s Throw Shoes at Others Besides Bush (’Cos He Actually Saved Iraq).

——————————-

Kudos to Dr. Rusty of the Jawas, Gateway Pundit and Doubleplusgood Infotainment for the featurage!

Tags: , , , , , , ,

46 Responses to “A Just War: George W. Bush Saved 600,000 Muslim Lives”

  1. Joe Six-Pack Says:

    It was a shame that Neville Chamberlin was not a war monger. If he had been, the war in Europe would have been resolved in 1938 and saved more than 25 million lives.

    What I find most disturbing is how many people do not realize that our enemy committed his army against our military in Iraq. As has been demonstrated, our enemy does not match up well against our military, particularly in a desert environment. Our enemy is much more effective against shopping malls and schools.

  2. Public Secrets Says:

    George W. Bush saved 600,000 Muslim lives…

    Scott Thong of Malaysia does a little math and comes to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq was a just, moral war. (hat tip: The Jawa Report) Technorati tags: Scott Thong, Iraq, George W. Bush, just war……

  3. Epluribusunam Says:

    How dare you use logic to construct an argument for a just war! We should only use ‘feelings’ to govern our actions!

  4. The Iraq War and how Bush saved lives… « DPGI - the aftermath Says:

    [...] April 2, 2009 · No Comments A Just War: George W. Bush Saved 600,000 Muslim Lives [...]

  5. Timespike Says:

    Wow. I figured there was something like this to point to, but my God, that’s a big number…

  6. Konraden Says:

    Your logic isn’t entirely sound. Your first argument considers on man in an instance where he is making the conscioues decision to put himself at risk to save another person. Noble.

    Now, apply that to a large country, and you would have to get the conscious decision of those people putting themselves at risk, which would by the troops. No, considering they signed themselves up, and they knew what the consequences were, the next best person to make that conscious decision would not be George Bush, but rather, congress, which is the extension of the people. Early support for the war quickly diminished. If you were still using your logic, that means you would have run away when the rapists started kicking your ass.

    Congress, and by extension, the American people are responsible for making the call to war, not the President of the United States.

  7. Jape Says:

    Great. Next please invade Sudan, Indonesia and the Congo. Once you’re done, Zimbabwe, Myanmar and Israel sound like good bets.

    Oh wait, that’s right – no oil in any of them.

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    Great. Next please invade Sudan, Indonesia and the Congo. Once you’re done, Zimbabwe, Myanmar and Israel sound like good bets.

    Oh wait, that’s right – no oil in any of them.

    - Jape

    I’d reorder it to Zimbabwe at the top of the list. Heck, even putting Kofi Annan in charge of that country would be better than what Moron-gabe is doing now!

    Zimbabwe, by the way, is the kind of socialist direction that Obama is conning America into right now…

  9. wits0 Says:

    Look who’s monkeying around disgracing the USA in the name of peace:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93696

  10. Scott Thong Says:

    No, considering they signed themselves up, and they knew what the consequences were, the next best person to make that conscious decision would not be George Bush, but rather, congress, which is the extension of the people. Early support for the war quickly diminished.

    Congress, and by extension, the American people are responsible for making the call to war, not the President of the United States.

    - Konraden

    So Congress deserves the credit for saving those 600,000 lives?

    Well, Congress did vote overwhelmingly to go to war with Iraq. In fact, they had been very vocal about how dangerous Saddam and his WMDs were long before Bush ever considered a proper invasion.

    Democrats Supported War on Iraq When It Suited Them – Video Evidence

    Even Gore was in on it, probably sometime after inventing the Internet.

    Al Gore: High Commander of War & Peace Hypocrisy

    But as soon as the war lost public favour, the DemCong (sounds like VietCong, lol!) turned their backs on Bush and their own votes, pretending that they had nothing to do with the war and that it was all solely Bush’s decision. They disowned this unwanted child…

    Until it grew up into a successful adult.

    When the wild effectiveness of the Bush/Petraeus Surge finally could no longer be denied, suddenly all those die-hard critics of the Iraq war/Surge became its biggest fans! Why, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama even tried to take credit for the restored peace in Iraq!

    This is because Democrat leaders, and the DemCong in particular, are notoriously fickle in supporting only what is popular at the time. Their fingers are always in the wind, they lack conviction, and they’ll change their entire song as soon as the audience gets restless.

    If you were still using your logic, that means you would have run away when the rapists started kicking your ass.

    Well, it’s only logical that you run away when you’re being beaten up by a criminal! Hopefully, the woman would have escaped by then. However, as regards your illustration:

    1) In real life, the hero got jumped by an accomplice to the rapist who was hiding in the shadows, but in the end beat them both to a pulp – despite bystanders telling him he was losing and should just run away now;

    2) A better way illustrate your point would be to give the example of two witnesses to the crime-in-progress. Witness 1 (Bush) shoves Witness 2 (soldiers) at the rapist and cheers while they fight.

