Saddam's toll - 160 people per day

[SurlyPIG]

I originally posted this in the Iraq Issues thread but thought it was important enough to give it it's own topic. Recently, I've been hearing a lot of criticism of the coalition's pursuit of the Iraq war. I hear it on the TV, I read it in the paper, I read it on these boards. It would seem that a solid chunk of people are still upset with the coalition's action toward Iraq. Then, the other day, I heard this number. It was from a political analyst (an Arab Muslim woman, BTW). She's part of an insitution that's trying to bring democracy to the Middle-East. She was very critical of the US after the operation in Afghanistan, and she is just as critical about their post-war actions in Iraq. But even she admitted that the war was absolutely just, for one reason;

Saddam Hussein, while in power, killed an an average of 160 people per day.

That's right. You read it correctly. 160 people PER DAY. Let's focus on that number for a bit to put things in perspective. 160 people in Iraq directly murdered. This doesn't count the people that starve because of Saddam, or die of diseases that could have been cured easily in a country without the sanctions Saddam brought on the country.

160 people per day - most commonly shot in a quiet place. Some in public as demonstrations. A popular execution method was putting people through plastic grinders feet first so they could feel their lower body being ground into bits and Saddam's men could hear them scream. Another person, an anti-Baathist activist, who was captured by Iraqi soldiers during the Gulf war, had her skull bashed in. Then she was torn limb from limb and her body parts were left on her family's doorstep.

And here I am surrounded by people huffing and puffing about the finest points of impotent, beaurocratic procedures, either totally oblivious to these atrocities or not caring enough to hold back on the US-bashing for one battle.

160 people per day. Thats about 7 people per hour. In the time it's taken me to write this post, two or three people would have died if there were no war.

More people were murdered by saddam in a WEEK than there have been civillian casualties two months into the war, so that argument is illegitimate. Why do we continue to see all these bleeding hearts?

Is it really the WMD argument? Surely, people aren't THAT inhumane. I really do hope that everyone here can agree that breaking procedure ok in this case. 160 people per day. So what is it then? Is it the 'true motives' of the initiators? Hogwash. That's a bunch of speculation. Nobody really knows for sure except the initiators. The rest of us just have to look at the results of their actions.

160 people per DAY

Sorry if my repetition is getting annoying but I want everyone to remember that number. When you watch the news and see all the hunted-out bleeding hearts, remember that number. When your friends stumble on that topic of conversation, remember that number. Whenever you hear Hollywood celebrities go into some wishy-washy speech, remember that number.

160 people per day. Remember that number. That should be the driving force behind whatever judgements you make, everything else is secondary.

[DukeLeto]

He was killing "160 people per day" (Though that's total bull. He's been in power since about 1979, and that's about 8,760 days, which equates to approximately 1,401,600 people...the popultion of a small country. ::)) when Reagan was selling him weapons and he was selling us oil...No one seemed to care then. ::)

[SurlyPIG]

Massive dodge.

And Saddam's enemy was worse than he was at the time. Bottom line is the support ceased after the gassing of Halabjah.

And how am I supposed to have cared back then? Reagan's term was almost over before I became a fetus FFS. Give me a break.

Your argument is totally irrelevant. Just because, according to your false perception, people didn't care back then, you're arguing that we shouldn't care now? Give me a break.

And the number is totally legit. I took it from an anti-American organization intentionally. He really did kill that many people. Many more died a lot faster during the Iran-Iraq war. And when the average family has 4.5 kids, 1.4 million over a quarter of a century is hardly a dent in the total population.

[DukeLeto]

To elaborate on the number crunching:

Iraq's current population is about 24,468,300. 1,401,600 is approximately 1/17th of the country's current population. He killed about 1/17th of the people? Does anyone but me find that a bit hard to believe? ::)

To put that in perspective: Not even Adolf Hitler took out 1/17th of his country's population. ::)

[DukeLeto]

Your argument is totally irrelevant. Just because, according to your false perception, people didn't care back then, you're arguing that we shouldn't care now?

What's false about it? Do you deny that we were getting oil from him? Or that he was being sold weapons? If so, then I pity you. You are a prime example of how effective the conservative propaganda machine is.

[SurlyPIG]

What's false is your perception that people didn't/don't care. Obviously they did if they disowned him and sanctioned his country. And I didn't hear you crying about France and Russia buying oil from Saddam.

And like I said in my edit the the population was still growing over the years because Iraqis have so many kids.

Hitler had a run of, what, 6-7 years? He killed 6 million jews alone! Saddam's had 4 and 1/2 times that amount of time and killed far fewer people than that.

EDIT : Oh, and put a sock in 'conservative propaganda' remarks. I'm quoting a progressive Kuwaiti Muslim woman for cryin' out loud. Does that sound conservative to you?

[Egeides]

ACE, the support did NOT stoped after the gasing. A lot before the support stoped, some journalists brang evidence he was using gas. Answer from the Bush (father)? Nonsense, he is "our ally and friend" (direct quote). Some dissidents were constantly trying to bring this on the table but it was always push aside. When it came on TV (once, because it became too huge), the journalist got no time to argue, just to state his conclusion, and an official was put just after, saying what I said.

Now, about Saddam, I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is including the wars he've fought! About hunger, was there any hunger before the US embargo? Same for medic. Why does US cut stuff that go against PEOPLE and not only what's against the leader?? Same for Cuba.

[zamboe]

"Saddam's toll - 160 people per day"

I don't believe it so far, I expect proff anyway to change my mind.

However, for the rest of the people, expect more of this kind of "new reasons", like the title of this topic, they will come in tons because their main reason "the existance of WoMD" has proven to be a total lie, and now an urgent need to justify their action is needed.

For some reason, after they (US & UK gov mainly) have failed to prove their facts, I can't believe them anymore.

[SurlyPIG]

Eg the delay was slight, the world had to confirm the reports of the gassing. Keep in mind that this was a crucial ally in a war against an enemy that was far worse, so they couldn't just jump ship without good reason.

You need to understand that whether the UN (not the US Zamboe the whole world sanctions Iraq) sanctions Iraq or not, Saddam still controls the food supply, steals from his people and builds a military arsenal. He's done it throughout his entire rule of Iraq. And the world has always given food and medicine to Iraq.

About the numbers, the lady I'm quoting specifically said, "Saddam killed a hundred and sixty people per day, not even counting war and the people who starved because of him."

Even still, your argument is irrelevant to recent actions. We are talking about the present, not an unrelated even from 15 years ago. Please don't go OT. If you wish to start a US-bashing thread, be my guest, just keep it out of this topic.

Zamboe, I'm surprised that you place more value on subjective beaurocratic procedure than you do on human lives. You can doubt all you want to, the number 160 doesn't come from the CIA, it comes from an anti-dictatorial organization working in and around the Middle East. It spans every Middle Eastern country with many members in each. If anyone would know, they would. Furthermore, the organization is critical of the US for not bestowing responsibility of forming Afghanistan and Iraqi government formation upon the UN. But even they admit that both Iraq and Afghanistan are far better off than they were, thus outweighing any negatives. I'll admit that Saddam probably didn't murder that many people that consistantly throughout his whole rule, but even if the 160 is off by 25%, then it's still 120 at least.

Ask yourselves these two questions;

1. Given that Saddam killed 160 people per day, given that civillian casualties from the war were minimal, and given that continuing deaths are few to nill and are on an irregular basis, are Iraqi citizens better off because of the war, or worse for wear?

2. What is the most important thing that was accomplished through the war? Removing Saddam and freeing citizens, eliminating a threat to neighbouring countries and the rest of the world, or following UN beaurocratic procedures to the letter?

Hopefully that's not too tough to handle. No it wasn't perfect. Well welcome to war. Welcome to life. Welcome to politics. Welcome to reality. Look at the big picture.

[Navaros]

ACElethal: this whole thread is bollocks. Saddam is a Noble Hero who was so loved by his people that he even got nearly 100% of the Vote in the last election. North America doesn't have any great men like Saddam who are loved by all of their population.

blatant lies like this are just BS from the Pentagon's lying Propaganda Machine which manufacturers lies like this as well as that Iraq has WoMD and the Jessica Lynch lies

you need to stop buying into such blatant lies and helping that evil Propaganda Machine

Saddam even showed himself to be a caring, peaceful man who did everything possible to avoid the Illegal War that he did not want. He even told Dan Rather he didn't want this Illegal War, but the barbaric, savage neanderthals in the USA committed it any ways.

