More Replies to Scott’s NST Letters on Iraq

Two fellas replied to my last letter, but compared to Mukhriz Mahathir and potentially ISIS, I kinda don’t have the interest to respond.

(It’s now confirmed – 750,000 lives saved by Bush.)

From NST Letters 14 April 2009, a rather shallow and amateurish attempt that ignores the fact that Saddam was a total jerk:

IRAQ WAR: Such unilateral decisions must not be tolerated
By : JEONG CHUN PHUOC, Shah Alam

Email to friend Print article

I FIND the letter by Scott Thong Y.Y. (“Was it so rosy under Saddam?” — NST, April 10) to be a direct insult to the notion of international law and social justice.

The US March 2003 invasion of Iraq raised a fundamental issue under international law because it had no support from the United Nations. The US justification for attacking Iraq and violating its sovereignty was based on two flawed grounds — Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and its alleged support for al-Qaeda.

However, at the end of Bush’s administration, it was revealed that Iraq had no such WMD as alleged. Even the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation could not support Bush’s claim on the al-Qaeda charge.

Recent disclosure via a series of Senate reviews of US pre-war intelligence confirmed that “the Bush administration repeatedly presented intelligence (relating to Iraq’s WMD capabilities) as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent … “.

The results relied upon by Thong in the BBC survey and the ORB survey would have been very different had they been carried out during the early days of the US invasion of Iraq.

Whatever the end results in Iraq today, the US administration under Barack Obama must take serious note of the fact that the UN and the international community will no longer tolerate an Iraq-style approach in resolving any kind of international dispute.

And again from NST Letters 14 April 2009, who at least acknowledges Saddam’s badness. I have a minor correction for him that I don’t know if I should send in to NST:

IRAQ WAR: Bush must accept blame for chaos
By : RUZAINI FIKRI MOHD AZMAN, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur

I REFER to Scott Thong Yu Yuen’s response (“Was it so rosy under Saddam?” — NST, April 10) to Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir’s comments on the Iraq war (“Invasion can’t be justified” — NST, April 9).

Thong justifies the US invasion of Iraq by stating that most of the killings in Iraq were caused by al-Qaeda (whom the Iraqis hate), that the US has brought democracy and peace to Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was such a monster that any other person ruling Iraq would have been better.

Yes, al-Qaeda had a hand in the killings of civilians in Iraq. But does this justify the invasion by the US and does it justify the atrocities of the US on Iraqi soil?

Let’s talk about the al-Qaeda presence in Iraq. Why did these attacks happen, not during Saddam’s reign, but during the US occupation?

A simplistic answer would be that they hate Americans. But one must also understand that the chaos that exists in Iraq today is because of the invasion.

The US occupation, which succeeded in toppling Saddam but not in providing a strong government, has left Iraq in chaos, with clashes between the Shia majority and the Sunni, Kurd and Christian minorities, making it easier for the infiltration of al-Qaeda agents into the country.

Thong also claimed that the Iraq war has brought more peace and freedom compared with 30 years of despotism and deprivation under Saddam.

No one is saying that Saddam is a saint; we acknowledge he committed atrocities against Shia and Kurds.

But he was also responsible for making Iraq a strong country in the Middle East, providing universities, museums and hospitals. All of these were destroyed by the US.

I do not know which “more peace and freedom” Thong is referring to, when even the simplest action, such as teenagers going out on a date, allowed under Saddam’s reign, is now a crime.

Look at the atrocities committed by the US. Was it not the US that was responsible for the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison?

What about the Mahmudiyya massacre, where five US soldiers killed an entire family, then gang-raped, murdered and set on fire a 14-year-old girl?

At the end of the day, the responsibility for the situation in Iraq, with the loss of lives, the infiltration of terrorist organisations and the destruction of national heritage and infrastructure, must lie with the decision of President George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2003.

If by ‘Mahmudiyya massacre’, he means the Mahmudiyah incident, all those involved were charged in court. Can the same be said for Al Qaeda’s torturers? Note how he cleverly didn’t quote the Haditha incident, where 7 out of 8 of the Marines have been acquitted and one awaits trial.

And here’s one who goes the old ‘Why didn’t Bush rescue Darfur’ route, which if he actually had, he would be demonized for as well, duh?

From NST Letters 16 April 2009:

IRAQ WAR: Ulterior motive seems likely
By : ABDUL RAZAK ABU SAMAH, Temerloh

THE letter “Was it so rosy under Saddam” (NST, April 10) is an excellent example of how shrewd one can be arguing about an issue, in this case, the Iraq War, and pretend to make sense out of nothing. That’s what I think Scott Thong Yu Yuen is all about.