  11. A Just War: George W. Bush Saved 600,000 Muslim Lives « Stop Socialism Now Says:

    [...] Now put it in the context of nations and war. If a thousand people a day are being slaughtered in state-sponsored genocide, do you stay out non-involved because “It’s a matter of national sovereignity”? Do you file a complaint with the United Nations, who will take a few months… To even VOTE on a resolution to FORMALLY COMPLAIN regarding that state’s actions (just look back at the Rwandan Genocide)? Or do you send your army in, together with whichever nation is willing to stand up to gross injustice, and save as many innocent lives as you can?  Complete Story: Cross Blogged [...]

  12. wits0 Says:

    DHIMMI DIPLOMACY?
    What do you think of President Obama bowing to the Saudi king?
    http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=380&pollShowResults=1

  13. Debunkinator Says:

    Ah, yes, one must applaud the Right’s propaganda techniques- when they initially invade Iraq under the facade of ‘Securing the WMD’s’ and fail hilariously in that goal, they quickly move on to adopt another- and equally ridiculous- pretension- ‘we’re liberating Iraq because we’re awesome humanitarians!’. I am willing to accept the argument that, directly within Iraq, the war could have possibly saved more lives- but what about the larger picture? What about the genuine war on terrorism? And could these lives not have been saved in an alternatively peaceful manner? It’s a complex subject, and Hussein’s Iraq is certainly NOT something to be glorified (it was a shitty place to live), but I have to come to the conclusion that justification for the war was not strong enough.

    First, there is the question of the finances involved in the war. The economic cost for the United States alone is estimated at being, at the very least, a trillion dollars- that’s a million times a million. Your estimate is supposed to insinuate that the war saved 600,000 lives; but I would at least like to think that a government that utilizes its finances well would be capable of saving one human life for every friggin’ million dollar it spends. If that is true, than these finances could have alternatively been used in order to save even more lives. The gratuitous spending on the war had a considerable hand in resulting in the financial collapse of the United States (well, that and Bush’s financial celebration of greed); and who knows how many lives would THAT save?

    According to prominent Human Rights organizations, the last act committed by Saddam Hussein that might have led towards just militaristic intervention was more than a dozen years ago; that ‘average rate of killing’ simply doesn’t work, as the vast majority of Iraqi deaths under Saddam’s regime were in the earlier years. At the time of the Iraq Invasion, there were far less human rights abuses within Iraq (although there were some), to a point that does not, in any conceivable way, would lead towards the conclusion that a humanitarian intervention was in need. In fact, a prominent organization called Human Rights Watch explicitly said that the war in Iraq simply could not be justified as being a humanitarian intervention; many other organizations followed suit and endorsed the same line of thought.

    Not to mention that this very “well more would’ve probably been killed” line of thought is simply hilarious. How can you correctly hypothesize how many would be killed? That supposed end is within our imagination, and while it is an educated guess, it is far from full-proof. Because of that, the means, the only factor we have virtually complete control of, must be very strictly regulated and controlled in order to ensure that the end will result in their justification.

    There is, of course, the fact that places like Darfur have far worse human rights violations than Iraq, which was a relatively progressive country by Arab standards. Could these finances not have been used in order to secure an intervention in these areas? Would you not say that they have been wasted in assaulting a country that has far less human rights violation and has no connection towards the greater front against terrorism? Combine that with the fact that Saddam was virtually a U.S ally when he supposed their interests and you come to the inevitable conclusion that humanitarianism was simply an excuse to keep the masses in line with Bush’s imperialistic agenda.

    Yeah, more on that: Bush’s buddies were quite keen on supporting Iraq when it was supposedly opposed to the Soviet Union, despite being armed with the distinct knowledge that Hussein was committing crimes against humanity. And this was back when Iraq’s crimes were far more heinous than at the moment. In fact, the Gulf War would not have been possible if it wasn’t for the fact that Iraq was armed with military arms from all around the world, all granted to Hussein on the lines of ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’. This is the final proof that it simply does not work; that plan will backfire and explode directly in our faces if implemented, because it involves the support of regressive countries that might be involved in war against other nations, not to mention their own populace. In short, this whole unfortunate situation would’ve been avoided had we done our best in order to topple Saddam’s regime by not arming him. Then we would have had a far easier time in moving towards an efficient U.N intervention, because they would be facing a far less potent government. Hussein’s regime would have never achieved the same stability as it had otherwise. This also enables Iraq to invade Iran, resulting in a bloody and sadly expensive war that could have been avoided oh so easily.

    The sanctions situation reminds me of what happened after World War I. In order to punish Germany for launching the war, the Treaty of Versailles was installed: an unfair, unforgiving, excessively aggressive ‘agreement’ that forced a democratic regime upon a country that lost any of its national pride and was beaten into a horrible financial crisis. This propelled the Nazi Party into victory, and we all know how that turned out to be.

