Fuzzy logic

The following exerpt is from "Fuzzy Moral Math" from the Logic Times:

How many civilians have died since the onset of the war in Iraq? There are varying reports, but the consensus appears to be between 3,000 on the low end and 30,000 people on the high end (here and here). An excellent argument can be made that these numbers are wildly inflated (the ratio of men to women killed in these supposedly random collateral events is a curious 10:1), however, for the purpose of debate, let us grant this claim and assign validity to the running tally kept on iraqbodycount.net:

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min-26521
Max-29873

Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq on July 16, 1979 and was deposed in April of 2003. Over that twenty-four year period, Saddam Hussein killed between 600,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis and was responsible for the deaths of over 700,000 Iranians and Kuwaitis. Utilizing only the Iraqi numbers, this is an average of between 25,260 and 42,108 people a year, or between 2105 and 3509 Iraqi citizens a month. The United States toppled Saddam Hussein twenty-seven months ago now. If Saddam had remained in power for those 30 months, between 63,150 and 105,270 Iraqis would have died – children starved in prisons, dissidents fed through industrial shredders, women strangled after visits to rape rooms all to be eventually reunited in remote mass graves. Using the maximum credible figures available:

105270 Iraqi civilians that would have died under Saddam
-26521 Iraqi civilians that have died since Saddam was disposed
------
78749 Iraqi civilians that the American miliary and President Bush have saved

Interesting, very interesting...

The following is from "World is more peaceful now than at any time in 12 years" from The Globe and Mail:

Despite the daily horrors in Iraq and seemingly regular spasms of terrorist-sponsored violence, the world is a much more peaceful place than it was a little more than a decade ago, a new study says.

Since the end of the Cold War, the number of armed conflicts has declined by more than 40 per cent, while the number of the deadliest conflicts -- those involving more than 1,000 battle-related deaths -- has dropped by 80 per cent, said the Human Security Report, which was released here yesterday.

"Civil wars, genocides and international crises have all declined sharply. International wars, now only a small minority of all conflicts, have been in steady decline for a much longer period, as have military coups and the average number of people killed per conflict per year."

The report lays out what it calls "myths and misunderstandings," including: The number of genocides is increasing; wars are becoming more deadly and claimed the lives of five million people in the 1990s, and 90 per cent of those killed in today's wars are civilians, mainly women and children.

"None of these claims are based on reliable data. All are suspect; some are demonstrably false," the report said.

The report's authors calculated that civil and external wars killed about 700,000 combatants and civilians in 1950 but that figure dropped to about 100,000 in 1992 and 20,000 in 2002.

Prof. Mack acknowledged that his data end in 2003, but insisted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been raging for the past two years have not dramatically increased the death toll or reversed the long-term trend.

In 2004, there were just 25 armed secessionist conflicts under way in the world, the lowest number since 1976.

In addition to the Middle East, Africa remained mired in armed conflict. At the turn of the 21st century, more people were killed in wars in sub-Saharan Africa than in the rest of the world combined.

Prof. Mack, a former adviser to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan... noted there are about 60 wars being fought and a continuing threat of international terrorism, perhaps even of a terrorist group gaining access to weapons of mass destruction.

"We're not Pollyannaish on this. We don't necessarily think there is going to be an upsurge in new violence but we think it is quite possible," he said.

"But we also think that if the international community gets its act together, it could actually make a real reduction in the risk."

Now, I feel like bringing this up since it's United Nations Day tomorrow. This last article touted the role of the UN in this decrease in violence, but I don't believe it for a second. The UN has refused to help the United State protect the Iraqi people, instead continuing to appease Saddam Hussein. They have also continued to appease North Korea and Iran. The League of Nations did the same thing during World War II, and look how that worked out. All this, as well as the Oil for Food scandal, shows that the UN is useful in preventing war, nor protecting freedom over tyranny.