This is avoiding the fact that in 10 years, if Saddam was still in power, what would the death rates be? Focusing on the small period of time where there will be many deaths brought upon by the U.S. completely ignores any past and future deaths that Sadaam would have caused.

I am simply reporting the facts, comparing 23+ years of Saddam with 18 months of U.S. occupation. And if 18 months is a "short period", then please tell me what constitutes a "long period"... 3 years? 4 years? You should check back when the long period begins, and then we can reassess.

As for the future, maybe things will get better, and maybe things will get worse. The U.S. government has already admitted the severe underestimation of Iraqi resistance and the resulting casualties.

Would you be willing to predict the death toll for the next few years? If so, I am also willing to make a prediction.

It's just fortunate that the 100,000 deaths are not necessarily actual deaths.
The 100,000 deaths are based on a sampling poll of 978 Iraqi's and do not distinguish if the deaths were a result of the war or not.

A better souirce of information is the website Iraqi Body Count, which actually verifies the deaths and the cause of the death. Not an estimate number based on mortality rates.

Even Eric, is mixing up his numbers.
The 500,000-1,000,000 deaths during Saddam's years are deaths directly related to wars but do not include other deaths that are included in the 100,00 figure.

He also has left out oother deaths directly related to Saddam

Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [www.hrw.org
8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
60,000 Shiites in 1991
50,000 misc. others executed
"Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
Iraqi politicians: over a million
[These don't include the million or so dead in the Iran-Iraq War.]

So just like people accuse Bush/Blair/Howard of distortion and exaggeration, they turn around and do exactly the same.

Neither side can claim a higher ground based on the lies coming from both war and anti-war supporters.

First of all, I'm not claiming definitive truth. And I never claim otherwise. I named my source and you named yours.

Clearly, many of deaths attributed to Saddam were from combat situations. But even if you substract those, my point remains.

The argument that the U.S. saved lives by invading Iraq is bogus. Let us not forget that we Iraq could become even more unstable as a result of the war. The occupation is still very much in effect. Maybe this is the calm period. Maybe not things will get better. But my essential point remains: the U.S. has not been a stabilizing influence up to this point.

And get the fuck out with that "people on both sides of the war are just as guilty of distortions". The burden of proof should ALWAYS be on the aggressor. And in this case the aggressor made an EXTREMELY dubious case for invading and continues to obscure the realities of the war.

The argument that the U.S. saved lives by invading Iraq is bogus.

I'd dispute that on Numerous points.

Saddam's deaths per year was a long term average (his sons were just as if not more brutal than he was, there was no end in sight), while the invasion related deaths are a one time thing.

Of the "100,000", how many were non-combat non-insurrection related out-and-out person to person murder? That should go down as Iraqi police become more competent. (Don't get me wrong, it's near criminal that we didn't send in the required number of troops to maintain law and order, and that we didn't maintain an Iraqi police force or *something*...)

Insurrection related deaths should also go down as it dies out (presuming that the Iraqi government can get it's act together, and again should never have happened if they had had enough troops in theatre to maintain order and prevent the insurrection from gaining momentum...)

Furthermore I'd dispute the Saddam "between 500,000 and 1,000,000", it's more like 2,000,000 - www.moreorless.au.com

I agree, it's gone worse than expected. But we're still ahead of the game. And more than that, I'll trade 50,000 deaths a year of innocents under a tyrrany ANY DAY for 50,000 deaths per year* (1/3rd deserving to die, 2/3rds innocent) in a free country whose citizens have a choice and a chance to build democracy.

Thanks for your comments Craig.

The long-term stability of Iraq will be a function of its government, and relations between Sunnis and Shias.

Unless the U.S. has a magic "No tyranny" button, it cannot guarantee that its occupation won't lead to more tyranny. After all, U.S. support helped bring Saddam to power in the first place.

The burden of proof is on those who wish to show that the U.S. has completely reversed its middle east policies and now wants a Shi'ite theocracy, instead of a Sunni dictatorship. What makes you think Sunnis and Shi'as will share power equitably?

I am not suggesting a course of action. I am simply pointing out that the signs seem to be indicating that Iraq is no more stable than it was 20 months ago. And no one has shown me evidence that things are stabilizing.

A few facts, if you don't mind...

www.gbn.com

www.state.gov

www.iraqbodycount.net

lounge.pri.ee

and where did that 100,000 number come from? out of thin air it would seem...
www.iraqbodycount.net

OK, my bad... I fixed the first link. It was going to the wrong page.

That 100,000 figure should be no surprise to anyone... it was WIDELY reported in the media.