    Naturally, Iraq’s situation is far smaller in scope, but the basic similarities are still intact. The sanctions led towards the systematic breeding of terrorism as a form of revenge and rebellion against the West’s perceived imperialism, and it can subsequently be argued that the sanctions contributed to the current situation of terrorism in the world. That’s not to say the United States’ invasion did not have a similar effect: the death of so many women and children is an easy way of breeding hatred, fear, and for people like Bin Laden to use it as propaganda, only increasing the grasp of terrorism upon that area. It doesn’t work!

    As for the victims. The number of dead Iraqis does, indeed, pales in comparison to the number of potentially saved Iraqis- but is the number not understating the violence? It does not take into account the number of emotional traumatized (occasionally for life), the number of physically deformed and disabled, the number of refugees, and thus the number of orphans and widows who might die as a consequence of the starvation. These deaths could have been avoided peacefully, have done nothing to further our agenda, and did not save lives on the broader scale.

    Could we have democratized Iraq in a less costly, more peaceful manner? I believe it is. Consider the following proposition: Iraq was in financial ruins due to the horrid sanctions imposed upon it. Its people were dying and Saddam’s regime was apparently cracking; it was OBVIOUSLY in his interest in order to lift these sanctions, am I correct? For that reason, it would have been possible to cut an effective deal between him and the forces of the United Nations; remove these sanctions but enable diplomatic and military presence from the U.N within Iraq, in order to make sure that the actual populace of Iraq gets humanitarian assistance and is not met with genocide regularly. Iraq would also face restrictions in any militaristic growth. I’ve proposed this solution to multiple people in debates, but they seemed to think it was impractical and would rob Hussein of his right for national sovereignty, something that simply cannot be compromised in his eyes. But is it not practical, in his eyes, to give up on some things in order to rebuild his country and stabilize his regime? I believe it could have worked.

    Hussein would not have lived forever, and when he would die, the United States could seize the opportunity in order to begin the democratization of Iraq (if the populace consents to it). The above solution is obviously simplified in nature, but some variation thereof could realistically function.

    And with that, our money and our diplomatic prowess could have been focused upon the real military threat in the world and upon the real places with violations of human rights, instead of targeting an ineffective target that poses no threat and is certainly not the biggest violator of human rights in the Arabic world.

    This is ignoring the philosophical nature of the situation, obviously. Is it moral to remain in Iraq and force democracy down their throats when the populace clearly does not consent to it? Would it not be a more philosophically sound course of action to retreat and move towards the replacement of United States troops with United Nations ones, and instead move towards a regime that genuinely serves the populace’s interests? Hell, more than 80% of Iraqis are opposed to continued United States stay, and 47% support attacking United States. There is no genuine peace there, no genuine stability, and the nature of forcing a regime upon a populace that does not consent to it is a fascistic one.

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    Wow, long comment Debunkinator – or did you get it off someone’s blog, perhaps even your own earlier postings? Allow me to respond to choice remarks of yours:

    ————————————–

    What about the genuine war on terrorism? And could these lives not have been saved in an alternatively peaceful manner?

    As I said, if the Islamofascist terrorists had just kept out of it, then most of the deaths of civilians would never have occured and the US troops would be out of there by now!

    As for the war on terror, Bush’s distraction in Iraq has killed more than 23,000 terrorists and kept America free from terror attacks and safe for 7 years.

    Good luck keeping that up, with all that apologizing worldwide, waffling on the pirate attacks and bowing to the Saudis, Prez Obama.

    ————————————–

    According to prominent Human Rights organizations, the last act committed by Saddam Hussein that might have led towards just militaristic intervention was more than a dozen years ago

    Which is why Bush Sr should have just ignored the lie-beral, enemy-colluding media’s cry-me-a-river whining and crushed Saddam back in Gulf War One. That would have prevented both Clinton’s embargo genocide and Bush Jr’s illegal invasion, no?

    ————————————-

    There is, of course, the fact that places like Darfur have far worse human rights violations than Iraq,

    Yeah, more on that: Bush’s buddies were quite keen on supporting Iraq when it was supposedly opposed to the Soviet Union, despite being armed with the distinct knowledge that Hussein was committing crimes against humanity.

    Both points dovetail – Darfur was not a threat to America’s sovereignity, while Saddam’s presumed support of Al Qaeda and possession of WMDs was. (And need I quote how the Democrats were lambasting both Bushes for NOT dealing with the threat of Saddam’s WMDs, which they were aaaaaall so sure of?) At the very least, Saddam was a public financier of Palestinian suicide attacks on Israel, America’s ally.

