Some Facts about Death in Iraq

[Sultan]

Taken from: Link


This is a little something I threw together to help myself decide how I felt about the War. I was going to make it into a comic, but haven't gotten around to it (yet).

Some Facts about Death in Iraq:
------------------
1) How many Iraqis has Saddam killed?

Human Rights Watch estimates that "Saddam Hussein and his henchmen have been responsible for murdering or "disappearing" some 225,000 Iraqis." Saddam has been in power for 24 years, meaning his government has killed, on the average, 9,375 Iraqis per year. Iraq currently has a population of 25 million, and had a population of 12.65 million in 1979 when Saddam came to power. That's an average population of 18.825 million. If, in an average year, Saddam's government killed 9,375 Iraqis out of a population of 18.825 million, then they killed about .0498 percent of the Iraqi population, or about 50 out of every 100,000 people.
------------------
2) How does the number of Saddam's murders compare to the number of Iraqis killed by sanctions?

"Approximately 250 people die every day in Iraq due to the effect of the sanctions," according to a 1998 UNICEF report. At 250 a day, 365.25 days a year, that's 91,312.5 Iraqis a year -- or roughly ten times as many as Saddam's government kills in an average year.
------------------
3) How does the number of Saddam's murders compare to the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the current war?

The US invasion of Iraq started on March 20, 2003. As of April 14, 2003, iraqbodycount.net was listing iraqi civilian casualties in 2003 as being between 1373 and 1786. For purposes of this analysis, I will use 1564 as the estimate of civilian casualties -- that's the average of iraqbodycount's figures (1579.5) minus the 15 who were killed before March 20 (in no fly-zone airstrikes, etc.) So, that's 1564 killed in 26 days, or 60.2 Iraqi civilians killed per day. The US could continue at this same pace for a total of 156 days (about five and a quarter months) before reaching the average number of Iraqis killed by Saddam per year. If the US continued their pace of civilian deaths and the war lasted a full year, they would kill about 21,988 Iraqis. That's about 2.25 times more than Saddam kills in a year.
------------------
4) How does the number of Saddam's murders compare to the number of Iraqi soldiers killed in the current war?

The number of Iraqi soldiers that will be killed in the current war is estimated to be between 5,000 and 10,000. That is about equal to the number of Iraqis Saddam's government has killed in an average year.
------------------
5) How does the number of Saddam's murders compare to the number of fatal shootings by police officers in Detroit?

According to the Detroit Free Press, "Detroit leads the nation's largest cities in the rate of fatal shootings by police ... Detroit, with nearly 1 million residents, averaged nearly 10 fatal police shootings a year in 1990-98." That's 1 in every 100,000 citizens -- Saddam killed 50 times more.
------------------
6) How does the number of Saddam's murders compare to the number of executions in Texas?

Then Texas governor George W. Bush set a record for executions in a year in 1999 with 40 executions. The US Census Bureau estimated the population of Texas as 20 million in 1999. That means Bush executed .0002 percent of Texas's population, or .2 out of every 100,000 -- Saddam's crew killed 250 times more.

 

[conjur]

www.iraqbodycount.net shows anywhere from 8930 to 10781 Iraqi civilians killed since the war started, not 1500.

Also, other sites I've read seem to come to a number killed by Saddam of around 325,000 - 350,000.

 

[Moonbeam]

As Winston Smith will tell you, you have to kill people to save them. They have to die to be free. Murder is life and war is pease. This is the great truth fools like you can't see.

 

[dbk]

yes saddam killed and he would've continued to kill but after the war, the killing would theoretically be lessened..so your concept is flawed

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bykim5
yes saddam killed and he would've continued to kill but after the war, the killing would theoretically be lessened..so your concept is flawed

Also, the bulk of the deaths (180,000) caused by Saddam happened during the Anfal, the genocide committed against the Kurds. Another 60,000 were believed to have been killed in the post-Gulf War rebellions that the U.S. allowed to occur (we could have destroyed the Republican Guard during that war or, at the least, could have helped the rebellions instead of standing idly by.)

Taking those two out of the equation leaves, on a high estimate, 100,000 killed over his 24-year reign. That's 4166 killed per year. We've doubled that and nearly tripled it in the last year.

Yeah...the Iraqis are much better off.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bykim5
yes saddam killed and he would've continued to kill but after the war, the killing would theoretically be lessened..so your concept is flawed

Also, the bulk of the deaths (180,000) caused by Saddam happened during the Anfal, the genocide committed against the Kurds. Another 60,000 were believed to have been killed in the post-Gulf War rebellions that the U.S. allowed to occur (we could have destroyed the Republican Guard during that war or, at the least, could have helped the rebellions instead of standing idly by.)

Taking those two out of the equation leaves, on a high estimate, 100,000 killed over his 24-year reign. That's 4166 killed per year. We've doubled that and nearly tripled it in the last year.

Yeah...the Iraqis are much better off.

Says who? I see the Iraqis resisting against the US forces. If they can pick up arms against the World's superpower, they could have done it against Saddam Hussein. No one asked the opinion of the Iraqis.

Besides, this war was NOT about liberation, it started off as Iraq possessing WMD and being a threat to the US.

So you are not SAVING the people by Killing them as Moonbeam and WinstonSmith say. Thats a delusion you should get out of.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So is the long term outlook of the Iraqi people better now or would it have still been better if Saddam was still in power?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So is the long term outlook of the Iraqi people better now or would it have still been better if Saddam was still in power?

Not for us to decide. People should decide their own fate. We should not meddle in other people's affairs. You would not like me telling you what to do and how to live and how to go about your business. Why should this country tell another then?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So is the long term outlook of the Iraqi people better now or would it have still been better if Saddam was still in power?

Not for us to decide. People should decide their own fate. We should not meddle in other people's affairs. You would not like me telling you what to do and how to live and how to go about your business. Why should this country tell another then?

So you are saying..

If you see a person being assaulted, you should do nothing.

If you see a child reaching for a loaded gun, you should do nothing.

If you see a person starving to death, you should do nothing.


Damn, but you are a cold hearted bastard.

 

[Zephyr106]

The real question is, at the rate of the CLINTON BODY COUNT, could BJ Clinton match the killings of his idol, Joseph Stalin?

Zephyr

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So is the long term outlook of the Iraqi people better now or would it have still been better if Saddam was still in power?

Not for us to decide. People should decide their own fate. We should not meddle in other people's affairs. You would not like me telling you what to do and how to live and how to go about your business. Why should this country tell another then?

So you are saying..

If you see a person being assaulted, you should do nothing.

If you see a child reaching for a loaded gun, you should do nothing.

If you see a person starving to death, you should do nothing.


Damn, but you are a cold hearted bastard.

Huh? What?

Thats a really, really, really stupid reply, even coming from you.

There are people being assaulted right here in the US. There was a murder outside the Wrigley field. And we just just had school shooting in Maryland. And there are many homeless in the US itself who dont have 2 meals a day.

You DONT go freaking INVADE a SOVEREIGN country, kill TEN THOUSAND CIVILIANS and then act COMPASSIONATE!

That was the biggest pile of bullshit you spewed from your mouth... giving those ridiculous reasons to go into Iraq.

Are you retarded?

 

[Risiko]

Huh? What? Thats a really, really, really stupid reply, even coming from you. There are people being assaulted right here in the US. There was a murder outside the Wrigley field. And we just just had school shooting in Maryland. And there are many homeless in the US itself who dont have 2 meals a day. You DONT go freaking INVADE a SOVEREIGN country, kill TEN THOUSAND CIVILIANS and then act COMPASSIONATE! That was the biggest pile of bullshit you spewed from your mouth... giving those ridiculous reasons to go into Iraq. Are you retarded?

That is not what he is trying to say.

I think this is a good example of the point he was trying to make:

Let's say a you were in a large bank depositing some money. All of a sudden, a criminal walks in and pulls out an AK-47 and tells everyone to shut up and stay low. And, then you notice something - this was the criminal who had already robbed two banks last month who killed dozens of hostages both times. The police come and surround the bank while you and about fifty others in the bank are lying on the floor waiting to see what will happen.

Now, the criminal puts his gun down next to him as he fills a large bag with wads of cash. You are a few meters away from him. You are also an ex-police officer, with a pistol on you, and you are an excellent shot. You are, say 95% sure you can hit him and take him out so carnage does not ensure. You remember from the news that this guy does not mind killing civilians, as he has shown in the past, for no reason.

You have a few seconds, what do you do?

I think that most people would argue that it would be best to shoot him. There is a tiny chance that a civilian will be hit...and in fact a small chance that you'll miss and he'll retaliate by killing many of the hostages. But still, weighing the options, the best thing to do, I think most would say, would be to aim and shoot. Even if you were sure that you would accidently kill a hostage in the process, the choice of not shooting, I assume most would think, is much worse.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So is the long term outlook of the Iraqi people better now or would it have still been better if Saddam was still in power?