The nature of war is that all figures on total death are estimates. If you go by iraqibodycount.net, you are only getting civilian deaths. And my understanding is that civilian deaths are often just as difficult to count as combat deaths -- or more difficult. And please note that the site says "civilians reported killed". They are just reading news reports. But WTF, everybody knows that some of the bloodiest battles -- like Fallouja -- had few if any reporters throughout most of the city.

DUH!!!!

Global Business Network?!?! -- I won't even respond to taht one.

U.S. Department of State website?!?! -- You must really be a big supporter of this war. You need to watch Control Room , homie. You gotta lot to learn about government.

The only reliable death count we are gonna get is for U.S. troops.

The bottom line: even if we take the lowest figure available, my point still remains. The U.S. has not proven that its INVASION and OCCUPATION of Iraq have made Iraq and more stable and safe place to live.

Baghdad is now widely regarded by journalists to be the most dangerous capital city in the world. And that says a lot when you consider they are comparing it with places like Mogadishu or Washington D.C.

Anyway, get off your high horses boys. War is bad and you need to learn that.

Who the _uck r u, Eric? Some sort of expert I would guess. Most would say during saddam's reign up to several hundred people a day died as a result of his policies. Even if it was just several dozen a day (by your minute etimates), you tell that to the families of the deceased and tortured. You go talk to people who had most of their villagers dragged out of their homes and murdered.
As for your 'US' estimates, you're full of shit. 100000!?!? Liberal even by the main stream antiBush media. Most deaths nowadays are Iraqis and Muslims inflicting them on each other. We'll see in a few years how moronic your logic is. As for the unstable Iraq- only 4 districts are dangerous. My brother has only heard a few gunshots- less than New Orleans. And only had a chance to hunt big rats. And there are far more kidnappings in Latin American countries than in Iraq. These are all facts you can easliy check.

I gave you sources. If you've got sources... post them.

But what is your point? I can only assume you are in favor of the occupation.

I have always been against the occupation. My opinion is not swayed by the number of deaths. It was a selfish, ill-consceived, and unrealistic plan from the beginning.

see Lancet report

100-200,000 deaths

Thank you for the great info guys i am involved in a debate on which the topic is "Should the US have gone to war with iraq?" personally i am strictly opposed to the thought of it and cannot wait untill bush is out of office but in a debate you must know both sides and by looking at comments of yours it is a great link to find information on both sides. Thanks again! Go kerry!!! lol

How is a comparison of how many people have died -either during Saddam's regime or the US invasion- relevant??

Bush's basis for invading Iraq was nulcear weapons......which surprise-surprise were no were to be found. Countries the whole word though have distasteful & abominable leaders ..... is Bush going to invade all those countries too?

If you can put aside the death toll for a minute......fold your hands across your chest and wait and see if Iraq benefits from this war ( I personally doubt it).

It was an unnecessary war from the start and counting deaths from opposite sides (as a means to justify one's position on the war I presume) is absurd.

And just in case we happen to have forgotten........per year (which by the way is less that 18 months) over 100,000 people die in Africa from AIDS, to that- add the deaths from warring regions- add the deaths from other dieases aside from AIDS.........

WELL wouldn't it be the understatement of the year to say that "Oh Ye Great Melting Pot That Is America" is definitely missing the bigger picture??

;-)

A single civilian Iraqi death by U.S. military action is unconscionable.

Hi, i'm posting from the Dominican Republic. Let me fill you in on a little Dominican history: Rafael L. Trujillo ruled the D.R. from 1930 to 1961. The U.S. knew he was a despot that tortured and killed his people, and what did they do about it? Nothing. Roosevelt's Secretary of State, when talking about Trujillo, once said: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch!" He was THEIR son of a bitch because he maintained an economic stability that allowed Americans to sell their products within the nations borders. So, if we were to judge from America's history of foreign policies... what would make anything think that this war is not over oil, that G.W. Bush and his buddies feel some sort of sympathy for the Iraqi people? There truly is nothing that can justify the U.S. occupation of this country... nothing at all.

The war is not about oil. Repeat. It is not about the oil. It is about bringing freedoms to the Iraqi people, and even if it means that some will be killed, at least they will be killed by the forces of freedom. Please, save me from the people who would save me from myself, they have muscles for brains.

So you would rather be painfully murdered for a freedom you'll never see and might not happen. I've really yet to see some worth while freedom, but I guess you might consider a curfew that if your out after your shoot on sight. And ambulances with innocent children are shot out because the troops don't know if there's a bomb in it or not. Or civilian areas are being bombed with napalm type weaponry and innocent mothers, fathers and children having there limbs burnt off, and never being able to enjoy life. It's easy for you to say that if you've never been in that situation, being burnt alive or being shot to death.