    And do you think Obama would act any differently on Darfur? After all, he is the one who said that even genocide would not be reason enough for him to keep forces in Iraq – what more send them to Darfur in the first place?

    —————————————

    The sanctions situation reminds me of what happened after World War I. In order to punish Germany for launching the war, the Treaty of Versailles was installed

    Which is exactly why the US should stay in Iraq until order is firmly reestablished, rather than cutting and running even pre-Surge the way Obama and nearly all Democrats wanted to! Post World War II Germany and Japan were rebuilt and nurtured, and this prevented a recurrence of the Treaty of Versailles’ unintended consequences.

    ————————————-

    That’s not to say the United States’ invasion did not have a similar effect: the death of so many women and children is an easy way of breeding hatred, fear, and for people like Bin Laden to use it as propaganda, only increasing the grasp of terrorism upon that area. It doesn’t work!

    This is exactly why, as I said, the Iraqis turned against Al Qaeda in the Anbar Awakening and have sided with the Americans since, and why 85% say that life is now quote good or very good!

    The lie-beral media spoonfed world may not know it, but the Iraqis themselves definitely know just who is killing all those women and children and just who is trying to stop all the deaths!

    ————————————

    These deaths could have been avoided peacefully, have done nothing to further our agenda, and did not save lives on the broader scale.

    How? Just tell me, how? You go on and on about ‘peaceful solutions’. But tell us, what ‘peaceful method’ do you suggest that could have stopped Saddam’s aggression and the brutalization of his own populace – particularly the Kurds? The UN sanctions were a laugh a minute, except to the common Iraqis!

    You’d make a great President Obama – all hugs and kisses and dialogue will save the world! Great job that achieved with North Korea’s missile launch, I’m sure old Kim was shaking in his boots at the prospect of a harshly worded letter to the UN. And the Somali pirates, ooooooo so scared at Obama’s refusal to even acknowledge their puny and insignificant actions!

    ———————————-

    Its people were dying and Saddam’s regime was apparently cracking; it was OBVIOUSLY in his interest in order to lift these sanctions, am I correct?

    Oh, totally agree with you there, man. Look how fast Cuba’s and North Korea’s despotic regimes cracked at the suffering of their sanctioned people.

    Hey, Cuba even won the exchange – the Obameconomy USA has now adopted Cuba’s economic philosophy instead of the other way around!

    ——————————-

    And with that, our money and our diplomatic prowess could have been focused upon the real military threat in the world and upon the real places with violations of human rights, instead of targeting an ineffective target that poses no threat and is certainly not the biggest violator of human rights in the Arabic world.

    Now you’re talking sense! So when does Obama’s invasion of the entire Middle East begin? Around the time Iran drops a nuke on Tel Aviv?

    —————————–

    Is it moral to remain in Iraq and force democracy down their throats when the populace clearly does not consent to it? Would it not be a more philosophically sound course of action to retreat and move towards the replacement of United States troops with United Nations ones, and instead move towards a regime that genuinely serves the populace’s interests?

    Ah, the wonderful UN, so beloved and looked up to by liberals.

    The excellent UN, that cleared off when Nasser asked them to move aside so that Egypt could attack Israel.

    The effective UN, that decisively exchanged letters while Rwanda underwent ‘social change’.

    The morally superior UN, whose ‘peacekeepers’ peacefully spread their peaceful HIV while peacefully raping the peaceful women they are sent to bring peace to.

    As to your philosophical ruminations, would it be moral to let Saddam torture and purge the Iraqis when they do not consent to it?

    Or maybe we should conduct an opinion poll to find out that teenage girl’s wishes before stopping her from being gang raped. Wouldn’t want to infringe on her sovereignity or anything.

  15. Debunkinator Says:

    1. I wrote the comment myself in about an hour, after extensive research. It just pisses me off that necons still fantasize about the Iraq war being ‘correct’ in order to help themselves sleep at night, without comprehending that it was an imperialistic, pointlessly violent, and needlessly expensive war that severely compromised the United States’ security and ability towards true humanitarian interventionism. I am not satisfied, however, with simply saying “Your opinions suck!” without logically substantiating and explaining mine, hence the longass comment.

    2. Please. Don’t play the blame game. Blaming the other side for the war is a futile exercise, and instead we must focus upon our responsibility and our ability to stop it, because:

    A. We have direct control over ourselves, not the ‘others’. We should, ourselves, transcend beyond petty concepts like hate, anger, and fear, and work towards peace.

    B. The large and more powerful force is the dominant factor. We’re that. Thus, we have considerable control over the motivations for terrorism. We need to exercise this vast power wisely and pragmatically, not violently.

    3. We should apologize: we’ve alienated and angered the world with a STUPID and unsupported foreign policy, severely compromising any of our ability to intervene and harm terrorism. Instead, we must apologize and swallow our pride, in order to lead towards a new world: a cooperative one. The United States cannot act on its own, and Obama is doing his very best to mend broken relationships and connections. For that, we must applaud him.

