Even assuming 38K Afghan plus Iraqi troop deaths, Saddam is still on twice Bush’s score. In any case, the main thing which seemed wrong about the comparison – the Ian Huntley/Gary Hart difference – still applied.
Given that most of the weaponry in Iraq was supplied by the Chinese, the Russians and the French, I suspect the amount of people killed by Yank guns in Iraq is fairly low.
Look, we don’t really differ that much on the principles: the USA’s behaviour post-WWII in terms of arming vile regimes has been fucking horrible, Shrub is the worst ‘leader of the developed world’ since Nixon if not since Nero, and the shameless steamrollering to war on Iraq to satisfy a personal vendetta, justified by lies about terrorism, nukes and how the Iraqis would love us is absolutely disgusting.
But when the real case is that strong, what’s the point in making up or believing untruths that paint them as marginally worse still? It just detracts from the anti-Bush, anti-imperialist project by making people in the middle (who are the majority of the ones voting in the US in November, and in the UK later on) think that we’re lying maniacs too…
I guess in short – why lie that Bush is a genocidal maniac, when the truth that he’s dangerously incompetent is almost as bad?
]]>In short, because I can’t be arsed to do it all again.
Your bodycount figures are wrong, they only count civilian deaths.
For wider figures look here:
http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
The other thing to take into account is that during the Iran/Iraq war the USA were backing SH. Speaking from a western position, it would be harsh, in this context to include these figures, when the USA were fully behind Iraq and SH.
Take all these figures into account and there isn’t much to choose between Bush or Hussein.
No doubt you will doubt my argument on this. Fair enough, perhaps the real argument should be – how many of these huge numbers have been killed by American weaponry.
]]>In general: I’m sorry if the ‘Iraqi’ was incorrect – that was how I interpreted it from the context you used it in (and I think it’s pretty clearly marked as added by me).
I was annoyed by your comment partly because it’s untrue, but partly because it doesn’t account for the fact that Saddam was a genocidal maniac whereas Bush is a reckless idiot – it’s like saying Gary Hart (sleepy Landrover rail crash driver, not failed Democratic presidential candidate) killed more people than Ian Huntley, and therefore is worse than him.
Anyway, in terms of facts, if you’re referring to ‘people in general’:
George Bush –
Iraqi civilians and soldiers: 12000 (Iraq Body Count)
US troops in Iraq: 887 (AntiWar.com)
Afghan civilians and soldiers: 5000 (Marc Herold)
US troops in Afghanistan: 129 (AntiWar.com)
US executions, 2001-mid 2004: 234 (Bureau of Justice)
Total: 18250
Total per year: 5214
Saddam Hussein
Death toll from Iran war: 500,000 (low estimate from this aggregated source page
Number of executions/’disappeared’s: 250,000 (from Human Rights Watch
Total: 750,000
Total per year: 30,000
For them to be anywhere close, you’d need not only to reject the HRW estimate, but also assume that Saddam wasn’t responsible for any of the Iran/Iraq war deaths. Which would be silly.
]]>I guess my point was this – we all know SH to be a an evil madman etc etc. But the point of view of our media draws a distinction between us and them. But if you want to limit it simply to the numbers of people killed under a regime (month by month) then my betting would be that Bush would come out ahead of SH. If you have figures to prove otherwise then I’ll gladly withdraw the commnet.
However, I get the impressions it’s not the fact that you disagree with, it’s the fact that I have made the statement that you dislike. In which case I would ask, why shouldn’t the statement be made? Or are we, even in blogworld, self censoring ourselves? Are there statements that are unsayable? Even if they are true.
As for your comments on Muslims – they are nothing short of racist.
]]>