I'm confused. How is it that people who don't think the Iraq debachal is oil related, still have enough sense to use a computer and find this site??
You must be very lucky....

I used to believe all that was broadcast about Hussein, but now, after all of the lies that I have been told, I am beginnig to wonder just how much of it was true.

Just one question to bring everyone to the point of this -

Would we be in this war if there was a law that said: Corporations involved in Iraq are not allowed to profit ? Ok Halliburton, I guess you're not interested in reconstruction unless there are huge numbers of $$ associated with "no-bid" contracts.

It looks like everyone except the president has realized what a blunder invading Iraq was.

I am glad that everyone here can sit and debate the JUSTIFICATION of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (whether under Saddam or not).

For all of you who say that you would "rather have 50 000 dead under freedom, rather than 50 000 under tyranny" - that's really nice of you to type from your cushy home in the u s of a - I am sure the thousands upon thousands of greiving mothers, fathers, and additional family appreciate your sentiments.

Face it - Iraq's been screwed for about a hundred years - not by Saddam (though he was far from an angel) - by the US, Britain, France, etc.... go read a history textbook for heaven's sake!

i'm sorry, i dont want to be offensive but i think anyone sitting in america right now has quite a distorted view of whats acually happening and has happend in iraq. your government suck up media is censored to suit the bush administration, and what they want you to see: iraqis murdering inoccent people, american troop war heroes saving lives. they tell you it's not about oil, or greed or ego, its about giving democracy to a country that needs it. what about zimbabwee? dont they need democracy? i think there are much more needy causes than iraq. except coincidently there's no oil in zimbabwee

The debate over why we went to war serves no purpose at this point. WMD's, no WMD's, oil, no oil - it is completely irrelevant at this point. Keep your eye on the ball. It is now about Shia versus Sunni versus Kurds and they are the ones doing 90% of the killing and destruction. The complete lack of religious tolerance is just amazing since they are all Muslims. People on this post may think George Bush causes all ills in the world but Religious radicalism is the only true evil today. All we are doing in Iraq is giving people an opportunity to rule themselves but they can't handle it. At least not yet. Anyone who believes a dictatorship is better than Civil War is lost. At least Iraq has a chance to be free when this all ends some day - under Saddam - freedom had no chance at all. Could an Iraqi think freely enough to vocally criticize Saddam without threat of DEATH ?? The answer is quite simply no. It doesn't get any more simple than that. So keep spouting anti-Bush, Bush is the root of all the worlds problems crap - you are the master of your own destiny - at least if you live in a free country. And by the way - you're here because someone died for you to be here - read some history - PLEASE !!

Jake...

I will remind you that more people died in the U.S. Civil War than all other wars combined. And then some.

A civil war in Iraq would likely involve Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc and has the potential to destabilize the entire region. In a situation like that, armchair discussions about "freedom" and "democracy" are moot. There is no freedom and democracy during a protracted war, and this situation is very likely to lead to another military dictatorship, NOT a civilian-led democracy. Or the country will break apart and most of the country will fall under Shiite theocracy.

Entire generations can be lost to this sort of conflict. YOU are the one who needs to do a little reading. And, yes, a body count is probably the most significant measure of whether things are getting better or worse. In my books, more people dying means the situation is getting worse, not better.

Oh, and if it doesn't matter why we invaded Iraq, then I guess it is OK for us to invade any country we want... for any reason at all.

"you're here because someone died for you to be here"

Okay since we are going back in time moron. Our government was created on a massive genoside of the natives that lived here before us. So yes, people did die for us to be here. But that was so long ago, that's not such a big deal anymore is it. We killed to be placed here. Columbus was a fukin slave trader, and murderer. The Christian religion based upon a book written by man and believed by the faithful. A religion that has killed millions through time. My god's better than yours so than it's okay to kill. Go look up the definition of faith. Our kind killed and murdered for us to live here, all while having an irrational belief in a system of faith which holds no logic. But that is not worth debating since a persons faith is what they consider fact for themselves. It's hard to trust a spouse you may have been with for 30 years. How the fuk can you trust someone running for office and back up what you "think" he believes without ever even speaking a word to him in real life. The greatest people in the world that may have it remotely figured out would never even run for office. They are simply not dumb enough. Without some sort of conformity to one side or the other, you are instantly looked at as a shady figure. Most people mentally are stuck in a cage.

www.plasticbag.org

After figuring out all the percentages per year and how many deaths per Saddam vs U.S. does it all really matter? Deaths are deaths, so are people saying that 50,000 deaths per year is better than 60,000? The U.S. isn't just killing thousands randomly, it is provoked. If those people (read terrorists and supporters) would just put down their arms and see what could be done for their country there probably wouldn't be any deaths, but they continue to attempt to fight with weapons. No matter how much people rant and rave about it those guys are still going to try and fight and continue getting slaughtered. Live by the gun, die by the gun.

I agree, you can't really blame all the deaths on the US. Sure there responsible for the current situation but there are other outside influences on Iraq. Individuals who hate the US or will benifit themself if Iraq is unstable. Even if the death toll annually is higher now, we should wait and see how Iraq does in the future. Iraq could become a stable democorcy which I think most of would like to see.

I would also like to comment on the villainization of the US and there gov. that there only there for oil. Each person who supported the war did so for there own reasons. Some genuinely want to give Iraqis freedom, peace and/or demorcercy. Others belived there was WMDs or want stablity in the middle east. I do belive oil was the deciding factor because there are other people (esp in Africa) who are being killed, raped, displaced, etc. and not much is done by the US or others.

Am I a supproter of the war? Usually I say "no", mainly because of the way the US whent in without UN support. It's hard to maintan that stand when you hear that some on the Security Counsel were benefiting form the Oil for Food progarm (how much did that influence there votes?). Now, I belive the war is going to be more positive then the alteritive (Saddam and sanctions). Something had to be done and no one was doing anything. The occupation is better than a civil war or another dictator. The troops need to stay for now, I can't see much good from there withdraw. In the end if Iraq becomes a success and it spreeds within the middle east, the world is going to have to thank the Americans for all the sacrifises there making now. I may be a dreamer but I think we can have a "near" warless world....hey, a recent study says wars are on the decrease news.bbc.co.uk

By the way I'm Canadian, so the oil doesn't mater to me, we have lots.

I worked as a psychological operations officer during IraqOne. Let me tell you folks - we didn't treat those people well then and we are not treating them well now.

This is primarily because our mission objectives pertained to securing geography - it doesn't take a general to figure out this was for pipeline infrastructure. But we were also responsible for sewing seeds of dissent in the middle east - to promote fear and political instability in otherwise non-threatening theocracies. W

Why? If you believe that big nation states like our good 'ol US of A really care about people (out own let alone others), that they do things just to help out the other fella, that democracies are run by the people in capitalist systems...you are a fool who has volumes of historical self-education in front of you.

Money frames the debate and dictates the patterns of voting and consumption. Always. Everywhere. Period. Our 'greatest' presidents and constitutional thinkers have all stated for the record that a democracy can only function if its people are taught to think, vote and consume in the way that the 'framers' know best. This is information openly available to all in our public institutions. Our leaders aren't hiding it and feel no need to for tewo main reasons - they believe it and they know that they have convinced us to believe it as well.

We are in Iraq to serve OUR masters. The people have won battles, but we will lose the war if we can't learn to think for ourselves. Don't take my word for anything I have said - prove me wrong by doing your own research. Just don't react with fear like an emotional beast because you don't like what you hear. Choose multiple sources of information. Research your 'enemies' point of view. Think.

The biggest divide that has ever existed in human history has been between the haves and the have-nots. The rich of one country have more in common with the rich from any other country in the world than they do with the 'middle class' or poor of their own country. And they want to keep it that way. I fought for them because I needed money to feed my children; money which they were priveiledged to give and I was required to do as told. Is your situation that different? Of course not. If forgot - YOU are your own master...

People like AG are unbelievable mental midgets. If they ever fell into a barrel of tits they would come up sucking their thumbs.
You ever wondered why no self-respecting journalist or academic talks about Orwell and '1984' since the fall of Communism? You should. There are many more similarities bewteen Orwell's totalitarian state and Pax Americana than there ever was with Russia and other communist states. They were open about there propaganda. We hide ours. There people knew there leaders were bad and feared them. We like to believe that our leaders are good and try to trust them. Who has the wool pulled more over their eyes?