    4. Yeah, and we should’ve dealt with Saddam in the first place, instead of working on the stupid ‘Domino theory’ and actually arming him in his struggle against the Soviet Iran. Then he would never have risen to power or attained stability, would have been incapable of launching the gulf war, etc, etc, etc. See how this works? There’s always something we ‘could’ve done better’. We would have initially prevented Saddam from having the necessary armaments to wreak genocide and war, preventing this whole unfortunate situation in the first place. That’s why ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ does not work; it’s a plan that supports regressive governments and would eventually explode in our faces, violently. I guarantee you that Iraq could have subsequently been rebuilt and recreated as a finer nation, by the hands of the U.S-led U.N. At least that’s the rough potential plan.

    5. Hey, I didn’t say the Democrats’ handling of themselves during the war is anything to be proud of, eh? At that very moment, Iraq only distracted the United States from its true adversaries, far less progressive and humanitarian nations. Sure, it financed (d) Palestinian terrorist bombings, but that’s hardly a sufficient reason to wage war, is it? Don’t even begin on the Israeli situation, which is Israel’s fault anyway and has a rather easy resolution, outside of blowing up some shit. Blatantly favoring Israel’s interests because we like it better is unjust; instead, we should act as an objective arbiter and lead towards an effective resolution and compromise to stop the vast injustice both sides suffer.

    6. The situation in Darfur can be solved with United Nations interference- diplomatic, economic, lightly militaristic (very lightly); it would both have been less expensive and would have saved many more lives than the ones who were ‘saved’ (I’m still highly skeptical about that) in Iraq. Ignoring whether we should intervene in Darfur or not, however, the point is that, as a humanitarian intervention, the war in Iraq was not justified and was an incredibly bad usage of our military and financial prowess; there are nations with worse human rights abuse that are easier to ‘assist’.

    7. At the moment, we should remain and rebuild Iraq, just like we should after the war. But is it a job for us, per se? The blow it will have upon our economy will not be remedied; it will lead to a further financial crisis and will thus risk our position as the world’s superpower and severely impair our abilities to act against terrorism. For that reason, we should retreat ourselves and enable a presence of international forces. A lower presence, to be sure, but one that is capable of rebuilding the country effective. There’s also a vital difference between our current situation and Japan’s or Germany’s post WWII; they wanted us to say. More than 80% of Iraqis want us gone. Are their wishes not to be respected, or do they simply no know what is good for them? The fact of the matter is, whatever democracy will be forged in Iraq will be a very fragile one.

    8. Lol, I gave a suitable explanation and alternative to stopping the violence in Iraq. Crying about how we aren’t making them scared won’t work. Under circumstances of desperation, military action won’t make them afraid; they’ll make them angry. This is how human nature functions. If your house was bombed by the U.S and had your entire family killed, you would not be afraid; you’d be pissed off and would want revenge and rebellion. Terrorism is born out of desperation and vast, vast hatred, to the point that they do not see violence and death in a negative connotation. We must combat them in our way, without degenerating to their ways, in order to transcend beyond the cycle of suffering.

    9. Saddam Hussein’s regime was on the verge of cracking. His economy was in ruins and his people was suffering, and his grasp upon them was in a state of destabilization. Realistically, he would want to repair it: and by offering the slow and gradual lifting of the sanctions in return for U.N intervention and the ability to prevent him from massacring his populace and developing a military, he would have no choice but to agree. When he finally dies and his regime shatters, the rebuilt Iraq will be begging for a democratic government- after all, they would now have reason to love the U.S rather than hate them. I admit that this idea is both simplified and a bit over-optimistic, but humanitarian interventionism is considered to only be necessary when every other possibility of non-violent action was explored. Similarly, all renowned human rights organizations hold the belief that the attack was not justified on humanitarian grounds and was, ultimately, a humanitarian failure, contrary to what Fox News wants you to think.

    10. Rofl at the socialism joke. So creative. Not that you’d know that the United States’ position as the wealthiest country in the world was founded through Franklin D. Roosevelt’s very leftist economic policies, though.

    11. The U.N is imperfect because it is under-funded and not looked upon as a genuine power. Instead of focusing upon ‘every government for itself’, we should act with international treaties in order to ensure that the U.N will, in fact, become the true force in the world. It can work and is where we should place our hopes. At the moment, however, it is not the time to fund them. Thanks to Bush’s hyper-capitalism and irresponsible warfare, we’re now in a financial crisis; and whenever that happens, we must retreat back to our homeland and reconstruct. Nothing leads to a country’s collapse more effectively than over-extending itself, which is precisely what neoconservatives are advocating at the moment. Before being concerned about the world, we should be concerned about ourselves- and now is the time for gradually pulling out of Iraq and replacing our forces with international ones, to rebuild ourselves and return to our former might. Our country is in financial ruins. You seem to be more concerned about the welfare of everybody else over the millions of Americans in poverty and without jobs.

    12. Has it ever occurred to you that acting with haste and recklessly without deliberation will never lead to justice? Conquering a country is infinitely more complicated than saving a raped girl. Saddam Hussein’s latest crime against humanity was more than a dozen years ago; the intervention was not humanitarian, was badly planned and could have been avoided.

    13. Forcing a regime upon a populace that does not consent is fascism and imperialism. It’s an anti-democratic act, even if the regime being forced upon them is, in fact a democracy. The hatred they have garnered from the deaths of their fellow citizens by American forces, in addition to their hatred of the existing troops, will inevitably lead to a hatred of their regime- we’ve succeeded in delaying the violence, perhaps, but most certainly not stopping it. The way to construct a democracy is without violence, through peace and financial assistance, through diplomacy and through the ultimate consent of a populace.

  16. Papa Mike’s Blog » Blog Archive » Bush Saved Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqis From Saddam’s Reign & Clinton’s Embargo Says:

    [...] Scott Thong crunched the numbers: [...]

  17. Terry Gain Says:

    1. it was an imperialistic, pointlessly violent, and needlessly expensive war M/i>

    Wrong on all counts. Giving blood and treasure for the liberation of others is the exact opposite of Imperialism. Violence which ends the killing and establishes peace is hardly pointless.

    2. Please. Don’t play the blame game

    It is idiotic not to place the blame squarely where it belongs. On the dictator who refused to comply with the ceasefire for 12 years and 17 U.N. Resolutions.

    3. We should apologize: we’ve alienated and angered the world

    Apologize for liberating 28 million people? Or do you mean for demonstrating how utterly clueless and heartless leftists are.

    4. Yeah, and we should’ve dealt with Saddam in the first place,

    How by preventing Russia and France from arming him? Boy are you clueless.

    5. to 11 –

    I don’t have time to respond to this blather but let’s just point out that the last one is a complete lie.

    12. Forcing a regime upon a populace that does not consent is fascism and imperialism.

    Iraqis have the government THEY CHOSE, YOU LYING MORON.

  18. Crunching the Numbers « The Lioness Says:

    [...] during Saddam Hussein’s reign or the deadly embargo kept in place during the Clinton years? Scott Thong crunched the numbers: Saddam Hussein’s reign: From the 285 months of Saddam Hussein’s reign [...]

  19. Crunching the Numbers-Iraqi Lives Saved « The Lioness Says:

    [...] during Saddam Hussein’s reign or the deadly embargo kept in place during the Clinton years? Scott Thong crunched the numbers: Saddam Hussein’s reign: From the 285 months of Saddam Hussein’s reign [...]

  20. bg Says:

    ++

    someone going by the name of Jape needs to do some research re: oil in Zimbabwe, Myanmar and Israel..

    ==

  21. Debunkinator Says:

    Wow, Terry. Just… wow.

    1. The violence did not end the violence and establish peace. Violence does not end violence, by the very nature of the act: your narrow view of the world probably prevents you from analyzing the larger ramifications of the Iraq war; that is to say, the financial collapse, the incapability of decisively dealing with real terror threats, inability to deal with more severe humanitarian problems (diseases, poverty, hunger). Indeed, the fact that we coerced Iraq into forming a democracy did not result in the adoration of that goal: it resulted in alienation and hatred of America, even from the Iraqi populace. It gave further motivations and reasonings for terror, resulting in its potential increase and thus resulting in the loss of MORE lives; the money used in a war that did not contribute to any larger goal prevents us, currently, from dealing with the terror that the Iraq war spurred.

    More than 45% of Iraqis support attacking the American troops. Oh yes, these American troops who liberated them from the hands of the evil dictator and thus served their interests! ROFL. The arrogance of neoconservatism- the belief that, somehow, our concept of a good country is universal and applies to every individual and every nation- does not function; the people of Iraq do not want to conform to our standards of ‘liberty’. They Iraqis are not happy, and for damn good reason- that would insinuate that the temporary quelling of violence in the region with violence is not a long term and a decisively inefficient solution.

    There were alternatives to ending whatever genocide Saddam was committing; not only did human rights groups not advocate the invasion on the grounds that Hussein’s latest ‘crimes against humanity’ were more than 10 years ago, the primary source of death was poverty: something that can be combated diplomatically and without the utilization of finances and brutal force.

    2. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the war on terror and we’ve flat-out refused to directly negotiate with him and act with multilateral cooperation for the purposes of searching less bloody and less costy alternatives. The only way to somehow end the war on terror is through conserving money, acting with cooperation, using diplomacy, restrained military and economic pressure, and the psychological understanding of causes for terrorism: in order to effectively act upon these, we need global understanding. The Iraq war gets in that way, and thus, we need to ‘apologize’ for that in order to assist the larger goals in the world.

