2008-09-07
Bogus Argument Dries Up
Of all the bogus arguments that the anti-war came up with, one of the cruellest was that civilians were being killed by terrorists/criminals, and that this was a reason why we should have let a cruel dictator like Saddam kill even more.
Deaths by dictator - unimportant.
Deaths by criminals - important.
However, even if you do define "success" as "low crime rate", that is technically achievable too. If a democracy, especially one with natural resources, wishes to make crime-fighting to be the national priority, then the people are empowered to do that. It just takes time to achieve, as you need to train up the security forces to do that, and also time for the education system to have the effect of increasing civic conscious.
However, with their bogus definition in place, the left-wing found something to harp on about - Iraqi civilian deaths - but only those civilians killed either by military accident, or criminal act - doesn't matter how many die on the roads etc. No need to waste crocodile tears on them.
But finally even that bogus argument, which takes time to accomplish, has carked it. If you look here you can see that the figures from March to August have been 819, 631, 396, 373, 321, 226. ie even by the left's own bogus figures (ie their figures never match the actual government figures), they've had 6 months of declining death rates, and at that current rate, that's about 10 per 100,000. In South Africa the murder rate is about 19 per 100,000. So when is the left going to switch to producing a "South African Universal Suffrage Casualty Count" to warn people of the very real danger of giving uneducated greedy racists the "right" to steal from other races instead of the bogus danger of replacing a murderous dictator with a democracy that, while far from perfect, at least has a reasonable chance of success, especially if you define "success" as "better than Saddam", as I do?
All in time for the US elections. Let's hope for a McCain victory, and the liberation of Iran after the poll, regardless of who wins. Abducting British soldiers was an act of war, after all. Let's finish that war.
|
Deaths by dictator - unimportant.
Deaths by criminals - important.
However, even if you do define "success" as "low crime rate", that is technically achievable too. If a democracy, especially one with natural resources, wishes to make crime-fighting to be the national priority, then the people are empowered to do that. It just takes time to achieve, as you need to train up the security forces to do that, and also time for the education system to have the effect of increasing civic conscious.
However, with their bogus definition in place, the left-wing found something to harp on about - Iraqi civilian deaths - but only those civilians killed either by military accident, or criminal act - doesn't matter how many die on the roads etc. No need to waste crocodile tears on them.
But finally even that bogus argument, which takes time to accomplish, has carked it. If you look here you can see that the figures from March to August have been 819, 631, 396, 373, 321, 226. ie even by the left's own bogus figures (ie their figures never match the actual government figures), they've had 6 months of declining death rates, and at that current rate, that's about 10 per 100,000. In South Africa the murder rate is about 19 per 100,000. So when is the left going to switch to producing a "South African Universal Suffrage Casualty Count" to warn people of the very real danger of giving uneducated greedy racists the "right" to steal from other races instead of the bogus danger of replacing a murderous dictator with a democracy that, while far from perfect, at least has a reasonable chance of success, especially if you define "success" as "better than Saddam", as I do?
All in time for the US elections. Let's hope for a McCain victory, and the liberation of Iran after the poll, regardless of who wins. Abducting British soldiers was an act of war, after all. Let's finish that war.
# posted by Paul Edwards @ 14:43 
