Posts Tagged ‘Iraq invasion’

NST Letters – Iraq: US-led Invasion Has Saved Lives

December 28, 09

I can predict a whole lotta hate mail coming my way soon via NST’s Letters pages, as happened the last time.


This is Abdul Razak Abu Samah’s letter that appeared in the NST, 24 Dec 2009:

There’s no moral justification for this oil venture

THE oil deal between Petronas and its partners and the Iraqi authorities (“Petronas in giant Iraq oil deals” — NST, Dec 12) has caused some to raise their eyebrows not only from the point of view of the legality of the Iraqi government under international law but the morality of the deals per se.
The Iraq war has always been a contentious issue ever since the country under Saddam Hussein was invaded and occupied by the United States and Britain.

They defended the invasion on the grounds that they needed to take a pre-emptive strike against Saddam to destroy his weapons of mass destruction.

But those weapons never existed. The Americans themselves have admitted as much and the United Nations has confirmed it. The war was unnecessary. It was a grand design to seize what the US and Britain needed most: oil.

And to give effect to their scheme, they had to get rid of Saddam. Or else, they considered him a threat to Israel and he had to be eliminated. This is the irrefutable conclusion.

They could hardly say otherwise once the reason for the invasion and occupation became indefensible.

The status quo that has been established in Iraq is, therefore, a government with an Iraqi face but with the heart and soul of the American and the British.

The latter, seeing the immorality of it all, are slowly walking out, leaving the Ame-ricans behind (and it looks as if we are walking in instead).

But the war goes on. Iraqis who are loyal to Saddam are waging an underground war against the occupying forces but thousands of Iraqis have been killed.

On what moral threshold, therefore, are we seen to be a party to enjoying the fruits of an illegal and unjust war?

If worldly gain and riches are the criteria in our endeavours, then would it not be correct and legitimate also to make Israel our trading partner?

What is the difference? Under such a cloud of clashing causes and moral values, who are we to blame then if the Malaysians working there become the target of suicide attacks?

The contractual terms in the oil bargain may stipulate the work to begin after the American troops have left Iraq, but there is no clear time frame when this will happen.



And this is my response which basically says, why punish Iraqis just ‘cos you hate Bush?

Some parts the NSt editors removed from my original added back in in Italics. Some helpful links I added into the text for reference. Minor changes to style left as NST version, but overall the vast majority of my original text was left as is.

(NST links become defunct after a period.)

IRAQ: US-led invasion has saved lives

I AM not in any way justifying the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain. However, I am of the opinion that Abdul Razak Abu Samah (“There’s no moral justification for this oil venture” — NST, Dec 24) is misinformed about what is going on in Iraq.

First, it is a misconception that weapons of mass destruction were the only reason given for former US president George W. Bush’s invasion. Among the many other factors cited by the US Congress were Saddam Hussein’s infamous atrocities carried out on Iraq’s civilian population, his non-compliance with countless United Nations resolutions (including firing on enforcement planes) and his now proven sponsorship of various terrorist organisations. Honestly, why didn’t the UN take “multilateral” action itself instead of allowing the US to start a “unilateral” invasion?

Second, it is a gross insult to insinuate that the Iraqis are little more than Anglo-controlled sheep. Iraq underwent nationwide democratic elections with 79.6 per cent turnout to choose their new government, and the UN rejected any allegations of fraud. By Abdul Razak’s same standard, is Malaysia’s government also illegitimate because as a former British colony that underwent British-approved elections and British-agreed independence in the 1950s, we have ‘a government with a Malaysian face but with the heart and soul of the British’?

Third, I find it hard to accept that “the war goes on” because “Iraqis who are loyal to Saddam are waging an underground war against the occupying forces”. Has Razak never heard of the Anbar Awakening, where the Iraqis themselves decided to end the reign of terrorism by rising up against al-Qaeda en masse? Imagine that: the Iraqis sided with the “occupying forces” over the “freedom fighters”. Madness, surely!

[Interlude: Michael J. Totten: Anbar Awakens Part I: The Battle of Ramadi – …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.]