    The ‘blame’ for providing the motivations for terrorism is American imperialism and violence. Violence is a response to violence, and the initial violence is always caused by the greater and therefore more influential force.

    I speak efficiently and realistically. ‘Democracy’ an ‘liberty’ aren’t some universally great values that must be forced down every populace’s throat; that results in alienation and violence. I also understanding that patience, restraint, and diplomacy are integral keys: acting recklessly and without further information results to needless loss of lives and money. Had the war in Iraq not been launched, what could have happened?

    1. The United States’ financial collapse would have been avoided or highly delayed: this would mean that our ability to defend ourselves and intervene in truly severe humanitarian situations around the globe would have increased in scope. Two trillion dollars = a lot of lives saved, if used efficiency: I can certainly predict that it takes less than a million dollars to save a human life, which leads to the conclusion that two million people, at the very least, could have been saved our lives.

    2. We would’ve had further global understanding: global understanding and the strengthening of the U.N opens several alternatives to violence, alternatives that are less bloody, more long-term, and function far more efficiently.

    3. If the above two work, what could we have done? We could have alleviated the circumstances that lead to terrorism, we could’ve continued to wage economic diplomacy upon nations that DO contribute to terrorism, we could have afforded to shut down the networks that finance terrorism, therefore emasculating it and weakening it, which opens further diplomatic possibilities. The debate of ‘saving the iraqiz lolz!!’ is hypothetical in nature; saying ‘well more lives have been SAVED’ is a bullshit exercise, being that it is an end that cannot be proven to exist or to not have been achieved with superior means. It also ignores the violence that the war caused and will inevitably lead to, and it ignores the lives that could have been saved if we acted with a bit more hesitation and intelligence. Hint? Many, many more.

    If you’re so big on democracy, why not learn that, if the populace of a country dominantly wants you to leave, you must comply to it? That’s the meaning of a democracy- the majority decides what happens to the future of their countries. They are not interested in our cultural imperialism; they are not interested in becoming a socially libertarian and capitalist nation.

    You honestly have no global vision and no comprehension of conserving money (ironic, being that you’re supposed to be called ‘conservatives), no comprehension of moral relativism, no comprehension of the psychology of terrorists, etc. The answer to the war on terror is not violet in nature, unless you want the U.S to collapse and for terrorism to gain more recruits and more power; it is economic and diplomatic in nature.

  22. Debunkinator Says:

    And yes, we most certainly could have prevented Russia and France from financing Hussein via diplomatic and economic agreements: we come to certain ‘deals’ and U.N-imposed sanctions, and we, in that manner, can severely punish those who do not comply to it and actually finance terrorism.

  23. bg Says:

    ++

    Debunkinator..

    dang, that is one heck of a chop shop diatribe drop..

    you are so full of yhit, i’ll leave you to wallow in it..

    debunk?? indeed..

    ==

  24. Debunkinator Says:

    Well, being that this is a redneck (sorry, did I say that out loud?) blog, I’m sure that posting a logical and intelligent rebuttal of Thong’s own, rather solid argument is seen in a very negative manner. Scott seems pretty intelligent (for a necon), so it’s honestly fascinating to see how his articles attract such imbeciles (imbecile means ‘stupid’ in Smart Language, by the way).

    If you’re incapable of ‘debunking’ my argument, shut the f*ck up. Go back to reveling in your one-sided and self-apologizing arguments- neoconservatism is imperialism; the fact that you buy the sugarcoats of politicians that it is humanitarian is absurd and most certainly entertaining.

  25. bg Says:

    ++

    MNF

    FJI

    صورة اليوم

    ==

  26. bg Says:

    ++

    don’t think this went through..

    trying again..

    re: Debunkinator..

    depends on what your definition of “logic” is..

    so far it’s a conglomeration of convoluted assertions, backed up by ad
    hominem troll like ramblings & personal attacks labeled by you as
    “intelligent”:..when i fact, it not only lacks substance, but any sort
    of debunking whatsoever.. hence, i’m responding in kind.. which
    requires neither rebuttal nor intelligent argument due to the fact
    that you have presented nothing but opinion to back up your asserted
    assumptions .. do your own research & i’ll STFU, k??

    ==

  27. bg Says:

    ++

    pardon typo’s..

    ie: when [in] fact, not i..

    ==

  28. Jason Says:

    I just have to make one comment about Obama “bowing to the Saudis”. Do you know who has been in bed with the Saudi Royal family for decades? Yes, the Bush family. Do you know who has been in business with the Bin Laden family? The Bush family! That is bowing to the Saudis. Look up the Carlyle Group, Bush, and bin Laden. Look up the pictures of W. holding hands with the Saudi princes. Now who is bowing to the Saudis?

