Bush Saved 750,000 Iraqi Lives


Printed in the NST here.

This is a follow up to my earlier calculations that Bush’s War saved 600,000 Iraqi lives.

Super kudos to Say Anything Blog for tipping me off to this update via a link that trackbacked to my stats page!

Kudos to Gateway Pundit for linkage twice, and to Moonbattery.

—————————

Three quarters of a million Iraqis saved by Bush!

On 14 October 2009, the Associated Press reported that Iraq’s government had finally released their figures for the death toll. A report by the Human Rights Ministry said that from the beginning of 2004 to 31 October 2008, a period of 58 months, 85,694 Iraqis were killed – a rate of 1,477.5 deaths per month. No Americans, insurgents or foreigners are included in the figure.

(This is significantly lower than my earlier calculation of 98,882 Iraqi deaths over 57 months using the Iraq Body Count project estimate – a rate of 1,734.8 deaths per month.)

And thanks to the US Troop Surge and the Anbar Awakening where the Iraqis turned against Al Qaeda, the situation in Iraq is far more stable today.

The Iraqi defence, interior and health ministries estimate that from 1 November 2008 to 31 August 2009, there were just 3,045 Iraqi casualties – a rate of just 304.5 deaths per month. (For comparison, the murder rate in peacetime South Africa currently stands at 1,512.3 deaths per month, higher than even wartime Iraq.)

Taken together, this means that 88,739 Iraqis were killed over the past 68 months – a rate of 1,305 deaths per month. Bear in mind that these deaths were overwhelmingly caused by terrorist attacks while the ‘evil US occupation soldiers’ were giving their own lives to protect Iraqi civilians.

Compare this to Saddam Hussein’s reign. From July 16, 1979 to April 9, 2003 and focusing on just six war crime events listed by US War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer, there were an estimated 865,000 Iraqi deaths over 285 months – a rate of 3,035.1 deaths per month.

And compare to the Bill Clinton-era embargo that followed: From Aug 6, 1990 to Aug 6, 1999 the United Nations estimated one million Iraqi civilians died over 108 months as a result of the sanctions – a rate of 9,259.3 deaths per month.

Thus, Saddam Hussein’s death rate was 2.33 times greater than Bush’s. Clinton’s death rate was 7.1 times greater than Bush’s.

So if Bush’s invasion had not ended both Saddam’s rule and the embargo, we can estimate that from the period of 1 January 2004 to 31 August 2009, a total of 206,387 + 629,632 = 836,019 Iraqis would have died.

Taken against the actual figure of just 88,739 deaths during that period, we can determine that 747,280 fewer Iraqi lives have been lost due to ‘Bush’s war of aggression’.

So did Bush invade Iraq based on faulty reasoning about weapons of mass destruction? Indubitably. Did he act unilaterally without the approval of the United Nations? Indisputably. Did his actions directly lead to a massive campaign by terrorists to make the lives of Iraqis living hell? Unfortunately.

But did Bush’s decision to invade Iraq turn out for the good in the end?

For the answer to that, perhaps we should ask one of the three quarters of a million Iraqis who are alive today due to his ‘warmongering’.

——————————-

See also the difference in estimations from this chart from Something should go here, maybe later, which explains why Bush was so (unjustly) vilified:

Two of the people I would like to shake the hands of, pose for a photo and get an autograph from – George W. Bush and General David Petraeus, both for what they have done for the people of Iraq.

Not only have Bush’s actions saved 750,000 innocent Iraqis… They have simultaneously killed tens of thousands of murderous terrorists, thus making the whole world safer.

PS. Note that Obama would have retreated from Iraq and had no qualms about allowing a genocide to take place.

A guy who supported genocide, versus a guy who saved 750,000 lives. Who do you think wins the Nobel Peace Prize?


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

33 Responses to “Bush Saved 750,000 Iraqi Lives”

  1. Iraq Releases Death Toll.... - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 12 - City-Data Forum Says:

    [...] [...]

  2. Gateway Pundit: 1,000,000 Iraqis Died As a Result of Clinton’s Policies… 85,000 Died During "Bush’s War" « Are you Freaking Stupid? Says:

    [...] may have saved 750,000 [...]