Hmmm, Lets see. By a poster's numbers, Saddam Hussein has killed anywhere between 500k and 1 million people over the course of 25 years. Does this number include the people that starved to death while Saddam bribed a bunch of politicians? or is just the ones that he had direct hand in?
As history question for you, how many people died total in World War II. Not just in Europe. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Well, given the number of people killed in just the Concentration camps is in the range of 7 million. And they existed from say 1930 to 1944. What does that rate work out too. As for the total number killed world wide it is in the range of 53 million. (source www.historyplace.com )
That war too long ago for you? How about the killing fields of Cambodia. How many people were killed there? We can throw in the folks that Idi Amin killed in Africa if you want.
The 100k deaths since the beginning of the U.S. action in Iraq. How many of them are due to direct military actions by the U.S. and its coalition forces and how many are due to terrorist setting off bombs in market places and the like.
Some of you folks need to put down the Marx, Mao and Drs. Phil and Spock and wake up. The Neville Chamberlin school of diplomacy does not and will not ever work. You cannot appease dictators or terrorist. They understand one thing and one thing only. Force! If you want to read and ancient philosophy that is relevant, read Sun Tsu's "The art of war" it is as relevant today as it was when it was written.

Hawkeye

How many people have died AVOIDABLY in post-invasion Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan?

Below are the LATEST assessments deriving from Web-accessible, authoritative UN and UNICEF reports but which are NOT REPORTED by racist, lying, holocaust-denying Mainstream Media.

Whether a child is killed VIOLENTLY (by bombs or bullets) on NON-VIOLENTLY (through deprivation and malnourishment-exacerbated disease) the end result is the same and the culpability the same; further, the Ruler is responsible for the Ruled, notably in war-time as set out in the Geneva Conventions (www.unhchr.ch ).

According to the LATEST, Web-accessible UN Population Division data (see: esa.un.org ) and UNICEF data (see: www.unicef.org ), the "under-5 infant deaths per 1,000 births" in oil-rich Iraq versus its impoverished neighbour Syria were 200 vs 170 (1953), 50 vs 44 (1990) and 125 vs 16 (SIXTEEN) (2004) i.e. infant mortality decreased enormously under the dictator Saddam Hussein but increased hugely after 1990 due to Western intervention.

According to the latest UNICEF report (2006), in 2004 the under-5 infant mortality was 122,000 in Occupied Iraq, 359,000 in Occupied Afghanistan and 1,000 in the occupying country Australia (noting that in 2004 the populations of these countries were 28.1 million, 28.6 million and 19.9 million, respectively) (www.unicef.org ).

About 1,300 under-5 year old infants die in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan EVERY DAY and 0.5 million die ANNUALLY (about 90% AVOIDABLY) due to non-provision by the US-led Coalition of life-preserving requisites demanded by the Geneva Conventions (www.unhchr.ch ).

Using the latest UN Population Division data (2004 revision) it is possible to calculate "avoidable mortality" ("excess mortality"), which is the difference between the ACTUAL deaths in a country in a given period and the deaths EXPECTED for a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics (see: globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com ).

The post-invasion avoidable mortality now (April 2006) totals about 0.5 million (Occupied Iraq) and 1.8 million (Occupied Afghanistan); the post-invasion under-5 infant mortality totals 0.4 million (Occupied Iraq) and 1.4 million (Occupied Afghanistan) (see MWC News: mwcnews.net

The post-1990 avoidable mortality and under-5 infant mortality in Iraq now total 2.2 million and 1.6 million, respectively, due to Coalition-imposed Sanctions, war and occupation (see MWC News: mwcnews.net

Post-invasion avoidable deaths due to the Coalition now total 2.7 million, comprising 0.5 million (Occupied Iraq), 1.8 million (Occupied Afghanistan) and 0.4 million (post-2001 opioid drug-related deaths due to Coalition restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry) and the cost to the US is estimated at US$1-2 TRILLION (see: mwcnews.net ).

According to “Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths” (see MWC News: mwcnews.net ), (a) “under-5 infant mortality” in “bad outcome” Third World countries is numerically about 0.7 of the “avoidable mortality” and (b) under-5 infant mortality data for Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan and other Third World countries is regularly up-dated and reported by UNICEF (see: esa.un.org - the awful truth is only a click away.

A detailed, formal complaint has been sent to the International Criminal Court charging the Coalition with war crimes in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Dr Rice (DR DEATH) and their Coalition confreres should be arraigned before the International Criminal Court (see Countercurrents, 21 December 2005: www.countercurrents.org ).

Those who IGNORE, DENY or SUPPORT man-made mass mortality of ANY PEOPLE (let alone UTTERLY INNOCENT INFANTS) are utterly beyond the Pale and "proto-Nazi". Unlike Nazi Germany, the UK, the US and its Coalition partners such as Racist White Australia are all democracies - and their complicit, racist, proto-Nazi citizens variously IGNORE, DENY or SUPPORT Coalition racist violence that is killing 0.5 MILLION MUSLIM INFANTS EVERY YEAR.

Faced with the realities of the Jewish Holocaust, in 1945 ordinary Germans claimed that “We didn’t know”. By deliberately IGNORING the horrendous mass mortality in the Occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories, Mainstream Media are providing the same excuse for Coalition citizens and are guilty of lying by omission, holocaust denial and complicity in the continuing crimes of UK-US state terrorism and UK-US “democratic imperialism” (democratic tyranny, democratic Nazism).

In relation to the continuing Coalition carnage, DECENT PEOPLE around the world are OBLIGED to (a) ESCHEW racist, holocaust-denying Mainstream Media, (b) INFORM everyone of the continuing catastrophe and (c) AVOID (where possible) any personal or business dealings with those complicit in Coalition war crimes through ethical exercise of “free market choice”. Would you buy soap made in Auschwitz?

The main focus should not be on Saddam's ability to murder civilians or the fact that the invasion of Iraq has critically destabilized the entire nation. It is indisputable that Saddam murdered, in cold blood, perhaps a million individuals. It is also indisputable that several dozen individuals lose their lives due to instability in Iraq, even though over one hundred thousand U.S. peacekeepers remain in the nation.

The main focus should be on the fact that Saddam committed his most deadly atrocities in conjunction with U.S. support or U.S. ignorance. It is hard to cover up the deaths of several hundred thousand Kurds; the biggest purging periods were in 1988 (the "Anfal Campaign," and in 1991 following the Gulf War. These total more than four hundred thousand recorded deaths.

What is most appalling is the fact that Saddam was allowed to remain in power for so long and allowed to commit his worse atrocities with the U.S. as a general ally from 1988 until the invasion of Kuwait. The United States does not care about human rights per se; what is more important is oil resources. So long as Saddam kept out of other countries' businesses, the Kurdish purges of the late eighties (pre gulf-war) were allowed to continue without much of a murmur. Iraq, post Iran-Iraq war, was generally an ally of the U.S., having bought dozens of F-14s from the U.S. in the early eighties.

Having killed thousands of Kurds, Saddam turned on Kuwait in an act of ignorant greed. The United States only began to seriously consider Iraq as a threat to the world, breaking its alliance, at this point in time. Thousands of Kurdish deaths meant nothing, so long as Kuwaiti (and Iraqi!) oil flowed steadily.

Post Gulf War, U.N. sanctions (propped up largely by U.K. and U.S. influence) on Iraq led to far more deaths (mostly due to disease and starvation) than Saddam's genocides ever did; this number ranges from half to two million individuals.

It is these important moral contradictions which must be paid attention to. Obviously, only fourty thousand Iraqi deaths in a three year time span are child's play to Saddam's crimes, but most of those crimes could have been prevented if the world's peacekeeper, the United States, cared at the right time when said crimes actually occurred.

Some very irresponsible posters here just throwing out utter crap to justify their position.

Look, Iraqbodycount has one of the most reliable counts because it takes individual reports, it isn't estimated by some anonymous "research group". As of July 2006, 39,000-43,000 civilians (including insurgents) have died. Saddam is responsible from anywhere between 1 and 2 million, by most sources.

Let's say US Occupation is 43,000 in 39 months compared to Saddam's 1,500,000 in 173 months?

US: 1,102 per month
Saddam: 8,670 per month

Mind you, most civilian fatalities have occured from Sunni/Ba'ath insurgents (named suitably "Saddamites" by the current Iraqi government).

You can all look at the numbers one way on another to justify or not justify a war based upon the Iraqi people. However, this war is not and has never been about the people of Iraq. It is and always will be about two things, Natural resources (oil&natural gas) & military bases. That's IT...

You got it Real. We have a choice of three reasons from the administration. WMD first. Saddam was a bad guy second. And lately 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq. Take your pick, it's all about oil and military toe-holds for more oil. Genocide? Let's go to Sudan. What? Where's the oil?

milieu etrange www.milieu-etrange.0chattes.com [URL=www.milieu-etrange.0chattes.com]milieu etrange[/URL]

A couple of months before the start of the current Iraq war, they had some "experts on International Law" on National Public Radio. Every single one of them was opposed to going to war with Iraq. Regarding International LAW, every single one of them stated that the USA was either ALLOWED or OBLIGATED to go to war with Iraq, based on the fact that Iraq was violating the terms ending the previous Gulf War, and various UN resolutions.

Personally, I know NOTHING about International Law. It seems curious that everyone talks about WMDs and oil, when the International Law folks stated that we were OBLIGATED to go to war to enforce International Law.

You entire premise rests on this

"U.S. Occupation: about 100,000 killed directly or indirectly (includes Kurds) "

So if you are using the Lancet Study for the above figure?