  29. bg Says:

    ++

    Jason, you seriously need to investigate beyond the headlines..

    read it & weep..

    ==

  30. Scott Thong Says:

    Partially agreed, Jason. Bush was cheerfully calling Saudi Arabia ‘America’s friend’ and watching a sword dance even as Saudi money flowed into jihadi accounts.

    As many true-blooded Conservatives – including Michelle Malkin – say, Obama is completing what lame duck Bush prepared the way for – socialism, bailouts, unprotected borders, and pandering to terrorist supporters.

    McCain would only have made things worse! The GOP is already such a spineless jellyfish of an organization that has lost its roots, to the point that Republican leaders were booed at the grassroots Tea Parties for selling out Conservative principles.

  31. Crunching the Numbers-Iraqi Lives Saved | mormon crickets Says:

    [...] [...]

  32. Debunkinator Says:

    I didn’t make a single personal attack against someone who did not make a personal attack against me- like I said, Thong was at least capable of creating a coherent and logical argument; you?

    Your a moron u should revel in ur own sh*t noob you suck i hate it when my narrow-minded opinions are challenged… i hate to think about the ramifications of an action beyund the immidiate an hypothetical consequences and abut anytin that is morally complex and involves thinking in terms of finances and global cooperation. go america!

  33. bg Says:

    ++

    Debunkinator,

    go back, read posts, comprehend..

    and thanks for proving my point..

    nuff said, carry on..

    ==

  34. Debunkinator Says:

    I’m the one who posted an argument for why the Iraq war was an impractical mistake and support of it is narrow-minded and simplistic in nature, that simply does not involve the comprehension of its larger ramifications and effects upon the world- indeed, one could make the argument that the Iraq war strengthened terrorism, and if America continues its imperialistic conquest, it will inevitably lead to further destruction, violence, and perhaps even America’s complete and utter collapse- and in order to for us to be capable of humanitarian intervention, which is a luxury, we must first fully re-cement our position as the world’s leading economic force and instead move towards more efficient and permanent solutions rather than taking the simple-minded approach of blowing up any country we do not, ourselves, like. Do you want me to recap my points?

    1. The war in Iraq contributed to America’s financial downfall: the vast finances involved and that will inevitably be involved could have been alternatively utilized for the purpose of saving more lives by combating, perhaps, hunger and disease, two sources of vast death around the world (and sources that can be defeated more easily). I’ll say it again: if a human life can be saved with a million dollars, than the trillion+ dollars involved in the Iraq war could have saved a million lives.

    2. There were alternative, diplomatic solutions that could have been exercised with a bit more intelligent, restraint, and patience- these solutions would have minimized the loss of lives and would have acted as a more stable solution.

    3. The Iraq War created further motivations and reasonings for terrorism- the millions of refugees might have fled to neighboring countries, with their fear, hatred, and desire for revenge being exploited in order to draft them into the lines of terror. The strengthening of terrorism = further grasp of terrorism upon the area, = further oppression, aggression, war, and an inability to engage in proper diplomacy. Even if the Iraq war ‘helped’ Iraq (which it did not), the damage and consequences of it will be very severe; it will inevitably result in power vacuums and further wars.

    4. Because of its financial cost, the Iraq War prevented the U.S from concentrating upon the true threat of terrorism- launching it was an unwise and silly abuse of the U.S’s military force.

    5. The act of staying in Iraq against the desires of the populace is wrong according to the principles of democracy.

    There ya go. So much for ‘off-topic’.

  35. bg Says:

    ++

    i agree, your are de “bunk” er..

    ==

  36. Debunkinator Says:

    Do it. Go on. Post a rebuttal. Or shut the f*ck up.

  37. Scott Thong Says:

    Eh, a little lesser on the swear words, please? I have to * all of them manually.

  38. bg Says:

    ++

    so much BS, so little time..

    ==

  39. bg Says:

    ++

    oops, trying again.. time..

    just in case..

    ==

  40. Scott Thong Says:

    Dude! You can embed Youtube video into comments? I didn’t know that!

  41. kinziblogs Says:

    Scott, thank you for this. It helped me answer a commenter. :)

  42. jezb1 Says:

    60 minutes interview (from Jan/2008) with FBI and CIA front man George Piro about his interviews w/ Saddam Hussein after he was captured by U.S. forces.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

  43. John Doe Says:

    GO JOIN ARMY

  44. Scott Thong Says:

    Especially the US Army, they get the best toys for pwning terrorists with.

  45. thongoftheday Says:

    Great insight, but what do you think about the situation now?

    Where is the next war coming from? Will it be the 3rd world war that the economy really needs?

  46. Simon Thong Says:

    3rd world war? are you planning to start it here?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 118 other followers

%d bloggers like this: