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:

Just War: The plus factor in Bush’s Iraq invasion

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?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

15 Responses to “NST Letters – Just War: The Plus Factor in Bush’s Iraq Invasion”

  1. oneworldmaybenot Says:

    Well done! Thot it was you. Am surprised NST of all papers printed it

  2. Scott Thong Says:

    They give airspace to global warming skepticism too.

  3. simon thong Says:

    I think that there is some openness in the mainstream papers, NST more than Star. They have to consider the challenges from an increasingly open media, particularly from blogs.

  4. jcscuba Says:

    I was going to tell you that I had seen your story and actually posted it on my blog. Only to find that I had cross blogged when I read it from your site and cross blogged it. You have a great site. Keep of the great work, try sending to the WSJ. IBD, http://stopsocialism.wordpress.com

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

    By Scott Thong

    images2UPDATE 4 April 2009: Made some corrections to the calculations.

    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? Complete Story: Cross Blogged

    April 3, 2009 Posted by jcscuba | 000 Muslim Lives, A Just War: George W. Bush Saved 600 | | 2 Comments | Edit

  5. oneworldmaybenot Says:

    You would love WSJ cos they real pro free market and anti Obama (cos they sour grapes their man McCain lost). Btw, no brickbats in NST today….yet

  6. jcscuba Says:

    Nope sorry onewroldmaybenot: No the WSJ doesn’t car for McCain either, they just find Obama’s brand of socialism/Marxism Roosevelt replay. Check out the book The Forgotten Man. NOTHING Obama is doing is going to help the U.S. or the rest of the world he’s a fucking idiot. http://nosocialism.wordpress.com
    Look forward to chatting with you. BTW I don’t understand Btw, no brickbats in NST today….yet can you explain?

  7. oneworldmaybenot Says:

    jcscuba, the WSJ has been unabashedly promoting mccain daily in the run-up to the election, not romney not huckabee definitely not any democrat. WSJ and other business papers are pro business conservatives, and allergic to creeping socialism

    Scott, you got a response from Mukhriz Mahathir in NST today! Now I also wanna write something maybe get response from his daddy! LOL

  8. jcscuba Says:

    Believe me Scott: Mc Cain is no conservative. The lesser of two evils is evil, I would have rather had Palin for president. McCain is too much of an appeaser. I haven’t read any of the articles you mention where the WSj is pro McCain. I no of no conservatives that like him, but the choice was Obama, a socialist/Marxist. BTW I love what you call yourself! Where in Malaysia are you. I was married in on the island of Sipidan, spent a couple days in Kotakenabalu,,sorry if I slaughtered the name. I’m all over that part of the world diving. Check a couple of my sites.
    http://www.jcscuba.blogspot.com and then my business site. http://www.jcscuba.com

  9. Scott Thong Says:

    I knew ‘Lettuce’ McCain was no Conservative, but anyone is on the Right compared to the most liberal senator! On illegal immigration, global warming, unions… He wasn’t called ‘Maverick’ and had the liberal MSM love him for nothing!

    I’m in Johor Bahru, working in Singapore just across the border.

  10. jcscuba Says:

    I love Singapore…we have got to put our party back together, start grooming some candidates in conservative principles or we will loose most of our freedom.
    Have you received the buzz on an incredible book that is number 1 on all the services here? Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny a Conservative Manifesto. Great Read! Jim

  11. Cindy Says:

    With this argument can you explain why Bush did not intervene in Darfur with the same noble goal of saving lives?

  12. jcscuba Says:

    Of course you want to make this an issue of color. It’s not. The U.S. can do so much. Saddam Hussein was taken down when he refused to comply with 17 U.N. sanctions. Iraq is very important to the stability of the world economic system. It’s about oil, Iran will be there in a heart beat if Iraq is unable to defend itself. Darfur is an absolute human tragedy, if the U.N. weren’t such an impotent organization and capable of actually defending people rather that wearing cute blue helmets, maybe there would be hope. As I see it, it’s out and out tribal warfare, and Darfu is just one of the places on the continent this is happening. Your question, is quite old, and tired, goes back to the probability of you suffering from BDS.

  13. Scott Thong Says:

    With this argument can you explain why Bush did not intervene in Darfur with the same noble goal of saving lives?

    Because he’d be demonized for that, too?

  14. jcscuba Says:

    Scott: Glad you asked. I’m just reading a book The Next One Hundred Years by George Friedman. This is a book that is rocking my world. Friedman is the CEO of the Stratfor Report. http://www.stratfor.com They provide geopolitical policy position on areas and countries of interest to the military, CIA, DIA etc. It is his contention among many that the U.S. currently the only remaining superpower has 5 strategic objectives, largely based of fear and our own history at maintaining our way of life. He suggests that the U.S. is in the civilization process about like an adolescent kid. Many of the things we do appear irrational and the vast majority of the world and those of us in the U.S. are absolutely what the goals are. Suffice to say, that Vietnam, the Balkins, Afghanistan, and Iraq were not fought for the generally accepted nonsense we hear in our media. The wars or skirmishes are not being fought necessarily to win but to make sure the perceived threat doesn’t achieve their objective. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan the goal is to destabilize the Islamists, represented by Al Queda and keep them from achieving their goal of world wide Muslim control, in the world. That being said, it will be the norm for U.S. troops to fight limited skirmishes with limited amounts of people to cause as much disruption in the plans of those perceived to threaten us. That’s a very long way to get to your question, of Bush not intervening in Darfur to save lives. According to Friedman, they present no threat or challenge to us. And while we might cheer ourselves up by saying what we are doing is nobel, freeing women saving lives. the long and short is we have figured a way to accomplish our objective, not necessarily a “win” in the conventional sense. In fact we could come away looking as though we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan when in fact we achieved our objective, disruption and chaos, and not letting a new order form to threaten us. I use to simplistically look at it as being a war just for oil. I’m betting from what I’m reading on the net and what I’m trying to absorb and share with you that Afghanistan won’t be the buzz word but Pakistan is going to be the major flash point. One thing certain, it’s a hell of a lot more complicated that we are led to believe. Your thoughts?

  15. Ken Says:

    Just keep in mind a simple truth. You reap what you sew. We are beginning to see the first hints of that worldwide.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: