Posts Tagged ‘Iraqi Freedom’

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?

The Invasion of Iraq Has STRENGTHENED America’s World Position?!

April 28, 08

What I’ve been saying all along. I bet it also has something to do with killing more than 23,000 terrorists who went to try and screw up Iraq – terrorists who would otherwise have been blowing up cities around the world (that means where YOU and ME live) ala Bali, London Underground, Madrid etc.

Read the facts, look at the world, and admit that people in general still like the US of A… Not in spite of Iraq, but BECAUSE of Iraq!

———————————-

Excerpts from The Australian:

Esteem for US rises in Asia

THE US war in Iraq has strengthened its strategic position, especially in terms of key alliances, and the only way this could be reversed would be if it lost the will to continue the struggle and abandoned Iraq in defeat and disarray.

Mike Green holds the Japan chair at Washington’s Centre for Strategic and International Studies and was for several years the Asia director at the National Security Council. He is also one of America’s foremost experts on Japan and northeast Asia generally.

His thesis, applied strictly to the US position in Asia, is correct.

First, Green states and acknowledges the negatives. He writes: “The Iraq war has had one important, pernicious impact on US interests in Asia: it has consumed US attention.”

This has prevented the US from following up in sufficient detail on some positive developments in Asia. Green also acknowledges that the US’s reputation has taken a battering among Muslim populations in Asia.

Yet Green’s positive thesis is fascinating. The US’s three most important Asian alliances – with Australia, Japan and South Korea – have in his view been strengthened by the Iraq campaign. Each of these nations sent substantial numbers of troops to help the US in Iraq. They did this because they believed in what the US was doing in Iraq, and also because they wanted to use the Iraq campaign as an opportunity to strengthen their alliances with the US.

More generally, in a world supposedly awash in anti-US sentiment, pro-American leaders keep winning elections. Germany’s Angela Merkel is certainly more pro-American than Gerhard Schroeder, whom she replaced. The same is true of France’s Nicolas Sarkozy.

More importantly in terms of Green’s analysis, the same is also true of South Korea’s new President. Lee Myung-bak, elected in a landslide in December, is vastly more pro-American than his predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun.

Even in majority Islamic societies, their populations allegedly radicalised and polarised by Bush’s campaign in Iraq and the global war on terror more generally, election results don’t show any evidence of these trends. In the most recent local elections in Indonesia, and in national elections in Pakistan, the Islamist parties with anti-American rhetoric fared very poorly. Similarly Kevin Rudd was elected as a very pro-American Labor leader, unlike Mark Latham, with his traces of anti-Americanism, who was heavily defeated.

Even with China, the Iraq campaign was not a serious negative for the US. Beijing was far more worried by the earlier US-led NATO intervention into Kosovo because it was based purely on notions of human rights in Kosovo. Such notions could theoretically be used to justify action (not necessarily military action) against China over Taiwan and Tibet. Iraq, on the other hand, was justified on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, a justification with which the Chinese were much more comfortable.

More generally, it is American values, or more accurately the universal values of democracy to which the US adheres, that are more popular and receive greater adherence in Asia than before, in the politics and civil societies of Asian nations such as Indonesia, India, Japan and many others.

The overall picture is infinitely more complex than the anti-Bush narrative of the Iraq war would suggest.

Similarly, it seems clear that US standing in Japan declined most recently when it softened its position on North Korea, something international liberal opinion universally demanded. However, some other facts are incontrovertible. Japan in 2003 sent 600 troops to Iraq to help the Americans. The Japanese leader who did this, Junichiro Koizumi, was subsequently re-elected in a landslide.

The US’s standing there seems to bear very little relation to Iraq. However, as noted, a pro-US candidate won a record landslide in December. But even the previous president, who did deploy some anti-American rhetoric, sent 3600 troops to Iraq (more than any nation except the US and Britain) and negotiated a free trade agreement with the US. Moreover, as Green describes, there has been a big rise in the positive ratings of the US in South Korea since 2005.

The centrist Joong AngIlbo newspaper’s poll shows the US rising from being the third most popular foreign country in South Korea to becoming, by 2006, the most popular foreign country.

Green cautions that a US failure in Iraq, a retreat and leaving chaos in Iraq behind, would gravely damage US credibility in Asia.

—————————-

Michelle Malkin has this to say:

The world works as well as it does–and, granted, that’s pretty marginal–in large part because the United States guarantees the security of its allies. Places like Taiwan and South Korea churn out magic toilets and miniature automobiles knowing that the United States will respond to incursions and aggression with overwhelming and sustained force. So far, our defense of the fledgling Iraqi government has confirmed that arrangement.

America does what it says. If you have an American security guarantee–and I’m looking at you,Saudi Arabia and Pakistan–you don’t need to build a nuclear arsenal. America honors its commitments, and the world keeps ticking–well, arrhythmically stuttering, anyhow–because there are big U.S. guns ready to retaliate against aggression. No better friend. No worse enemy. If America is backing you, you’re golden.

