April 2, 2009

Are You Anti-War? Bush Saves 600,000 lives

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 1735.772 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 286 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 3024.476 deaths per month… 1.742 times greater than Bush’s death rate. This figure does not count the deaths of non-Iraqis, nor the casualties suffered during the wars against Iran and Kuwait, nor the countless other documented human rights abuses Saddam committed.

Bill Clinton era embargo: From the 108 months of 6 August 1990 to 6 August 1999, using the United Nations estimate, a total of 1 million Iraqi civilians died as result of the sanctions. Of these, as many as 567,000 of the casualties were children. That is a rate of 9259.259 deaths per month… 5.334 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 600,807 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 (172,252 + 527,437), and subtracting the Bush total from that (699,869 - 99,882), to find the total of how many more lives would have been lost if Saddam still ruled under continued sanctions (600,807).]

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).

No comments:

Post a Comment