At a recent Dopefest, another Doper insisted that the total was somewhere in excess of 2 million, which IIRC what the Doper said, ranked Saddam as the fourth-biggest mass murderer in the past century.
Asking for a cite in the middle of a party didn’t seem to make much sense (one of many reasons why I prefer to just stay out of GD-style debates at Dopefests), so I didn’t; I’m asking the question here instead of there.
One of the reasons I’m back to the question at all, of course, is that it bears on the moral necessity of invading Iraq for humanitarian motives alone. If Saddam was the biggest killer in the past century, after Hitler, Stalin, and whoever’s #3 (Mao? Pol Pot?), then the argument that he was so exceptionally evil that we had to stop him gets ratcheted up. But if he’s killed fewer people than have been killed by many other dictators (e.g. Idi Amin) or in singular events (e.g. Rwanda) that we’ve been content to ignore, it gets ratcheted down.
At least IMHO. But if you want to debate by how much it gets ratcheted up or down, or whether it should make a difference at all, mind waiting until the question of numbers has been hashed out - in this thread, at least?
So, the questions:
How many people did Saddam kill?
How does that stack up against other persons who organized mass slaughters, or incidents of mass slaughter?
Micheal’s contribution was exactly as useful as your own, Aldebaran.
As for the question at hand, some of the terms have to be defined. Does “kill” include the casualties caused by the Iraq/Iran war? Estimates of Iraqi casualties seem to vary between 350,000 - 1 million. Since the war wasn’t one of defense (at least, not on Iraq’s side), can it be chalked up to the ambitions of Saddam?
If those are included, you may as well throw in any Kuwaitis killed during the invasion of 1991.
By the most inclusive definitions, I can imagine getting into the two million range.
I think the issue of when he killed them is also relevant. Most of Saddam’s victims were before the no-fly zones were imposed in the 90’s.
To justify the war on humanitarian ground you would have to compare the number of Iraqis killed in the years immediately preceding the war with those killed by the war and the resulting instability.
I’d quibble with that. I don’t see why the US is obligated to maintain the NFZ indefinitely. We wouldn’t want to take that kind of unilateral action, you know.
Aldebaran - Michael Ellis was helping answer Q. #2 in the OP. (Thanks, Michael.)
Bryan - I’d meant to exclude war, but must’ve had a senior moment when writing up the OP. At the least, I think we ought to separate those killed in war operations from killings that aren’t the stuff of war. (Distinguishing, for instance, French killed in battle in WWII from French Jews rounded up and killed during the Occupation.) Even wars of aggression are a different thing than the roundup and slaughter of civilians that one already rules. How different is a subject of debate, and surely varies from one war to another. But it’s a rare culture that has never, ever regarded a war of conquest as a good thing.
“I don’t see why the US is obligated to maintain the NFZ indefinitely”
From the US pov. the NFZ was a lot cheaper than the 150+ billion dollars spent on the war. Not to mention the loss of life of US soliders.
Well if we’re look at cost, lets not forget the cost of deploying our military back in tha fall of 2002 in order to get the inspectors back in. I don’t remember the French kicking in for that expense either.
Remember the inpsections that everyone said we needed to allow more time for? Remember that the only thing that made S.H. agree to let them back in was our troop deployment.