[Gobalopper]

Someone needs to take Nav to the doctor. ;)

[Egeides]

Nav, excellent but were you informed that the Saddam monster had a father Frankeinstein?... Bush father is one of them. He was pretty happy of his job with biochemicals.

[zamboe]

Someone needs to take Nav to the doctor. ;)

if someone doesn't, what he'll need pretty soon is a lawyer.

[zamboe]

Zamboe, I'm surprised that you place more value on subjective beaurocratic procedure than you do on human lives.

Because we live in a society with rules, it's not what I like is what we all have to accept. Otherwise i.e. someone could justify that in order to feed his family and avoid them to die he/she had to robe a store, what's more I'd would you to go to an emergency area in a hospital (better yet if it's in a non first world nation) and see by yourself how what you call "burocratic procedures" do to human lifes. If you ask the people that bring their relatives there, the doctors, the police man/women that bring severe injured people there, they will tell you it's a crap of procedure, but that's the best there is, otherwise it would mean total anarchy and anyone would do as they please. I value human lives, you telling the contrary is really offending, what I value more is whatever the rules and laws as a society has agreed to accept for the common good.

You can doubt all you want to, the number 160 doesn't come from the CIA, it comes from an anti-dictatorial organization working in and around the Middle East. It spans every Middle Eastern country with many members in each. If anyone would know, they would. Furthermore, the organization is critical of the US for not bestowing responsibility of forming Afghanistan and Iraqi government formation upon the UN. But even they admit that both Iraq and Afghanistan are far better off than they were, thus outweighing any negatives. I'll admit that Saddam probably didn't murder that many people that consistantly throughout his whole rule, but even if the 160 is off by 25%, then it's still 120 at least.

They still are a non goverment organization, I'd like to know who finance them, do they have a newsletter or a PR department, how long do they have been in this research, what's their position on the WoMD matter ?

Ask yourselves these two questions;

1. Given that Saddam killed 160 people per day, given that civillian casualties from the war were minimal, and given that continuing deaths are few to nill and are on an irregular basis, are Iraqi citizens better off because of the war, or worse for wear?

2. What is the most important thing that was accomplished through the war? Removing Saddam and freeing citizens, eliminating a threat to neighbouring countries and the rest of the world, or following UN beaurocratic procedures to the letter?

Hopefully that's not too tough to handle. No it wasn't perfect. Well welcome to war. Welcome to life. Welcome to politics. Welcome to reality. Look at the big picture.

1. Iraqi and non Iraqis that live in Iraq are worse at the present time, with no perspectives to improve.

2. The most terrible thing accomplished through the war is not that list, in my view that things is the lie that the UK and US gov told to the rest of world, they told a lie to start a war, we were deceived, now they try to make a touching reasons to justify what's unjustifible.

I look at the big picture.

Welcome to the world of different opinions.

[SurlyPIG]

Quick reply as I'll be away for a couple days after this.

@ Nav (who says he's blocked me yet is still posting in my thread somehow): I second the doctor remark. It's a frightening prospect that you actually might believe what you say.

Zamboe, I partially agree with your first point, but where does this beaurocracy end? The coalition did their best to try and follow procedures, but Saddam was COUNTING on those procedures. He loved them. He manipulated them like nobody else in history ever has. It was a clever gamble, but it backfired. At what point do you step away from the crowd and follow your own path, what you and the ones around you know is right?

As to the second questions, I wish I knew. I caught about 3/4 of a panel/interview type program on BBC and unfortunately she never mentioned the name of the organization in the time I was watching. I'll try and find more info about it or find a different source when I get back.

Lastly,

1. Are you KIDDING me? In what way could it possibly be worse?! Now that the power is back up, food and water are pleantiful, people are free (protests, no less), and casualties have died down, what could possibly make this worse than Saddam?! If you had to live in Iraq would you rather live there right now, or 3 years ago?

2. Actually this is MY reason. Boy that's a lot of hot air to breathe at once...Why does there have to be a lone reason anyway? There are obviously multiple reasons, the one to which you are referring is still pending and will take a long time before we can get a definate answer. And how were we 'deceived' and 'lied to'? There have been several illegal weapons found already that violated the post-Gulf war agreement. I don't see how the world was 'deceived. The lights are on and somebody's home, why won't you open the door?

It's beyond me how someone can be so insensitive as to put the murder of 160 people per day in the back seat (speaking in general, not to you Zamboe), but whatever floats your boat. Next time you post, put yourself in the shoes of someone in the family whose dismembered daughter was delivered to their doorstep in a garbage bag. I just don't see how it compares. That's certainly the biggest part of the picture to me. I mean, people were being slaughtered mercilessly by an evil maniac and the rest of the world is listening to a bunch of ya-yas in suits talk about resolutions and procedure. It makes me pretty sick. Not saying they're not important but they just don't compare...they can't compare.

[Birdfolly]

I'd be interested in knowing some more about the woman and her organization before swallowing the 160 but I agree that Saddam killed people and that Iraq was living in daily fear of him.

I agree with Zamboe that this war was fed to us as a war to stop Saddam from using WMD's on us in the immediate future(thus the whole pre-emptive strike thing). THAT is what we in America were barraged with every day, not saving the Iraqi people, although that was mentioned as well.

Whether the Iraqis are better off now is certainly open to debate.

What is hard to take is the idea that the US cares about the Iraqi people at all. The sanctions were UN sanctions but it is well documented that the US played a key role in the security council as basic items such as water pumps, morphine(for dying cancer patients), and cancer meds for the vastly increasing cancer patients were routinely denied as imports in return for oil. The actual figures of deaths resulting from sanctions are impossible to be accurate about so I won't even go there but I wonder if those are included in the woman's numbers.

We should also remember that the "minimal" civilian casualties are still greater than those who died on 9-11, for example. All this stuff should weigh in somehow along with possible side motives and whatnot.

[Dude_Doc]

ACElethal: this whole thread is bollocks. Saddam is a Noble Hero who was so loved by his people that he even got nearly 100% of the Vote in the last election. North America doesn't have any great men like Saddam who are loved by all of their population.

Hitler also got 100% of votes. I'm sure you would love him as a leader...

[Navaros]

ACElethal: this whole thread is bollocks. Saddam is a Noble Hero who was so loved by his people that he even got nearly 100% of the Vote in the last election. North America doesn't have any great men like Saddam who are loved by all of their population.

Hitler also got 100% of votes. I'm sure you would love him as a leader...

he had his good points, was just a little misdirected (ie: killing Jews along with certain other types of things instead of just killing the other things). Saddam wasn't like Hitler though. you guys are just knocking Saddam because you're jealous that all his people loved him so much and that that many people are never gonna love any of you to that extent. people in North America are never gonna unite behind a North American politician like the Iraq people did for Saddam because there is no one living in North America of such superior breed, like Saddam; so that too causes jealousy among the savage North Americans. but jealously is not an exscuse for lying about Saddam and defaming his reputation with Pentagon-fabricated slander

[zamboe]

"he had his good points, was just a little misdirected "

What Navaros just said is really offensive.

No one within reason can defend Hitler.

<|Removed|>

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Hitler was a complete moron, and thank god for that.

The soldiers on the battlefield, those were the real hero's to the bone and soul.

Anyways, I doubt that Saddam killed 160 per day.

Maybe his soldiers shoots random people just for fun. ( No, this is no joke, there has been reports that the 'elite' soldiers of Saddam abused their privileges in the country and killed many people just to show power. )

Saddam is just another Hitler wannabe.

But the difference is, Saddam is a spineless cowardish motherfucker that hides behind his desk and blame on other people.

[Dude_Doc]

<|Removed|>

Saddam did not kill exactly 160 people per day. It is only the total number of his genocide divided into people per day.

And Saddam wasn't a great leader. How come Saddam lived in total luxery, had about 10 palaces, gold, guards? A good leader does not let his own country down.

And 6 million deaths isn't just some "misdirection", it's serious mental problems. Anyone who agrees that Hitler was a good leader is just as sick.

[exatreide]

the only thing saddamn did that was good. was that Iraqis had free health care and schooling....but thats it

[SurlyPIG]

Obviously the 160 people per day is an average of his total genocide, but it does not include the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf War.

Nav, stop posting in my topic. If you're straight I should be on your block list like your signature says and you shouldn't even be looking at this.

[Dude_Doc]

the only thing saddamn did that was good. was that Iraqis had free health care and schooling....but thats it

I wouldn't even call it good. They learned to hate the Jews in school...

[ken124578]

Saddam was giving them false information as well. Example: in the history books were written that innocent saddam defended his country bravely against the evil americans in the (insert war)