Also, if people would open their eyes, they would know that the situation in Iraq is actually more peaceful today than any time in the past 30 years. An official report by the defence, interior and health ministries estimates that from Nov 1 last year to Aug 31 this year, there were just 3,045 Iraqi casualties — a rate of just 304.5 deaths per month.

In comparison, the murder rate in peacetime South Africa is five times greater at 1,512.3 deaths per month.

Not only has violence in Iraq dropped to pre-invasion levels, the death rate is in fact far lower than during Saddam’s rule (3,035.1 deaths per month or 10 times greater) and when UN sanctions were in place (9,259.3 deaths per month). The UN sanctions were thus a far greater killer of Iraqis than Saddam, Bush and Blair put together. – why no condemnation from Abdul Razak?

A quick calculation will find that the invasion actually saved more Iraqi lives than it took. On Oct 14, the Associated Press reported the Human Rights Ministry’s findings where from the beginning of 2004 to Oct 31 last year, 85,694 Iraqis were killed (1,477.5 deaths per month).

By extrapolating the earlier mentioned death rates, we can estimate that if the American-led invasion had not ended both Saddam’s rule and the UN sanctions, a total of 836,019 (206,387 added to 629,632) Iraqis would have died from Jan 1, 2004 to Aug 31 this year.

Taken against the figure of just 88,739 deaths during that period, we can therefore determine that 747,280 fewer Iraqi lives have been lost due to “Bush and Blair’s war of aggression”. Three-quarters of a million lives saved — maybe that’s why a BBC poll in March found that 56 per cent of Iraqis think Bush’s invasion was wrong, but 42 per cent think it was right and 85 per cent describe the current situation as “very good or quite good”.

And finally, shouldn’t we let the past be the past? Why punish the Iraqi people just to spite Bush and Blair, who are both no longer in office? Is Razak suggesting that no one should do business with the Iraqi people until some unspecified time in the distant future? Wouldn’t that be just another round of senseless and ruthless sanctions?

After two decades of Saddam’s brutality, another decade of inhumane sanctions concurrent with his continued despotism, and then close to seven years of suffering under terrorist attacks, is further depriving the Iraqi people really the moral thing to do? Why not ask them what they want instead of imposing our own prejudices on them?

Yes indeed, Warmonger Bush saved 750,000 Iraqi lives – see it for details and calculations that were used. An attempted submission under that title had failed to be published earlier on.

This is even more than the previous rough estimate of 600,000 lives which also made it into the NST way back when.

I will close with some photos of Peace in Iraq:






NST Letters: Scott’s Reply to Mukhriz Mahathir on Iraq Deaths

April 10, 09

Wow. So the NST printed my response to Mukhriz Mahathir’s reponse to me the day after I sent it in.

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

And they edited it in such a way as to be quite a bit more belligerent, combative and self sure than my original (for example, referring to ‘Mukhriz’ by his first name and the 40% shooting deaths thing). And also less snarky, heh! They also shifted the nuance away from the fact that terrorism in Iraq is really all about Muslims killing Muslims, which is to be expected of course.

My original letter and the citation links are at bottom for comparison.

And as is quite frequent, the title they gave doesn’t accurately convey the actual content.

This is much more editing than my letters have usually undergone – sometimes they would be published word for word, or with only one paragraph removed.

I don’t know if Mukhriz Mahathir himself will have the time to respond again, seeing as now has been given a Deputy Minister post in the Ministry of International Trade and Industry and might be pretty busy.

I also got a call from the NST the morning this letter was publised. Apparently, ISIS (Institute of Strategic and International Studies) wants to get in touch with me for some reason. I’m wondering what for.

The NST guy said it wasn’t anything bad, and it least it isn’t Mukhriz Mahathir’s Perdana Global Peace Organisation, which would mean it’s probably looking for a good intellectual scrap. Or Chandra Muzaffar’s JUST (International Movement For A Just World), ‘cos he’s a renown America and Bush critic.

From NST Letters 10 April 2009:


IRAQ WAR: Was it so rosy under Saddam?

I REFER to the letter on the Iraq war from Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir of the Perdana Global Peace Foundation (“Invasion can’t be justified” — NST, April 9).

Mukhriz mentions “1,200,000 innocent men, women and children” killed during the invasion and occupation of Iraq by American troops, but not once does he mention that of these innocent civilians killed, the vast and overwhelming majority were the victims of terrorists, not troops under former US president George W. Bush’s orders.

Does Mukhriz not acknowledge that the vast majority of those that the American troops targeted and killed were not civilians, but illegal combatants who were trying to kill soldiers and civilians?

Or that these terrorists were bombing their own Iraqi brothers and sisters in marketplaces and mosques in order to bully them into acquiesence?

Or that the “illegal American occupiers” often went out of their way and put themselves at additional risk in order to avoid civilian casualties?

Does he not acknowledge that the same Opinion Research Business survey he quotes from also states that 21 per cent died of car bombs, four per cent of sectarian violence and one per cent of kidnappings?

That is more than a quarter of all deaths clearly not due to the direct acts of American soldiers. And this does not include the 40 per cent of casualties from shootings that the terrorist thugs were responsible for.

Does he not acknowledge that if these terrorists — many of them foreign interlopers, not Iraqis — had kept out of the conflict, the 28,000 additional American troops would not have been sent to Iraq by Bush?

What did the terrorists, these so-called “freedom fighters”, accomplish besides killing most of the “1,200,000 innocent men, women and children” that Mukhriz grieves for?

Does Mukhriz not acknowledge that during the Anbar Awakening, the Iraqis themselves rose against al-Qaeda’s atrocities, a stance that persists today? Or is it simply too inconvenient a fact that Iraqis would side with the American occupiers over their own brethren?

He boldly claims, too, that going to war — including on a false pretext — cannot create peace. Does he refuse to admit that Iraqis today have more peace and freedom than any time in the past 30 years of despotism and deprivation?

Does he refuse to admit that the violent death rate has undeniably dropped to peacetime levels, with 85 per cent of Iraqis polled by the British Broadcasting Corporation last month describing the current situation as being “very good” or “quite good”?

Or was life really all that rosy under the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein?

Sadly, this is all too often the state of things whenever the Iraq conflict is brought up. Bush is thoroughly demonised to the point that the entire context of the invasion and the subsequent al-Qaeda war on ordinary Iraqis are totally ignored.

This letter is the third in the series. Previously:

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

2) Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir – Yes, That One – Responds to Scott’s Letter on Iraq War

My original letter I sent in below the fold. Parts I wish to point out and contrast to the NST edited version are bolded.


Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir – Yes, That One – Responds to Scott’s Letter on Iraq War

April 9, 09

So someone has replied to my letter to the NST on how Bush saved 600,000 Muslim lives.

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

And it’s none other than Mukhriz Mahathir himself, son of the legendary log-in-eye-guy Dr Mahathir himself! Must have a lot of free time now that he lost the UMNO Youth head post to Khairy.

I am honoured. I’ve sent in my rebuttal, and I do hope the NST sees fit to print this blogging David’s face off with that political Goliath.

From NST Letters 9 April 2009:

IRAQ WAR: Invasion can’t be justified
By : DATUK MUKHRIZ MAHATHIR for Perdana Global Peace Organisation

I REFER to the letter “The plus factor in Bush’s Iraq invasion” (NST, April 7) from Scott Thong Yu Yuen.

The writer opined that the US-led invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation, has done more good than bad for its citizens who had suffered greatly under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

He went on to use the Iraq Body Count (IBC), a project that estimates civilian deaths in Iraq, as his point of reference and claimed that since only 98,882 Iraqis had died since the invasion, Bush’s war-mongering saved more than 600,000 lives that would have been lost had Saddam still been in power.

There are a few obvious problems with this reasoning.

One, Thong’s use of the IBC as a source is an uneducated choice.

The IBC is not a project that monitors Iraqi deaths; it is a project that monitors media reports of Iraqi deaths, using sources such as the Financial Times and the pro-war Observer, which are often misleading and biased in nature.

The writer should also understand that conditions in Iraq leave many civilian deaths undiscovered and unreported by journalists.

In 2006, the IBC itself noted on its website that it is tame in its analysis, as it provides data that is at a “conservative cautious minimum” (see www. qa/ ibc-in-context).

It is thus imperative that the writer understands and acknowledges this before going on to attempt an explanation on the so-called “plus factors” of George W. Bush’s illegal invasion.

In turn, I suggest the author uses the Opinion Research Business (ORB) as a source.

The ORB is an independent polling agency in London, and has estimated that 1,200,000 civilians have died since 2003. Unlike the IBC, this polling agency includes surveys carried out in rural areas in Iraq, far away from the safe neutral zone that most Western journalists report from.

Also, the ORB is a respected polling company that has conducted studies for customers as mainstream as the BBC and Britain’s Conservative Party, so its figures aren’t swayed by anti-war sentiments.

As to the writer’s notion that “a just war can actually bring more peace”, I would like to emphasise that this US-led invasion is a heinous war crime.

To go to war on a false pretext, to rape a country of its natural resources (namely oil), to murder 1,200,000 innocent men, women and children, to create five million Iraqi refugees is a war crime that has not — even by the perverted logic used by the writer in claiming that Bush has done no worse than Saddam — created any peace at all.

If the NST doesn’t print my letter, no fear – my blog shall carry my pwnage response. Perhaps Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir might even be curious enough to Google his way to it.

UPDATE: They printed it!

More Signs of Hope in Iraq – Muslims Attending Church Service at St. John’s in Baghdad

November 19, 07

A touching follow-up to A Sign of Hope in Iraq – Muslims Putting Up A Cross.  Via The Jawa Report .

More pics and captions can be found at original post by Michael Yon’s site.

Captions follow pics. Be warned: My own captions contain much sarcastic prodding at the state of peaceful, multicultural Malaysia’s own standard of religious ‘tolerance’.


Ah, this must be Iraqi counterpart to our Pejabat Tanah dan Jajahan, busy tearing down an indigeneous church! No, wait… They doing what?!!! No wai!!!


Gasp! Muslims in a church service? At the front row? How could their faith not be irrepareably shaken by such an act? They’ll become apostates for sure! Quick, call the  Kayukayuian religious counseling groups!


Girls and women in the same room as men during a religious session? This… This is totally uncultural! Decadent Western imperialism! Quick, someone cover them up before they tempt all the men within sight to uncontrollably become rapists!!! Nik Aziz to the rescue!


For shame! This little girl is such an immoral temptress, with her irresistable-to-ordinary-men long hair flying all about! She should that any girl above the age of 4 is unstoppably seductive to real men! She should be at home in her stifling burqa, learning proper behaviour from Hamas TV shows for kids!

(But if any girls do end up gang-raped, remember to brutally whip them 200 times for their fault in instigating the sexual perversion!)

And that is a glimpse of Iraq: Alleged centre of endless wartorn sectarian strife, where Muslims can help Christians repair their church and then visit the church services.

The war-tornedness of Iraq is definitely proven by the fact that in non-wartorn Muslim majority nations (*cough* Truly Asia *cough*), such shows of tolerance and unity are illegal and punishable by imediate imprisonment without trial and torture under the ISA.

A Sign of Hope in Iraq – Muslims Putting Up A Cross

November 15, 07

An iconic image of hope, peace and reconciliation taken by Michael Yon St. John’s Church in Baghdad, Iraq.


From Instapundit :

“I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John’s Church in Baghdad.

They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome. A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from ‘Chosen’ Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.

The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people.

‘Thank you, thank you,’ the people were saying. One man said, ‘Thank you for peace.’

Another man, a Muslim, said ‘All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.’

The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers. (Videotape to follow.)”


Beautiful. Update 19/11/2007 at More Signs of Hope in Iraq – Muslims Attaending Church Service at St. John’s in Baghdad.

So is it accurately representative of the state of peace in Iraq now, or merely a cherry-picked example in a land torn by sectarian strife, imperialist American oppressors and terrorist atatcks?

Decide for yourself:

More Than 23,000 Terrorists Killed

The “Good News From Iraq” post that the MSM and the Democrats hope you don’t see

U.S. Surge bad for Iraq undertaking business

UN: Iraq violence-related deaths drop ‘remarkably’

Is Al Qaeda in Iraq defeated?

Western journalists reluctant to report success in Iraq after they have been repeatedly declaring it a failure

Why the good guys are winning in Iraq


Also carried by The Jawa Report, Michelle Malkin and many others who actually care that Iraqis can live in peace.

Not like liberals and similar-minded petty folk around the world, who don’t really give a damn about the Iraqis as long as they can continue to deride Bush.

“Is your hatred for George Bush so great that you prefer to see millions of civilians suffer just to prove him wrong?

It really comes down to this: you are determined to see Iraq become a permanent hellhole because you hate Bush. And we are determined to see Iraq become a success, because we want to live.”Iraqpundit

And from Day by Day:



It’s amazing that you can see Muslims helping to erect a Christian cross on a church, in Iraq of all places – the supposedly war-torn, blood-soaked, will-never-have-peace hell-on-Earth-and-it’s-Bush’s-fault (if you listen to only the lie-beral dominated media).

Of course, you won’t get much or any coverage of this in the mainstream media… Either in the West or here in Malaysia.

Not even Malaysiakini would probably carry a letter about the topic if I sent one in – not Malaysianey enough?

Then again, once-long-ago carried my article that was almost exclusively about Middle East events, Malaysiakini: Are US News Agencies Biased Against Palestine?

Then again then again, it might not be a good idea to include such images as the pic. Featuring a Christian icon, showing Christian-Muslim cooperation and coming out of ‘occupied’ Iraq… It wouldn’t cast such a good light on our own local situation.

I mean, you won’t see something like this anywhere else in the Muslim majority world. Honest, I’m not just being facetious.

For if crosses can be erected in post-invasion Iraq, what example does that show to peacetime Malaysia – where applications for nonMuslim religious land are red taped, a church on a hill can’t be renovated because it then would reach higher than the Sultan’s palace, and Orang Asli churches are arbitrarily torn down?

You definitely won’t have something like this in Malaysia anytime soon – a supposedly peaceful, prosperous, modern and multicultural society where moderate Islam is the norm.

So in conclusion: Yes, it must definitely be the insidious aim of the American imperialist crusader neo-colonialist occupation forces (and throw in a Zionist there for good measure) to invade the Middle East and forcibly convert everyone to militant fundamentalist extermist Christianity.

Things like the top pic will only happen when the Conquistador American lackeys, those bulldogs the British return to enslave and apartheid Malaysia once again.

Now why didn’t I see that before?

From The Ryskind Sketchbook


More Than 23,000 Terrorists Killed

October 2, 07

From Terrorist Death Watch, the site which keeps track of terrorist casualties:


Crikey and strewth! That’s a lot of foreign jihadis going all the way over to die. No wonder there haven’t been any terror attacks on American soil, the ‘insurgents’ have all been busy getting pwned in the thousands over in Iraq! Who says the invasion of Iraq hasn’t achieved anything?

Imagine how much destruction could be caused, and how many lives brutally and heartlessly maimed, if those 23,000 everyone-hating terror-mongers had been left alive to run amuck across the world?


Just like what the Vietnam War did for Southeast Asia, American lives, money and world opinion are being sacrificed so everyone else can carry on being alive.

You know as well as I that they’ve been busy everywhere in the world in recently.

The US Army presence in Iraq just keeps them that much busier and not so free to kill and terrorize us.



And from Red Planet Cartoons, relating to how the lie-beral mainstream media refuses to publicize any good news about the situation in Iraq, such as how Al-Qaeda terrorists can no longer mix around with Iraqi civilians without getting killed, or how the violent death rate in Iraq is about the same as in South Africa:


From Eric Allie:




From Bob Gorrell:


From Michael Ramirez:


From Mike Lester:


From The Ryskind Sketchbook


From The Ryskind Sketchbook



%d bloggers like this: