Iraq IS the war on terror
Despite repeated reminders from our liberal friends that we went into Iraq because of WMD's one fact is self-evident to all but the most obstinate morons. The war in Iraq IS the war on terror! They take pride in reminding us that "Bush was wrong, there were no WMD's in Iraq". Personally, I believe the jury is still out on that one. They fail to have the foresight to see that regardless what the reason was for going into Iraq it has still worked out properly in the end. We wanted to fight terrorists and we didn't want to do it here. According to the above linked article fully 90% of the suicide bombers in Iraq are foreigners. People brought into Iraq by Abu Mussab al Zarqawi. Intelligence tells us that he was at least loosely affiliated with Al Qaida prior to operation Iraqi Freedom and his own press releases have told us that he has since cemented that bond. We all know that the liberals contend that George Bush is stupid... Albeit not as stupid as the man they wished to run our country in the last election (if college grades are used as a barometer as they tried to do during the election). Regardless of Bush's intelligence, the tactics are working. Whether that success is due to shrewd planning or nothing more than luck is absolutely irrelevant. It's working. I however would like to point out that this was a part of the President's reasoning as is indicated by this quote:
Allow me if you will to present the mortality rates in Iraq in a different light. Under Saddam's rule, Iraqis were already dying by the droves. Many organizations place the amount of blood on Saddam's hands to at least 500,000 souls. If we average that number out over his tenure in office (16 July 1979 to 9 April 2003 - 8,668 days) we find that he was killing just over 57 people a day! (57.683... to be exact!). According to this article there have been 8,175 deaths in Iraq at the hands of the terrorists in the last 6 months. If we average that out to an average daily death rate, we find that there are 45 (44.794... to be more exacting) people dying per day on average as a result of the terrorist's efforts.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the terrorists are less effective at violently killing the Iraqi people than Saddam was. The amount of press coverage that these killings receive is however magnitudes of order higher than the press attention that Saddam's killings were receiving. This inordinate amount of attention easily leads one to the skewed assumption that the current mortality rate in Iraq is unprecedented when in fact it has actually decreased.
Ok, now I'm really going to surprise you. Let's consider this mortality rate compared to an American City... Let's use New Orleans as that city. This site places the murder rate at 54.5 murders per 100,000 persons. That means out of 100,000 people who live in New Orleans 54.5 of them will be murdered. If we extended the 8,175 deaths out to a year simply by multiplying that number by two and divide that by the population of Iraq as provided by the CIA World Fact Book, we find that the rate for Iraq winds up being 62.7 deaths per 100,000. That is a mere 15% percent increase. So yes, Iraq is a violent place, that's a given! BUT it's only 15% more deadly than living in New Orleans. You didn't expect that did you? If we look at the fact that the last six months in Iraq have been particularly deadly and that the 8,175 number represents an unprecedented spike, it should give you reason for thought.
I find sometimes that looking at statistics helps to diffuse the emotional conclusions one has made and allows one to protract situations in the light of reality and logic.
So to wrap this rambling dissertation up let me reiterate my assertions for the liberals who's eyes have been glazed over by viewing too much truth... We are fighting the war on terror in Iraq. George Bush may be smarter than you give him credit for and if not smarter certainly luckier. Lastly, while all the dying in Iraq is horrible, you're only 15% more likely to be murdered in Iraq than you are on the streets of New Olreans Louisiana and on average, there are fewer murdered now than were murdered by a single murderer, Saddam!
Reality sure is a pain in the ass when it doesn't line up with your pet beliefs!
"An initial goal in going to war was to democratize Iraq, so that, gradually,The next thing that the liberals like to point out is the horrible toll this war has had in terms of human life. Sure there's been a lot of people killed and that is horrible! Allow me to assure you however that if al Quaida's attention was not focused on Iraq, it would be focused on us. We'd have the same number of casualties if not more the difference is that those casualties would be American civilians... You or me!
neighboring peoples would feel the positive pull of a more open political system
at the heart of the Arab world. As the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks proved, American,
indeed Western, national security depends on the success of this endeavor."
-George W. Bush
Allow me if you will to present the mortality rates in Iraq in a different light. Under Saddam's rule, Iraqis were already dying by the droves. Many organizations place the amount of blood on Saddam's hands to at least 500,000 souls. If we average that number out over his tenure in office (16 July 1979 to 9 April 2003 - 8,668 days) we find that he was killing just over 57 people a day! (57.683... to be exact!). According to this article there have been 8,175 deaths in Iraq at the hands of the terrorists in the last 6 months. If we average that out to an average daily death rate, we find that there are 45 (44.794... to be more exacting) people dying per day on average as a result of the terrorist's efforts.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the terrorists are less effective at violently killing the Iraqi people than Saddam was. The amount of press coverage that these killings receive is however magnitudes of order higher than the press attention that Saddam's killings were receiving. This inordinate amount of attention easily leads one to the skewed assumption that the current mortality rate in Iraq is unprecedented when in fact it has actually decreased.
Ok, now I'm really going to surprise you. Let's consider this mortality rate compared to an American City... Let's use New Orleans as that city. This site places the murder rate at 54.5 murders per 100,000 persons. That means out of 100,000 people who live in New Orleans 54.5 of them will be murdered. If we extended the 8,175 deaths out to a year simply by multiplying that number by two and divide that by the population of Iraq as provided by the CIA World Fact Book, we find that the rate for Iraq winds up being 62.7 deaths per 100,000. That is a mere 15% percent increase. So yes, Iraq is a violent place, that's a given! BUT it's only 15% more deadly than living in New Orleans. You didn't expect that did you? If we look at the fact that the last six months in Iraq have been particularly deadly and that the 8,175 number represents an unprecedented spike, it should give you reason for thought.
I find sometimes that looking at statistics helps to diffuse the emotional conclusions one has made and allows one to protract situations in the light of reality and logic.
So to wrap this rambling dissertation up let me reiterate my assertions for the liberals who's eyes have been glazed over by viewing too much truth... We are fighting the war on terror in Iraq. George Bush may be smarter than you give him credit for and if not smarter certainly luckier. Lastly, while all the dying in Iraq is horrible, you're only 15% more likely to be murdered in Iraq than you are on the streets of New Olreans Louisiana and on average, there are fewer murdered now than were murdered by a single murderer, Saddam!
Reality sure is a pain in the ass when it doesn't line up with your pet beliefs!
Labels: Middle East, Politics
posted by G-Man at 1:23 PM
|
<< Home