Not for us to decide. People should decide their own fate. We should not meddle in other people's affairs. You would not like me telling you what to do and how to live and how to go about your business. Why should this country tell another then?

Well, the question still stands. What do you think?

I agree with you to a certain degree that we shouldn't meddle in other people's affairs, but I was curious as to what your position is about my question.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Risiko

Huh? What? Thats a really, really, really stupid reply, even coming from you. There are people being assaulted right here in the US. There was a murder outside the Wrigley field. And we just just had school shooting in Maryland. And there are many homeless in the US itself who dont have 2 meals a day. You DONT go freaking INVADE a SOVEREIGN country, kill TEN THOUSAND CIVILIANS and then act COMPASSIONATE! That was the biggest pile of bullshit you spewed from your mouth... giving those ridiculous reasons to go into Iraq. Are you retarded?

That is not what he is trying to say.

I think this is a good example of the point he was trying to make:

Let's say a you were in a large bank depositing some money. All of a sudden, a criminal walks in and pulls out an AK-47 and tells everyone to shut up and stay low. And, then you notice something - this was the criminal who had already robbed two banks last month who killed dozens of hostages both times. The police come and surround the bank while you and about fifty others in the bank are lying on the floor waiting to see what will happen.

Now, the criminal puts his gun down next to him as he fills a large bag with wads of cash. You are a few meters away from him. You are also an ex-police officer, with a pistol on you, and you are an excellent shot. You are, say 95% sure you can hit him and take him out so carnage does not ensure. You remember from the news that this guy does not mind killing civilians, as he has shown in the past, for no reason.

You have a few seconds, what do you do?

I think that most people would argue that it would be best to shoot him. There is a tiny chance that a civilian will be hit...and in fact a small chance that you'll miss and he'll retaliate by killing many of the hostages. But still, weighing the options, the best thing to do, I think most would say, would be to aim and shoot. Even if you were sure that you would accidently kill a hostage in the process, the choice of not shooting, I assume most would think, is much worse.

What? :shocked:

Dude, you have an imaginative mind. Though I like your analogy, it is NO WHERE related to the current situation in Iraq!

The premise of the War was that Iraq possessed WMD. So you analogy would mean the 'criminal' threatened 'me', which is NOT TRUE.

Next, no one has given 'me' the right to take action, and take the life of not one but MANY civilians. The 'bank' can deal with the situation. It is not 'my' bank. I dont have authority over the 'bank'. And now, 'I' cannot even claim moral superiority given the current relevations.

So lets not digress from the topic, and try to have a better impression of the situation at hand.

RabidMongoose

My opinion is as I have said, it is not up to us to decide. Neither am I an Iraqi, nor did I ever undergo same situations as the Iraqis. If the current situation over there is anything to go by, I do not see the Iraqi people welcoming the US or thanking us for ridding them from Saddam. If the Iraqis can manage to shed their blood to fight against the US, they could have done so against Saddam.

On the contrary, WE are trying to IMPOSE freedom on them. That itself is such a laughable state of affairs.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I agree that it's not up to us to decide to take action. However, we can have an opinion. I'm not sure why you're dodging the question.

So is the long term outlook of the Iraqi people better now or would it have still been better if Saddam was still in power?

If the Iraqis can manage to shed their blood to fight against the US, they could have done so against Saddam.

Maybe they feared Saddam more than they fear the US?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I agree that it's not up to us to decide to take action. However, we can have an opinion. I'm not sure why you're dodging the question.

So is the long term outlook of the Iraqi people better now or would it have still been better if Saddam was still in power?

If the Iraqis can manage to shed their blood to fight against the US, they could have done so against Saddam.

Maybe they feared Saddam more than they fear the US?

I'm not trying to dodge the question. The question is something I do not have an answer to since I am not an Iraqi. If you ask me whether the long-term outlook of the US is better without Bush, I would say hell yeah! But the future of the Iraqis certainly doesnt seem very good right now. You must realize that our understanding and perspective may not be the one shared by another. We are currently trying to GIVE them freedom (or so we claim) and they are fighting against us. Do you see the irony in that?

Maybe they feared Saddam more than they fear the US?

Maybe. Maybe not. I cant say. And neither can you. But they ARE challenging the world's superpower. And that speaks volume of their determination to fight an occupying power.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'm not trying to dodge the question. The question is something I do not have an answer to since I am not an Iraqi. If you ask me whether the long-term outlook of the US is better without Bush, I would say hell yeah! But the future of the Iraqis certainly doesnt seem very good right now. You must realize that our understanding and perspective may not be the one shared by another. We are currently trying to GIVE them freedom (or so we claim) and they are fighting against us. Do you see the irony in that?

Yes, you are dodging the question. While I agree about the Bush thing, I could state a similar opinion about any country. I don't have to be Canadian to state an opinion about Canada, just like how I don't have to be Iraqi to state an opinion about Iraq. Why aren't you stating your opinion?

Note that if you say yes, that doesn't justify the war by any means since the US is not there to solely bring freedom. I would say that Iraq will probably be better off long-term, but the US should not have involved itself in the manner that it did. What do you think?

 

[TheBDB]

Does civilian deaths mean those not wearing a military uniform or those who are innocent of any wrongdoing and are "collateral damage" due to strikes on legitimate targets? There is a BIG difference in my opinion.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I'm not trying to dodge the question. The question is something I do not have an answer to since I am not an Iraqi. If you ask me whether the long-term outlook of the US is better without Bush, I would say hell yeah! But the future of the Iraqis certainly doesnt seem very good right now. You must realize that our understanding and perspective may not be the one shared by another. We are currently trying to GIVE them freedom (or so we claim) and they are fighting against us. Do you see the irony in that?

Yes, you are dodging the question. While I agree about the Bush thing, I could state a similar opinion about any country. I don't have to be Canadian to state an opinion about Canada, just like how I don't have to be Iraqi to state an opinion about Iraq. Why aren't you stating your opinion?

Note that if you say yes, that doesn't justify the war by any means since the US is not there to solely bring freedom. I would say that Iraq will probably be better off long-term, but the US should not have involved itself in the manner that it did. What do you think?

Ok, here's my perspective. Since I moved from another country to the States, I can offer a little bit of insight to this whole freedom thing from a third world country.

Democracy cannot work where there isnt literacy. I think Truman said that. My country has been headed by a dictator for more than half of its life. And whenever democracy came around, the country was gutted, completely, by the democratic leaders.

I believe the transition to democracy should be a slow, careful, thought-out process. Until the people realize they are the ones who are responsible for their country, dictatorship is necessary for maintaining the unity of the nation - even if it is under duress.

By the way, during the first Gulf War, Saddam was more or less a hero back home, for taking on the US.

Personally speaking, Saddam should be fed to the dogs for what he's done to Iraq, Iraqis and Kuwait, based on what I've read about him and seen. Then again, he has not done anything to me.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
Does civilian deaths mean those not wearing a military uniform or those who are innocent of any wrongdoing and are "collateral damage" due to strikes on legitimate targets? There is a BIG difference in my opinion.

Lets not get into semantics. The war is unjust. A LOT of HUMANS died. That is unjust. We weep for our soldiers, weep for theirs too, who fought, and are fighting for their country. You would pick up arms too if the Iraqis decided to invade the US.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I'm not trying to dodge the question. The question is something I do not have an answer to since I am not an Iraqi. If you ask me whether the long-term outlook of the US is better without Bush, I would say hell yeah! But the future of the Iraqis certainly doesnt seem very good right now. You must realize that our understanding and perspective may not be the one shared by another. We are currently trying to GIVE them freedom (or so we claim) and they are fighting against us. Do you see the irony in that?

Yes, you are dodging the question. While I agree about the Bush thing, I could state a similar opinion about any country. I don't have to be Canadian to state an opinion about Canada, just like how I don't have to be Iraqi to state an opinion about Iraq. Why aren't you stating your opinion?

Note that if you say yes, that doesn't justify the war by any means since the US is not there to solely bring freedom. I would say that Iraq will probably be better off long-term, but the US should not have involved itself in the manner that it did. What do you think?

Ok, here's my perspective. Since I moved from another country to the States, I can offer a little bit of insight to this whole freedom thing from a third world country.

Democracy cannot work where there isnt literacy. I think Truman said that. My country has been headed by a dictator for more than half of its life. And whenever democracy came around, the country was gutted, completely, by the democratic leaders.

I believe the transition to democracy should be a slow, careful, thought-out process. Until the people realize they are the ones who are responsible for their country, dictatorship is necessary for maintaining the unity of the nation - even if it is under duress.

By the way, during the first Gulf War, Saddam was more or less a hero back home, for taking on the US.