Sorry that is not what the Lancet Study said, it is instead the shortened, inaccurate version of what the Lancet Study has been reported to have said, what the study ACTUALLY said?

Was

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period

Loose translation: We are 95% sure that the death toll fell SOMWHERE between 8K andf 194K, but we have NO idea exactly where, or we would have narrower ranges so we are just going to throw a statistical dart and call it dead smack in the middle.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling."

What Lancet was in effect saying was that they believed 98,000 civilians died, but they might have been off by roughly 90,000 people or so in either direction.

Who says the war isn't about oil AG. There are people in charge of countries all over the world who are just as bad as Saddam. The are countries who have nukes too (and they REALLY do have them). Bush isn't interested in them because the American tax payer won't be able to re-coup anything through the sale of oil. Bill O'Reilly (The O'Reilly Factor - Fox News - Pro Bush Administration) said a few years ago "If the American tax payer has to foot the bill for this war, then why shouldn't they expect to get some of that back through the sale of oil." I know he's not the President, but that sounds like a typical capitalist looking out for his finacial interests above all other considerations. Which means if Iraq had no oil, there'd be no war. So it seems to me that the deciding factor to go to war is the oil.

One thing, I was in Iraq for almost two years. I saw alot of deaths and alot of people in pain. We have have a cushy life in US, but we must remember we have an all VOLUNTEER military. If you aren't part of it. You really can't say much about it.

Trust me I see alot of thing you wil never hear about. Support your troops and say out of what you don't know. Anyone can read, but can anyone serve their country. Obivously, not by reading these post above.....

Team 4 VA
UCT / EOD Teams

Listen to this guy above me. You all have warped views of the reality of Iraq, no matter what side you are on. Any information you have comes from someone who is (obviously or not) trying to get you to think their way. Unless you have been to Iraq, then you don't know what is going on there. Unless you are in the military, then you dont know their motives. Unless you lived under Saddam's rule, then you don't know what it was like. Just keep voting for people who believe like you do and support those who volunteer to protect and serve our country.

Why exactly was Iraq invaded again? Was it...the WMD'S? or...to remove an evil dictator? I forget.

A whole pile of innocent people dying for no reason at all. Oil possibly.

Way to go America! Way to liberate a country that never asked to be liberated!

Iraq is less safe than it was before the invasion...and America is disliked more than they were before the invasion, and that's not an easy thing to do!

So again, Kudos America! More people hate you..and a lot more Iraqis are dead. We all thank you!

Imagine if Nazi Germany had won the war and they were on the security council of the UN today!

What could one expect to be going on in the world?

Let’s see…

- They would for sure give some lame excuse as to why the land they occupy now belongs to them and try to legitimize that through the UN.
- They would quash all resistance movements and people, probably calling them terrorists too.
- They would “VETO” any condemnation by other nations through the UN and probably blackmail many others to tow the line.
- Hey we could imagine a lot further but why bother?

Today is the reality….and we have the zio-Israel with their firmly infiltrated USA doing what the world feared the most.

- Occupation
- Spread of racism
- Legitimization of murder
- Blaming the victim
- Rule of “Hypocrisy” and sheer lies.
- Ownership of most of the mass media for mass mis-information.

Hey we could say they let it happen then for they were ignorant.

But what of today?

What’s your excuse?

OK. The site you link to for the total Saddam death figures is here. That site begins "Kill tally: Approaching two million,".

It agrees with the UN about the children killed by sanctions. It also gives figures that seem like a reasonable ballpark for the Iraq/ Iran war. I'm assuming Stinkzone is not counting the figures that Moreorless.au.com does include for Iranians killed by Saddam. I can see arguments for both sides on including those in any moral calculus. Next, there's a decent ballpark for dissidents killed. The ranges given by Moreorless (in thousands) are 150-340 Iraq war (Iraqis only), 500 children, 1.5-200 from the Gulf War, and >100 kurds and 60-150 dissidents and Shia, with the possibility raised by the discoveries of mass graves that Kurds, Dissidents, and Shia actually come to 300. So, the range is >811,500-1,340,000. because they only count the kids killed in the inter-war years, not the adults, which the UN estimated at another million. Also, moreorless credits Saddam with another 451,000-731,000 foreigners.

Stinkzone quotes moreorless at "500,000-1,000,000". I can't see how you could get to those numbers from that source in good faith. For the Iraqi deaths, you quote the lancet report, written for the explicit purpose of discrediting the war and wildly out of whack with the UN, Iraqi, and other academic studies. You then pretend that these deaths took place uniformly over the 25 years of Saddam's rule, when the rate of death had increased dramatically over that period of time.

The effects of this are to move the figures from around ~150,000/year before the invasion and ~34,000/year after (going by the UN/ Iraqi figures) to the figures at the top.

Can you explain how you got the figures you did from the site you claim to have used? Can you explain the rest of the methodology?

I guess the site doesn't do html. Should have noticed that. OK, if you want a source for the million adults killed under sanctions, look up iraqi sanctions in wiki and check toward the end.

I was born in Baghdad, Iraq and came to America at age ten. I visited Iraq five years ago, and here's the truth.

More innocent civilians were killed during the Gulf War, the U.S and U.K. imposed sanctions and Operation Iraqi Freedom than were by Saddam. He killed people who crossed him politically. He didn't randomly bomb buildings and homes and thrust into homes and kidnapped people for ransom. At least during his days, people knew who was the enemy and how to avoid him.

Today my female relatives cannot step foot outside their homes, and not just from fear of insurgents. Americans are just as feared. Why shouldn't they be? Americans, like everyone else, are humans and therefore, capable of behaving good or bad. And especially if young and ignorant and carrying powerful weapons and born into a society that tolerates violence can commit disgusting acts.

And what is the use of free speech when no one listens? People are saying what they want until they're blue in the face, and is the government listening? No. It's like the Baathist who did whatever they wanted despite what the public wanted.

The only difference is Iraqis knew what was really going on - even though they couldn't say it, even though the media was tightly censored. Yet only until now are Americans learning about the true politics of their government -even though they have all the free resources available to them.

I think many points are missed here.

First, a lot of the ongoing Iraqi deaths are caused by Ba'ath Party insurgents and Shi'ite militia. In other words, a good deal of the post-Saddam "body count" is just a continuation of the previous killing that we haven't succeeded in stopping yet. In Viet Nam, Ho murdered legions of Catholics, and farmers who resisted forced collectivization, and "collaborators" and the Khmer Rouge Cambodian communists added to the body count. Of course, some blame the US. Please attribute deaths to those who actually pull the trigger.

10 reasons for invading Iraq (I'm not saying they're good or bad or complete, only that they are)

1. 10 years of enforcing no-fly zones at an annual cost of $1 billion while Saddam's forces took potshots at our pilots with no end in sight.
2. A senseless oil embargo and corrupt UN oil-for-food program while Saddam's army withheld the food and starved people.
3. Syria exporting Iraq's oil in violation of UN sanctions and using the money to fund Hamas and Hezbollah
4. Ba'athist flagrant sponsorship of 6 different minor terrorist groups including Abu Nidal's group.
5. NATO ally Turkey getting pissed off that 900,000 unwanted Kurdish refugees fled from Iraq into their country, added to some really unhappy Kuwaitis
6. Syria and Iran are serious threats to world peace and Iraq is an excellent location from which to destabilize the regimes (as is occuring if you're paying attention).
7. Saddam turned out to be an easy mark since his generals were easily bribed to withdraw from the battlefield
8. A burgeoning WMD program in Syria and Iran (and indications that Iraq's were probably moved clandestinely to Syria).
9. An assassination attempt by Iraq on a US president (an act of war).
10. A desire to clean up an old Soviet client-state with a Stalinist-style secular one-party socialist dictator now that their sponsor is gone (and destroying 500,000 tons of stockpiled Soviet-made weaponry while they were at it).

Those reasons are good enough for me, but I can see how they might not be to others, especially those sympathetic to repressive one-party socialist states, but to Neville Chamberlain types as well.

Just keep in mind, most of the body count since 2003 has been from roadside bombs and suicide bombers who have been killing indiscriminantly, and most of those have occured in the months that US and Iraqi elections have been taking place.

The problem with America today is that a lot of people don't have the patience or the guts to do the right thing. You have people against the war because they need to feel good about themselves. Ever wonder why liberal Hollywood is always slamming the war or any war in general? Because their lives are so infested with drugs, alcohol, and adultery. They need to feel righteous by belittling better citizens who have the courage to follow their convictions. Good citizens who get labelled as war mongers because they have the guts to do what is right. Most democrats wouldn't know the first thing about love for their country. Almost every democrat that I know of mocks the US as a country that screwed every other country from inception. They have no pride is America. No pride in our troops. Yet they mask their true intentions with lame bumper stickers like "Bring our troops home." Strange, though, how most of our troops are republican, despite fighting an "unwinnable" war. Democrats hurt our troops every day, yet they pretend that they care. Pure comedy, and the troops aren't falling or it, nor the people with the ability to think or themselves.

you guys are garbage. screw you liberals