  3. Twitter Trackbacks for Bush Saved 750,000 Iraqi Lives « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT [scottthong.wordpress.com] on Topsy.com Says:

    [...] Bush Saved 750,000 Iraqi Lives « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/bush-saved-750000-iraqi-lives – view page – cached This is a follow up to my earlier calculations that Bush’s War saved 600,000 Iraqi lives. — From the page [...]

  4. Are more Iraqis today thanks to Bush? « Something should go here, maybe later. Says:

    [...] what’s more interesting, is the idea that this might actually be a reduction on what would otherwise have happened. Compare this to Saddam Hussein’s reign. From July 16, 1979 to April 9, 2003 and focusing on just [...]

  5. TallDave Says:

    Good post.

    Keep in mind too, that media reports tend to exaggerate deaths (9/11 was supposedly 10,000 for montjs, Katrina had “stacks of corpses,” etc) and some reported incidents have been investigated and found untrue. While many claim the IBC numbers are low, this is probably not true.

  6. hoosierarmymom Says:

    Excellent post Scott. I think they should rename the Nobel Peace Prize. It should be the International Moonbat of the Year Award!! Let’s face it, ever since they gave it to Yassar Arafat, it has become something no one decent would want to accept!

    The real hero, in my book, is General David Petraeus. God Bless that man!

  7. scrubone Says:

    Thanks for the link, I should point out I got that chart from Gateway Pundit.

  8. Eric Says:

    Don’t forget there are some 50,000,000 more free to vote people thanks to Bush.

  9. Scott Thong Says:

    Not to mention free to not be raped by Saddam’s sons, not be arrested/tortured/executed on a whim, not to be shot or blown up while visiting the market or mosque, and free to basically stay alive and live life!

  10. armchairantichrist Says:

    “But did Bush’s decision to invade Iraq turn out for the good in the end?”

    So, you shouldn’t worry about the law as long as things turn out all right? That’s some faulty logic.

    “So did Bush invade Iraq based on faulty reasoning about weapons of mass destruction? Indubitably. Did he act unilaterally without the approval of the United Nations? Indisputably. Did his actions directly lead to a massive campaign by terrorists to make the lives of Iraqis living hell? Unfortunately.”

    And it makes all this just fine and dandy?

    The other thing wrong with your reasoning is with your use of these “statistics”. There is no precise death toll for Iraqi civilians. Estimates of the death toll vary greatly. You have used sources from many different organizations. These organizations have different methods of estimation. For example, definition of “casualty” is one of those things that is markedly from organization to organization. Your “math” doesn’t take these discrepanices into consideration so your numbers mean nothing.

  11. armchairantichrist Says:

    *
    For example, the definition of “casualty” is one of those things that is markedly different from organization to organization.

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    Seriously? You want to argue on the definition of ‘casualty’?

    It’s shooting yourself in the foot, and a waste of a good chance to make a decent argument, since the Associated Press article and my own blog post already make clear we’re talking about how many Iraqis were killed. Or did you not bother to properly read before beginning your bash-fest?

    If you want to argue on the definition of ‘killed’ next, feel free though.

    And if you want to argue about the accuracy of the statistics, you’re perfectly entitled to do so. After all, I had previously used another source that showed higher death figures for Bush’s occupation.

    Just note that the official Iraqi government figure woul need to be more than 900% under-reported to match Saddam’s and Clinton’s achievements! Oh wait… Maybe those two fellows’ death tolls are inaccurate too, they probably killed far more than the reported number!

    If you want to talk illegality, then let’s discuss how UN-decree following Saddam Hussein did business with law-abiding UN Oil-For-Food officials, yes? Totally just and legal there!

    At no point in my post do I justify the invasion of Iraq, although you are allowed to argue that I hint at it. All I am doing is pointing out that ‘rightfully elected Saddam Hussein’ and ‘legal and UN sanctioned Clinton’ killed far more Iraqis than ‘illegal and unlawful Bush’. I also wish to point out that while millions died as a direct result of Saddam’s and Clinton’s actions, the vast majority of casualties under Bush were caused by Islamic terrorists whom Bush’s forces were committed to stopping.

    Care to debate that point?

  13. armchairantichrist Says:

    Overgeneralization and oversimplification is the cause of many follies when people try to analyze statistics in this way.