Personally speaking, Saddam should be fed to the dogs for what he's done to Iraq, Iraqis and Kuwait, based on what I've read about him and seen. Then again, he has not done anything to me.

I agree that the transition to democracy should be a slow and well planned process.

So I assume that your answer is that in the long term, Iraq is better off? Is that a correct assumption? Not that it's any justification for the war.

Also, do you think the US should immediately pull out?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I'm not trying to dodge the question. The question is something I do not have an answer to since I am not an Iraqi. If you ask me whether the long-term outlook of the US is better without Bush, I would say hell yeah! But the future of the Iraqis certainly doesnt seem very good right now. You must realize that our understanding and perspective may not be the one shared by another. We are currently trying to GIVE them freedom (or so we claim) and they are fighting against us. Do you see the irony in that?

Yes, you are dodging the question. While I agree about the Bush thing, I could state a similar opinion about any country. I don't have to be Canadian to state an opinion about Canada, just like how I don't have to be Iraqi to state an opinion about Iraq. Why aren't you stating your opinion?

Note that if you say yes, that doesn't justify the war by any means since the US is not there to solely bring freedom. I would say that Iraq will probably be better off long-term, but the US should not have involved itself in the manner that it did. What do you think?

Ok, here's my perspective. Since I moved from another country to the States, I can offer a little bit of insight to this whole freedom thing from a third world country.

Democracy cannot work where there isnt literacy. I think Truman said that. My country has been headed by a dictator for more than half of its life. And whenever democracy came around, the country was gutted, completely, by the democratic leaders.

I believe the transition to democracy should be a slow, careful, thought-out process. Until the people realize they are the ones who are responsible for their country, dictatorship is necessary for maintaining the unity of the nation - even if it is under duress.

By the way, during the first Gulf War, Saddam was more or less a hero back home, for taking on the US.

Personally speaking, Saddam should be fed to the dogs for what he's done to Iraq, Iraqis and Kuwait, based on what I've read about him and seen. Then again, he has not done anything to me.

I agree that the transition to democracy should be a slow and well planned process.

So I assume that your answer is that in the long term, Iraq is better off? Is that a correct assumption?

Also, do you think the US should immediately pull out?

We're really diverging off.

Anyways, I hope Iraq is better off. Saddam was not a good man. Iraqis deserved better.

I think the US should bow down, submit the same troops to UN or OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) body, and pour in some heavy cash for the reconstruction effort, specially the infrastructure the 'smart bombs' destroyed. It should also allow for paying war damages, as was paid by Iraq to Kuwait.

Under the UN or OIC, the force would have more credibility in restoring order, winning the confidence of the Iraqis and repairing a war-torn nation.

Honestly speaking, I believe the whole effort was to get oil - as was in the case of Afghanistan.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You're still kind of dodging the question.

You 'hope' Iraq is better off. Well I'm sure everyone does. You say that Iraq was horrible, but a dictator is sometimes needed. What's your opinion on Iraq's future? Is it better off or worse off now?

Your other answer is interesting, but not realistic in this world.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TheBDB
Does civilian deaths mean those not wearing a military uniform or those who are innocent of any wrongdoing and are "collateral damage" due to strikes on legitimate targets? There is a BIG difference in my opinion.

Lets not get into semantics. The war is unjust. A LOT of HUMANS died. That is unjust. We weep for our soldiers, weep for theirs too, who fought, and are fighting for their country. You would pick up arms too if the Iraqis decided to invade the US.

It isn't semantics. Innocent and civilian are not the same thing in a world of terrorists. I am not passing judgement on the justness of the war. My opinion of the war is of no consequence. I am simply wondering how these numbers are determined.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
You're still kind of dodging the question.

You 'hope' Iraq is better off. Well I'm sure everyone does. You say that Iraq was horrible, but a dictator is sometimes needed. What's your opinion on Iraq's future? Is it better off or worse off now?

Your other answer is interesting, but not realistic in this world.

Dude, how many ways shall I concur with you? Saddam was not a good man. He needed to go. The way he was thrown out is not the correct way. Iraq will be better without Saddam, after a looooooong period of time. Not anywhere in the near future. If things were done correctly, that is by political upheaval or diplomatic pressure, specially by Iraqs neighbors, things would have definitely been better for Iraq.

I dont know if you know this, but Saddam had offered to step down from power and hold elections in Iraq to avert this war. If that option had been taken, not only would we be in this mess, Iraqis would have been better off too.