Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
refugees
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bottomups" data-source="post: 1954071" data-attributes="member: 29452"><p><span style="font-size: 22px"><strong>Who killed more Iraqis: Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush?</strong></span></p><p>Are there reputable sources for both totals?</p><p></p><p>8 Answers</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.quora.com/profile/Gary-Teal" target="_blank"><img src="https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-thumb-197207-50-deevtzjuhwszdpkbqxqdqcwvbtlavcwd.jpeg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />Gary Teal</a>, I met George W. Bush in 1978 when he ran for Congress. I am from Texas and fo...</p><p>14.9k Views • Upvoted by <a href="https://www.quora.com/profile/Marc-Bodnick" target="_blank">Marc Bodnick</a>, Former Stanford PhD student in PoliSci</p><p><a href="https://www.quora.com/profile/Gary-Teal" target="_blank">Gary</a> is a Most Viewed Writer in <a href="https://www.quora.com/topic/War-in-Iraq-2003%E2%80%9311" target="_blank">War in Iraq (2003–11)</a>.</p><p></p><p>Well, this is certainly a clever way to frame an argument that Saddam is the good guy and Bush the bad guy, but this is an apples and oranges comparison in very many ways.</p><p></p><p>First, in regard to apples and oranges, let's keep in mind that Saddam Hussein's job, as leader of his country, was to protect Iraqis. George Bush's job, as leader of his country, was to protect Americans. (I'm stipulating that George W. Bush was wrong about the WMDs. That's not the question here.) Bush invaded Iraq and killed Iraqi soldiers as part of his job description.</p><p></p><p>Another matter to consider from the very beginning is who caused every single one of the Iraqi deaths; Saddam certainly caused the deaths of many Iraqis who were killed by Iran and by many other countries (including the US) in the First Gulf War.</p><p></p><p>As with any war, it is difficult to count the number of deaths and arrive at a number that won't be contradicted. Further, a definition of what constitutes a death caused by war is necessary. Historically, disease often killed more soldiers than combat, and that becomes less true only as a nation is able to equip its armed forces with advanced medical care. Many count the deaths due to deprivations of any number of kinds. If Saddam had never come to power at all, how many deaths would have been prevented through better relations between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds? Could any leader have done better? But let's deal with imprecision and wade into the question. Wikipedia is as usual a good place to start. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War" target="_blank">Casualties of the Iraq War</a></p><p></p><p>It's helpful as well to distinguish between armed combatants and civilians. To the extent that Bush and the armed forces he commanded killed combatants, they were doing precisely what they meant to do. That's what happens in war. It's not a good thing. When two countries can't coexist peacefully, they go to war and kill as many people as they can until one side gives up. C'est la guerre.</p><p></p><p>To the extent that Bush and US armed forces killed civilians, it was a result of collateral deaths. I don't use that term lightly. But it's important as a definition; those civilians died because the US was trying to kill combatants in their midst. There is no reliable report that we bombed hospitals, as another answer here asserts. Remember that there is nothing that would legally prevent us from doing so. My father's generation fire-bombed Dresden with the express purpose of killing German civilians. We dropped two atomic bombs in Japan. Morality is different from legality; many people would say that it's flat out evil to kill another human being for any reason. More would say that it's evil to kill an innocent person even if it's accidentally caused by an effort to kill a combatant. What is clear to me, even if it's not clear to everyone, is that the US did not set out to kill any non-combatants and used appropriate measures to minimize collateral deaths. According to Wikileaks documents, the US estimate of Iraqi civilians killed is 66,081. Other sources say twice that many, and then some talk about "excess deaths", which presumably include deaths related to all the effects of war, such as reduced access to food or medical care.</p><p></p><p>(There have been incidents in which American soldiers have violated all their training and all standards of conduct and morality expected of them, and murdered innocent Iraqi citizens. When this becomes known (and granted, there must have been cover-ups or undiscovered cases), those men (thus far not an equal opportunity criminal activity as far as I know) have been arrested and tried. Nobody thinks this is acceptable.)</p><p></p><p>Saddam Hussein, however, absolutely murdered thousands of his own citizens, purposely, using chemical weapons in one attack. Again referring to Wikipedia at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign" target="_blank">Al-Anfal Campaign</a>, we see that Human Rights Watch puts the death toll at 50k to 100,000. </p><p></p><p>What are we to make of deaths suffered by Iraqi soldiers in wars that were waged for no purpose? For our purposes here, I won't count the untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died because of Saddam's truly senseless prosecution of a war that lasted throughout the eighties, with Iran. Iran had not attacked him, and he got nothing whatsoever out of the war. I won't count the 25k to 35k soldiers who died in the first Gulf War because of Saddam's even weirder decision to invade Kuwait.</p><p></p><p>I'm going to call it a draw. As far as we can tell, the US, under George W. Bush, purposely killed Iraqi combatants and accidentally and regretfully killed civilians in roughly the same numbers as civilians who were purposely and methodically killed by their own leader.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bottomups, post: 1954071, member: 29452"] [SIZE=6][B]Who killed more Iraqis: Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush?[/B][/SIZE] Are there reputable sources for both totals? 8 Answers [URL='https://www.quora.com/profile/Gary-Teal'][IMG]https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-thumb-197207-50-deevtzjuhwszdpkbqxqdqcwvbtlavcwd.jpeg[/IMG]Gary Teal[/URL], I met George W. Bush in 1978 when he ran for Congress. I am from Texas and fo... 14.9k Views • Upvoted by [URL='https://www.quora.com/profile/Marc-Bodnick']Marc Bodnick[/URL], Former Stanford PhD student in PoliSci [URL='https://www.quora.com/profile/Gary-Teal']Gary[/URL] is a Most Viewed Writer in [URL='https://www.quora.com/topic/War-in-Iraq-2003%E2%80%9311']War in Iraq (2003–11)[/URL]. Well, this is certainly a clever way to frame an argument that Saddam is the good guy and Bush the bad guy, but this is an apples and oranges comparison in very many ways. First, in regard to apples and oranges, let's keep in mind that Saddam Hussein's job, as leader of his country, was to protect Iraqis. George Bush's job, as leader of his country, was to protect Americans. (I'm stipulating that George W. Bush was wrong about the WMDs. That's not the question here.) Bush invaded Iraq and killed Iraqi soldiers as part of his job description. Another matter to consider from the very beginning is who caused every single one of the Iraqi deaths; Saddam certainly caused the deaths of many Iraqis who were killed by Iran and by many other countries (including the US) in the First Gulf War. As with any war, it is difficult to count the number of deaths and arrive at a number that won't be contradicted. Further, a definition of what constitutes a death caused by war is necessary. Historically, disease often killed more soldiers than combat, and that becomes less true only as a nation is able to equip its armed forces with advanced medical care. Many count the deaths due to deprivations of any number of kinds. If Saddam had never come to power at all, how many deaths would have been prevented through better relations between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds? Could any leader have done better? But let's deal with imprecision and wade into the question. Wikipedia is as usual a good place to start. See [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War']Casualties of the Iraq War[/URL] It's helpful as well to distinguish between armed combatants and civilians. To the extent that Bush and the armed forces he commanded killed combatants, they were doing precisely what they meant to do. That's what happens in war. It's not a good thing. When two countries can't coexist peacefully, they go to war and kill as many people as they can until one side gives up. C'est la guerre. To the extent that Bush and US armed forces killed civilians, it was a result of collateral deaths. I don't use that term lightly. But it's important as a definition; those civilians died because the US was trying to kill combatants in their midst. There is no reliable report that we bombed hospitals, as another answer here asserts. Remember that there is nothing that would legally prevent us from doing so. My father's generation fire-bombed Dresden with the express purpose of killing German civilians. We dropped two atomic bombs in Japan. Morality is different from legality; many people would say that it's flat out evil to kill another human being for any reason. More would say that it's evil to kill an innocent person even if it's accidentally caused by an effort to kill a combatant. What is clear to me, even if it's not clear to everyone, is that the US did not set out to kill any non-combatants and used appropriate measures to minimize collateral deaths. According to Wikileaks documents, the US estimate of Iraqi civilians killed is 66,081. Other sources say twice that many, and then some talk about "excess deaths", which presumably include deaths related to all the effects of war, such as reduced access to food or medical care. (There have been incidents in which American soldiers have violated all their training and all standards of conduct and morality expected of them, and murdered innocent Iraqi citizens. When this becomes known (and granted, there must have been cover-ups or undiscovered cases), those men (thus far not an equal opportunity criminal activity as far as I know) have been arrested and tried. Nobody thinks this is acceptable.) Saddam Hussein, however, absolutely murdered thousands of his own citizens, purposely, using chemical weapons in one attack. Again referring to Wikipedia at [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign']Al-Anfal Campaign[/URL], we see that Human Rights Watch puts the death toll at 50k to 100,000. What are we to make of deaths suffered by Iraqi soldiers in wars that were waged for no purpose? For our purposes here, I won't count the untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died because of Saddam's truly senseless prosecution of a war that lasted throughout the eighties, with Iran. Iran had not attacked him, and he got nothing whatsoever out of the war. I won't count the 25k to 35k soldiers who died in the first Gulf War because of Saddam's even weirder decision to invade Kuwait. I'm going to call it a draw. As far as we can tell, the US, under George W. Bush, purposely killed Iraqi combatants and accidentally and regretfully killed civilians in roughly the same numbers as civilians who were purposely and methodically killed by their own leader. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
refugees
Top