—————————-

See also my very relevant posts on the issue of Iraq:

Hey Ignorant World – There is PEACE in Iraq! (photo proof below)

IraqisLoveUSTroops3

IraqisLoveUSTroops6

More Than 23,000 Terrorists Killed

Excerpts From Michael Yon’s and Michael J. Totten’s Articles on the True Situation in Iraq (firsthand accounts)

General ‘Bringing Peace to Iraq’ Petraeus Named as Next Commander of Mideast Command

97 Pro General Petraeus, Anti Betray Us Editorial Cartoons

General ‘Bringing Peace to Iraq’ Petraeus Named as Next Commander of Mideast Command

April 24, 08

From Townhall.com:

Gen. Petraeus named as next commander of Mideast command

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star general who led troops in Iraq for the past year, will be nominated by President Bush to be the next commander of U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

PetraeusMideastCommander1

Gates said he expected Petraeus to make the shift in late summer or early fall. The Pentagon chief also announced that Bush will nominate Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno to replace Petraeus in Baghdad.

Central Command oversees the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

“I am honored to be nominated for this position and to have an opportunity to continue to serve with America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and civilians,” Petraeus said in a brief statement from Baghdad.

At a hastily arranged Pentagon news conference, Gates said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other problems in the Central Command area of responsibility, demand knowledge of how to fight counterinsurgencies as well as other unconventional conflicts.

“I don’t know anybody in the U.S. military better qualified to lead that effort,” he said, referring to Petraeus.

GOP presidential hopeful John McCain, R-Ariz., said he supports both Petraeus and Odierno. He called Petraeus “one of the great generals in American history.”

Gates said he had consulted with Levin and other senior lawmakers about the nominations. The defense secretary said he anticipated no Capitol Hill obstacles to confirmation.

Asked if moving Petraeus from the Iraq command could interrupt momentum against the insurgency, Gates said that by waiting until late summer or early fall he hoped to “ensure plenty of time to prepare for a good handoff.” He said it also would help that Odierno has had experience as “Petraeus’ right-hand man” over the last year.

If confirmed by the Senate, Petraeus would replace Navy Adm. William Fallon, who abruptly stepped down in March after a magazine reported that he was at odds with President Bush over Iran policy. Fallon said the report was not true but had become a distraction.

PetraeusMideastCommander2

Petraeus, 55, is widely hailed by the Bush administration and members of Congress for implementing a new strategy in Iraq, including the deployment of some 30,000 additional troops, that dramatically improved security.

Central Command, whose headquarters is at Tampa, Fla., is responsible for U.S. military operations throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa, and thus oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

—————————-

Also links on it at Hot Air and Michelle Malkin.

General Petraeus, you are most deservedly suitable for the post.

I salute you for a job being well done in Iraq!

97 Pro General Petraeus, Anti Betray Us Editorial Cartoons

IraqViolenceBuster

WordsFailToStopVictory

Hey Ignorant World – There is PEACE in Iraq!

Excerpts From Michael Yon’s and Michael J. Totten’s Articles on the True Situation in Iraq

More Than 23,000 Terrorists Killed

List of videos of terrorists being destroyed

Ultimate Captain America: Fighting is About Winning

March 29, 08

From the pages of Ultimate Nightmare, view the action before continuing on with the real-life lesson to be learnt.

FightToWin1

FightToWin2

The U.S. Democrats have plenty of misconceptions about why American soldiers are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else terror rears its hateful head.

The Democrats and their Code Pinko, World Can’t Wait, MoveOn.org etc allies have the misconception that the troops are risking their lives for petty and selfish things like glory, pride, oil, money, power, New World Order, the Jewish conspiracy or hatred of life.

But as Ultimate Captain America says, fighting isn’t about glory. Fighting isn’t about pride.

Fighting is about winning.

And just like the fictional patriotic hero, the real life patriotic heroes – the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Marines and the Reserves – are fighting to win against the terrorists. 

So if crazy people think the purpose of fighting is for such vanities as glory and pride, what does the make the Democrats?

The Democrats fight to appease. They fight to withdraw. They fight to pull back. They fight to retreat. They fight to capitulate. They fight to give up. They fight to quit. They fight to surrender.

Winners fight to win – the Democrats fight to lose.

The Democrats are losers.

Such big losers in fact, that they would rather quit at the last moment before winning just to avoid victory.

The Ultimates: ‘A’ Doesn’t Stand For France

March 19, 08

From the comic series The Ultimates, the Homeland Security story arc:

ANotForFrance0

 

 

Click link below to see full post with full sized images – and how they apply to the U.S. Democratic Party.

(more…)

Democrats Supported War on Iraq When It Suited Them – Video Evidence

January 16, 08

So, the Democrats have staunchly opposed taking illegal-unilateral-fascist-war-death-attack-action against peaceful-benign-benevolent-progressive-niceguy-Saddam-Iraq since time immemorial?

Video proof of their unquestionably honest internal consistency is available at Youtube, with credits to The Jawa Report and Moonbattery and Gateway Pundit.

WarFlopDems01

WarFlopDems02

WarFlopDems03

WarFlopDems04

WarFlopDems05

WarFlopDems06

WarFlopDems07

WarFlopDems08

WarFlopDems09

WarFlopDems10 

WarFlopDems11

WarFlopDems12

Solo acts of being total Demo-hypocrites on the Iraq War: Al Gore, Bill Clinton and John Edwards.

Give Iraq another few years to establish peace and pump out the oil, and these same Bush-bashers will be climbing over one another to take credit for fully supporting the surge and defeating terrorism in Iraq.

Honestly, how do any of you Dem voters even know for sure what your candidates really stand for? (To wit: Two-horse Hillary)

Liberal_Oxymorons


%d bloggers like this: