In Iraq did Saddam kill as many innocents as the US has with Bush's WAR?

[heidler1]

[mike_c]

1. throw in the million or so who died during Clinton's administration too...

...and there is little doubt that America is more effective at killing Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever was.

[Lefty-Taylor]

4. Thank you, Mike, for remembering what Clinton did. The sanctions and the bombing

under his administration wasn't AS bad as what heartless, dipshit W has done but it did kill many Iraqi civilians. While we can't bring back the dead nor heal the permanently maimed, we need to do what we can to make amends.

[Gregorian]

7. Although sanctions were in effect before Clinton was elected.

I think it's important to note that.

[mike_c]

8. the Clinton administration actively worked to block lifting sanctions...

...for eight years, resulting in the deaths of a million or so Iraqi civilians DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. Those deaths were not some legacy from Bush 41. That blood is on Bill Clinton's hands. More Iraqi civilians than Bush 43 has killed to date.

[madrchsod]

11. cheney wanted them lifted-

[Gregorian]

15. That does not make my day.

I find it hard to believe. But something tells me you are correct.

That tops the list of all of my Clinton disappointments. By a large margin.

[Ian_rd]

17. This is a claim I've heard so many times, but have never seen legitimized

Where is the reporting on this alleged suffering and death due to sanctions? Who looked into it and who released reports reflecting it? I think this claim tends to go unchallenged because it serves both sides of American opinion: The liberals who want sanctions lifted in order to ensure adequate food/medicine for the Iraqi people, and the republicans who wanted to claim that Saddamn was using the sanctions as an excuse to starve his own people.

[mike_c]

22. UNESCO and the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad...

...Dennis Halliday for starters, who resigned his post "...saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide". Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them. According to von Sponeck, the sanctions restricted Iraqis to living on $100 each of imports per year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

[Dr.Phool]

2. I think the only one to top the chimp would be Clinton.

I'm not trying to be funny or disloyal, just honest

Sanctions are said to have killed millions of Iraqi citizens.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Probably Not

There was a study a few years ago, in The Lancet I believe, which showed that the death rate in Iraq had increased substantially (perhaps doubled) since Saddam was ousted. Things are much worse now. All told, I suspect that more deaths were caused by the Smirk's sick adventure than by The Mustache.

[Lefty-Taylor]

5. The Lancet study didn't take into account the death by sanctions. At least hundreds of thousands,

perhaps a million, died as a result of the cruel US policy of sanctions, which doesn't get enough light shed upon it. Still, freakin' "shock and awe," et al, was horrible and W needs to be tried as the war criminal he is.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. I Believe That It Did

It was based on all causes, as I recall.

[mike_c]

14. no-- the Lancet study was only *since the invasion*....

It does not include the million or so Iraqis that Clinton killed.

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. It seems as though the numbers of Iraqis killed under Saddam

Were highly exaggerated, while the number killed by bush has been underestimated. Would this surprise anybody?

[madrchsod]

10. no... the usa since gulf war 1

has killed more iraqi`s through sanctions and warfare than saddam. there is no forensic evidence of how many people actually died under his dictatorship so we can make a guess. we can make a better case against the united states because there is enough historical evidence to come up with a figure that is as accurate as possible.

[kiahzero]

12. Are you including deaths from the Iran-Iraq war? (n/t)

[ronnie624]

13. Saddam cannot be solely blamed

for the deaths resulting from that war. He received support from Western politicians, and weapons from Western war profiteers. Iran also received weapons from the U.S.

Our own government must bear some responsibility for the Iran-Iraq conflict.


(edited for clarity)

[Kelly Rupert]

Iran received weapons from us during the Shah.

Not related.

[ronnie624]

18. Your point escapes me.

On edit, I believe I now understand your point.

Google Iran-Contra.

[Kelly Rupert]

19. Correct me if I'm wrong, but

I don't believe the military support offered through the Iran-Contra dealings was materially sufficient to support a war effort in any meaningful way. If it had been a Shah-era Iranian army vs. Iraq, then the point would stand, but a few-thousand anti-tank rockets were not strategically significant.

Blame Iranian human wave attacks for the obscene casualty count, not a couple rockets. If you want to be obtuse and claim that the Iranians only used human wave attacks because we failed to keep their modern equipment in fighting shape after the Revolution, I guess that might kinda be an argument, but I don't think either of us would believe that was a valid claim.

[ronnie624]

20. Actually,

I was addressing the moral implications of supporting two opposing sides at war, for whatever reason, be it ideological, political, or for the purpose of profit. Quantifying the weaponry involved had nothing to do with it.

I apologize for not being more clear.

[spanone]

16. When the Americans take charge, we stop the counting.

We don't play fair.

[Poiuyt]

21. Has there ever been a body count to what Saddam has done?