The thrust of his argument was basically: how can anyone argue that Bush was a murderer when Saddam Hussein was even worse? And he sought to defend his premise by saying that Saddam killed more people than George W. Bush did.

But surely what we are talking about is not how many died under Bush and Saddam, but whether Bush had the legal authority to invade Iraq, a sovereign country.

Otherwise, where is the legal justification for the Americans killing Iraqis (under whatever name) whom he called “terrorists”, who died resisting the invasion? If they had not entered Iraq, would the question of how many Americans and Iraqis had been killed have arisen at all?

Thong cannot say that Bush entered Iraq to save the Iraqis from Saddam. Where is the international law that allows one country to invade another to save its people under tyranny, so-called, in the absence of any imminent threat to the invader and without a United Nations sanction?

If that is permissible, then what would Thong say if the Russians invaded the US because they wanted to free blacks from the tyranny of whites? Would he say that would be right, too?

It’s strange indeed that Colin Powell, former US secretary of state, did not tell the UN that he had solid proof that Saddam was killing his own people, but instead said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which has never been proven. In fact, it has been admitted by the US that the information was utter rubbish.

Even if we go along with Thong’s argument that Bush entered Iraq to save it from Saddam, can this be true? Millions were being killed in the civil strife in Rwanda but Bush did not lift a finger to save any of them.

So, putting the two together, we must conclude that the Americans invaded Iraq not to save the Iraqis but to save Iraq’s oil for themselves, which they now say they are justified in taking as the Iraqis have to compensate them for giving them their so-called “freedom”.

It’s basically pointless to continue arguing, as the mindset of the majority in Malaysia is that America (and the Jews, somehow) is fundamentally evil and cannot possibly do anything for the sake of good.

NST Letters – Just War: The Plus Factor in Bush’s Iraq Invasion

UPDATES: Mukhriz Mahathir responds to my letter, and I respond to him in turn.

So far only the New Straits Times has printed my letter based on my calculations that Bush saved 600,000 Muslim lives:

2009/04/07
Just War: The plus factor in Bush’s Iraq invasion
By : SCOTT THONG YU YUEN, Ipoh

IT is a fundamental human right to be able to live in peace, without the fear or threat of violence. But while there are many who identify themselves as “pro-peace, anti-war”, they fail to recognise the concept of a “just war” — a war that is justified in its motivation and that aims to achieve justice.

A just war can actually bring more peace and preserve more lives than non-intervention. Perhaps this concept would be better understood by using an example, say, the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies.

True, former US president George W. Bush’s original reason for invading Iraq — that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — proved to be unfounded. But let’s do some quick calculations on the end results of the invasion and occupation.

For the 57 months from March 2003 to the end of 2008, using the Iraq Body Count project estimate, 98,882 Iraqi civilians died as a result of Bush’s war. That is a rate of 1,734.8 deaths per month.

Compare with Saddam’s reign: For the 285 months of his presidency from July 16, 1979 to April 9, 2003, using just six of the war crime events listed by US War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer, 865,000 Iraqis civilians died as the result of Saddam’s rule. That is a rate of 3,035.1 deaths per month — 1.75 times greater than Bush’s death rate.

(This figure does not include the deaths of non-Iraqis for any reasons, nor the Iraqi casualties during the wars against Iran and Kuwait, or the many other documented human rights abuses.)

Compare with the Bill Clinton-era embargo: For the 108 months from Aug 6, 1990 to Aug 6, 1999, the United Nations estimated one million Iraqi civilians died as a result of the sanctions. That is a rate of 9,259.3 deaths per month — 5.337 times greater than Bush’s death rate.

(This figure does not include the further four years of the sanctions until 2003. Meanwhile, Saddam himself lived the easy life unaffected by the sanctions.)

Now, taking the total deaths during Bush’s Iraq war (98,882), added to that of the Saddam and Clinton eras (173,044 + 527,733), and subtracting the Bush total from that (700,777- 98,882), we can estimate how many more lives would have been lost from 2003 to 2008 had Saddam still ruled under continued sanctions (601,895).

Suffice to say, Bush’s “warmongering” saved more than 600,000 lives in Iraq.

I expect plenty of replies and flames in the letters to come, as is the fate of Malaysia’s Leading Neocon whenever he speaks out publicly. Perhaps I shall reprint some of them, but can any of them argue based on facts and statistics rather than opinion?

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 month… 1.75 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 month… 5.337 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!