    “It’s shooting yourself in the foot, and a waste of a good chance to make a decent argument, since the Associated Press article and my own blog post already make clear we’re talking about how many Iraqis were killed.”

    Did you notice the “for example”? It means it’s only “one” of the many things used to come up with a statistic.

    “If you want to argue on the definition of ‘killed’ next, feel free though.”

    Do you think it’s really that simple? It has to do with how the deaths are caused.

    And even if they all have the same criterion for how the deaths are caused they will still not be accurate. For example, the Associated Press uses numbers from morgues. But, bodies are usually not taken to the morgue, but given directly to victims’ families.

    “If you want to talk illegality, then let’s discuss how UN-decree following Saddam Hussein did business with law-abiding UN Oil-For-Food officials, yes? Totally just and legal there!”

    Two wrongs make a right fallacy.

    “I also wish to point out that while millions died as a direct result of Saddam’s and Clinton’s actions, the vast majority of casualties under Bush were caused by Islamic terrorists whom Bush’s forces were committed to stopping.”

    I suggest you think about the consequences of blowback. Those evil terrorists weren’t there all along. And never in those numbers. So, it’s not just Bush. The foreign policy of the US has been creating terrorists for a very long time.

  14. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Out of almost six billion peoples on the planet Earth, how many of them believe in this made up story ? At my university, we have more than 2,000 foreign student, mostly Arabs.. and many Iraqis as well..
    NONE of them seem to know about Saddaq killed hundred of thousand peoples in the past ! (They simply didn’t know !!.. If you want to know, read media of the West, or listen to CNN, BBC ???..)

    It is probably true he indirectly imprisoned or odered his army to hunt and kill some of the rebelllious Kurds etc, BUT FOR SURE no one believe in that exaggerated made up lies!

    Let us make up the story, and let us TRY TO BELIEVE IT.. Can we believe?

    The supporter of Bush said: “”West’s media usually try not to expose anything bad in the Muslim worlds..”
    Anyone believe??

  15. Scott Thong Says:

    Well Nasaei, you can simply try and ask the actual Iraqis alive today, most of whom would have lived through Saddam’s 24 years of reign. They will tell you whether or not the ‘Western media stories’ of his gassing the Kurds, attacking Iran and Kuwait, disappearing citizens, his sons’ kidnapping and raping of women, etc are true.

    In any case, what do you think of the million+ who reportedly died under the Clinton-era embargo… True or false?

  16. Scott Thong Says:

    Overgeneralization and oversimplification is the cause of many follies when people try to analyze statistics in this way.

    Two wrongs make a right fallacy.

    One: Again, where did I argue for the legality Bush’s actions?

    Two: So you believe it would be better to continue letting the Iraqis die in greater numbers under the combination of Saddam and sanctions? (Or is that me using a false dilemma fallacy?)

    I suggest you think about the consequences of blowback. Those evil terrorists weren’t there all along.

    True, the US invasion of Iraq served to lure tens of thousands of foreign mujahideen to their deaths in Iraq. I for one am grateful that they aren’t alive and infesting my part of the world.

    It’s funny how the US is always to blame for Islamic terrorism worldwide, isn’t it? Barracks bombings in China, embassy shootings in Pakistan, shooting sprees in Mumbai, beheadings in Southern Thailand, Saudi Arabia and Iran’s recent terrorist attacks, kidnappings and murder in Acheh and Moro…

    And also the various instances of mass nation-state sponsored raids, slavery and murder of the Barbary pirates, in response to the oppressive act of the founding of the United States of America. Indeed!

    Just like how the Crusaders started this whole clash of civilizations by going back in time 461 years and instigating the continuous invasions, occupations and pillaging of Africa, West Asia and Europe by the totally justified Islamic armies. 100% factual and true!

    I also wonder why of all the Christians who are under heavy persecution in China, India, the Middle East, the former Communist bloc, or basically any Islamic state don’t rise up violently more often. I bet it’s because the US has those crazy redneck Bible Belt fundies, that’s why! Because… Um… The US supports them with airstrikes or something…

  17. sabra Says:

    Miss me yet?
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/bush_miss_me_yet_billboard_is.html

  18. angry taxpayer Says:

    Wow, this is the brilliant, we just place sanctions on a country before invading them. As long as we killed more people with sanctions than we kill during the invasion we can say that we saved lives.

    Alright, next up, Cuba, North Korea, Iran. We will march on road of bones, and now we can continue to call ourselves the good guys too.

  19. Scott Thong Says:

    By your same reasoning, the US should never have gotten involved in the World War II’s European Theatre (Hitler’s unilateral declaration of war or no), because stopping the Nazi war machine and death camps would be to ‘march on road of bones, and now we can continue to call ourselves the good guys too’.

    Am I correct?

    Your straw man needs some needles to simulate brains.

    The sanctions on Iraq should never have been used in the first place – they never hurt the dictator and always hurt the people he holds captive. It took George W. Bush’s putting up with the world’s tossed shoes in order to do what the prissy UN wouldn’t and end the child-murdering sanctions. And even without taking sanctions into account, stopping Saddam’s serial genocide should have been justification enough (same goes for Castro, Kim and Nuke-Israel-shoot-students-denijad).

    Leave conjecture to the college philosophy professors – the reality is that Clinton and the UN made a mistake to the tune of millions of lives regarding Iraq, and Bush fixed it.

  20. Chris day Says:

    Bravo! Finally a fact reporter announcing Bush’s Iraq stance was an improvement. I argue this all the time but dens tend to stick to the bash anything which works to the advantage of a republican and use similar facts to praise a democrat argument tactic of the foolish guy you are debating with. Very nicely posted my friend.

  21. enjoyit Says:

    “Alright, next up, Cuba, North Korea, Iran. We will march on road of bones, and now we can continue to call ourselves the good guys too. ”

    Whom are you kidding. You do not have cojones to do that anymore. You are not even a third of what your forefathers were which is whu one of your big cities is going to be wiped out by the jihadis. And you will be one of those pre 2nd WW “chamberlains” responsible. Follow your present turkey in the White House to your slaughter.

  22. U235 Says:

    “one of your big cities is going to be wiped out by the jihadis.”

    Awww please make it happen soon so I can laugh in the faces of these radiated angry taxpayers.

  23. nuraddin Says:

    Bush is the real terrorist.

    The Iraq war is based on a web of lies. Bush’s illegal occupation of Iraq and to date the killing of over 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children, makes Bush, Inc. the terrorist.

    Jacqueline Betz,
    Gainesville

  24. la cucaracha Says:

    “makes Bush, Inc. the terrorist”

    ya ya ya wat have u done about it. Go shoot him if you feel so strongly. nyah ;; talk like obambi and nothing to show for it

  25. la cucaracha Says:

    “The Iraq war is based on a web of lies.”

    I dont give a quark of a fark. Only happiness it was done. So there. Now go and cry some more in Gainesville with no gain.

  26. Harry Sokaden Says:

    For those of you who believe that it was unjust for the United States and its allies to depose Saddam Hussein and his regime, please consider this
    “Hundreds of Chilldren Found in Mass Grave”
    http://www.hrtribune.net/View.aspx?id=187

    It is apparent that Jacqueline Betz is an advocate of mass murder of children. Given the opportunity, God forbid, none of the Arab countries would treat Jews any better.

  27. Harry Sokaden Says:

    Dubai assassination

    Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, however many video cameras you may have watching you, we will find you, and we will kill you. And you will know who we are, and yet you will never find us. And MOST importantly: we are going to do it in as brazen a manner as possible.

    We are even going to swipe the passports of some innocent British citizens, daring the West to criticize us. But we don’t care. We are going to kill you in such a manner that you will immediately be able to track us down – but we’ll already be gone.

    And just because the British and American pundits didn’t pick up on this, doesn’t mean Hamas didn’t get the point.
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/the-message-from-netanyahu.html

  28. Scott Thong Says:

    Only 30,000? If you actually bothered to read my post, Musliman Saddam killed more than 865,000 while the UN sanctions killed more than 1,000,000. 30,000 is amateurish!

    As I show in this letter to the NST, conclusive evidence shows that the majority of deaths of civilians was from the actions of insurgents while the Americans were dying trying to protect the innocent.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/nst-letters-scotts-reply-to-mukhriz-mahathir-on-iraq-deaths/

    If the statistics are false (and I’m sure James Cameron must have something to do with that!), then why did the Iraqis side with the Americans over the ‘freedom fighters’ in the Anbar Awakening? Tell us that.

    As this reporter observes:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/excerpts-from-michael-yons-and-michael-j-tottens-articles-on-the-true-situation-in-iraq/

    Until recently, such terror attacks inside Iraq could have coerced the village into sheltering Al Qaeda. Yet this time, the “jihadists” got an unexpected reception. Local men grabbed their rifles and poured fire on the demons, slaughtering them. Nineteen terrorists were destroyed.

    He was dressed as a woman as he walked down the alley toward the mosque full of worshippers. It was Friday, just before Ashura, and the air was chilled. The bomb strapped to his body was studded with ball-bearings so that he could kill more villagers as they gathered for prayer.

    “One night,” Lieutenant Markham said, “after several young people were beheaded by Al Qaeda, the mosques in the city went crazy. The imams screamed jihad from the loudspeakers. We went to the roof of the outpost and braced for a major assault. Our interpreter joined us. Hold on, he said. They aren’t screaming jihad against us. They are screaming jihad against the insurgents.

    Who is the real terrorist, Bush or Saddam or the UN or the jihadis? Why don’t you ask an actual Iraqi who lived through all four before spouting off more brainwashed nonsense.

  29. Chris day Says:

    Scott knows what he’s talking about guys. This isn’t “over generalized”. They are facts. Better done than Clinton and I bet you same people praise Clinton for his 17 UN sanctions which caused the larger amount of crises. If it’s a “warcrime” to perform better, then I guess you should abandon Clinton on the side of the road with Bush and see which one the Iraqis let live. I guarantee you they like bush more. Especially the women who had the first chance to vote ever. It amazes me that liberal feminists are so approving of saddam and al quieda considering how they act towards Americans you’d think they would hate people like that more, not less. *shrugs*

  30. lucklucky Says:

    Nasaei. how it can be Bush fault that Muslims murder other Muslims? Didn’t Al Qaeda and the thug Zarqawi(rest in hell) tried to make a Civil War in Iraq? Doesn’t that happens also in Pakistan? With bombings in mosques and markets. it doesn’t seems very holly to bomb mosques. There is also Talibans bombing girls schools. The fact is that there is a War in Muslim World. When Al Qaeda attacked in 11/9 it tried to expell any Western influence in Arab/Muslim Word to make them possible to build easily their degenerate anti modernity radical muslim vision.

  31. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I agree..nowardays Muslims factions kill the other Muslims. But that was worsening after Bush made war (not peace) with the innocent Iraqis. (Some peoples say : “NO, no..! They were guilty of “mass destruction weapons”) ! Peoples in Iraq used to live in harmony, albeit some Kurds’s insurgencies once a while – just like any nation in the world.

    When Bush takes side to the quarelling factions, thigs became worse.. (and America made the factions fighting each other..till today. Because you support the other..like what British were doing in the colonial time).

    British and American are perhaps so happy to see Muslims fighting each other. So that…it would be easy to divide and rule them when they were at enmity to each other. What a satanic act of America andthe British !

    Obviously Bush barked at the wrong tree then. (Pls.correct me if I’m wrong). Irq was not supposed to be American enemy at all..but Mr Bush made them enemy instead. American biggest enemy was their President -Mr Bush himself.

    And….there are also suggestions the 9/11 incident was done by other party..not Muslim, not Al-Qaeda.. Who says this ?? Not Muslim said that..but certain peoples…American themselves. Surf internet now, you’ll know it. Some peoples said, on the day, there was no Jews casualties ..whereas many Jews working in the WTC Building. Where did they go on that day ??

    Only Mr Bush was so quick to finger pointing it to “Al-Qaeda”. “The is Al-Qaeda, Al, Qaeda !!” He said !

  32. lol Says:

    Ya, Al Qaeda is good and should train more malays.

  33. Scott Thong Says:

    You can surf Internet too Nasaei, to find out how many Jews were casualties…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Jewish_and_Israeli_involvement

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 114 other followers

%d bloggers like this: