Posts Tagged ‘Iraq war’

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:






Bush Saved 750,000 Iraqi Lives

October 15, 09

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?

More Replies to Scott’s NST Letters on Iraq

April 15, 09

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

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

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: 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!

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

April 7, 09

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?

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

April 2, 09

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!

Obama’s Iraq Trip Unwittingly Convinces Americans That There is Peace in Iraq

July 25, 08

Excerpts of an article from American Thinker:

Obama trip press frenzy backfires
Ray Robison

Despite the media attempt to keep the presidential race coverage one-sided, an odd thing happened on Barak’s trip to Baghdad. A lot of Americans realized we are winning the war on terror.

Many have made note that as the surge succeeded and the bad news blissfully began to ebb, media coverage of Iraq thinned to a trickle. We knew it, but we couldn’t measure the effects of the media callousness towards our military until now. It now appears indisputable that for many Americans who don’t follow the news regularly there was a serious gap in what they believed was happening in Iraq and the reality of it.

Coinciding with the “Obama goes to Iraq” coverage comes a poll update by Rasmussen and released on July 23rd.

Over half of American voters (51%) now believe the United States and its allies are winning the war on terror, the highest figure recorded in nearly four years by Rasmussen Reports in a nationwide survey.

Only 16% now think the terrorists are on top, while 27% view it as a stalemate. Prior to this week’s survey, the number who believe the terrorists are winning had never fallen below 20%.

Last July, just 36% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning. At that time, an equal number – 36% -thought the terrorists were ahead.

42% now think the situation in Iraq will improve over the next six months. That’s up from 37% a week ago and 23% a year ago.

Only 23% now expect things to get worse in Iraq, down from 49% last July.

The gap also is narrowing dramatically between those who think history will judge the war in Iraq as a success – 36% now – versus those who think it will be viewed as a failure (39%).

The number of respondent in this reoccurring poll who answered that we are winning against terrorists jumped to levels not seen in four years, to 51% – now a majority.

Conversely, the number who considered al Qaeda and their ilk the victors dropped to a threadbare 16% of respondents, a new low by a wide margin.

For the first time in months, more Democrats (35%) also think the U.S. is winning versus the number who credit the terrorists with being ahead (26%), although nearly a third (31%) are undecided. Last week, only 27% of Democrats thought the U.S. was winning.

The percentage of Republicans who see the U.S. and its allies ahead also stayed roughly the same at 78%.

Thirty percent (30%) of likely Obama voters also see the U.S. winning, while 26% of them disagree.

And it just so happened that this poll was conducted the same day that Obama and his media entourage hit Baghdad.

Although it is not definitive, it is a strong indication that all the media hype and attention on this trip refocused the media lens on Iraq and that Americans saw a new picture there.

Ironically for Obama that new picture helps McCain by decreasing the common feeling of urgency which created the mood for immediate withdrawal at any price that Obama rode to the nomination.

For many who were afraid to read news about Iraq in 2008 (if they could find it) after the desperation felt in 2007, this new coverage opened their eyes. And these newly opened eyes just might be attached to ears that heard McCain claiming success and Obama dismissing our efforts in Iraq. The media attention has shown to an entirely new – admittedly previously disengaged – audience that McCain made the right call.

Some portray the success of the surge in McCain’s case in political terms of winning the battle but losing the war. They claim he will be a victim of his own success. They claim that his surge strategy and success in Iraq reduced the threat to our nation which negates his advantage on security issues. They might have a point.

But a counter balance to that is that many Americans genuinely did not know that we have essentially won in Iraq until now. They thought that Obama was delivering the straight truth to them on Iraq. But now they know he was being less than candid. The Independents and conservative Democrats now might see that he was not telling them the truth.

A picture says a thousand words and those pictures of Obama in Iraq with no body armor are telling a different story than what he has been selling to the American people. And it was a fawning media brazenly trying to tip the scales in his favor that made it happen.


The photo via Moonbattery:

This, even while Obama refuses to reconsider his opposition to the Surge (on a tip from hutchrun).

It’s the law of unintended consequences.

Remember that Obama routinely criticized the Surge and situation in Iraq as hopeless (link has more cartoons).

Whereas the truth is that there really is peace in Iraq.

See here for the Obamedia World Tour which has more cartoons.

Bible Stops Sniper Bullet in Iraq

July 2, 08

The Jawa Report is embedding two videos of news reports and interviews with U.S. Army Private First Class Brendan Schweigart and his mother. It’s LiveLeak, so I can’t embed it myself, but head on over to the link.

Brendan carried the Bible in a pocket under his bullet-proof shield. After a sniper ambush in Iraq, he received non-life threatening wounds and a souvenir – a bloodied sniper bullet lodged in his Bible.

Top screenshot: The sniper bullet lodged in the Bible

Apart from the bullet that was stopped, other hit his arm and chest and passed through without causing fatal injuries.

The videos are mostly phone interviews set to still photographs, but there is the gem above.

I’ll end with a fitting Bible quote:

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. – Ephesians 6:13-17

Rape Deterrence

June 26, 08


Above is also Poster #39 at Malaysian Politics Motivational Posters.

Original photo from Associated Press, by Ahmed Alhussainey.

Inspired by a post at Michelle Malkin.

Take your pick: Hijab or handgun? Burqa or bolt-action? Tudung or thunderstick? Veil or Vulcan cannon?

Compare to School Uniform Causes Rape: Malaysian Pervert Group Leers at Underage Schoolgirls, Assumes Every Other Male is Just as Deviant which has a focus on clothing as a rape-defence:


You tell me which one would give a sicko rapist more pause.

Kudos to Dad Just Can’t Shut Up! for the linkage.

And yes – Iraq is doing very well today, thank you NOT AT ALL whoever spat bile at the US Forces who risked their life and limb to kill thousands of terrorists so that WE don’t get beheaded like in South Thailand.

%d bloggers like this: