Saddam killed many more, Mr Humphrys

One of the most important roles of the blogosphere is to fact check the mainstream media.

Con Coughlin does that to John Humphrys' claim on Radio 4 this morning that more Iraqis have died since the overthrow of Saddam than during his dictatorship.  Coughlin points out that something like one million people died under Saddam - six times as many more than have died since his overthrow.  (And let's not forget the role he played in releasing prisoners in order to stoke the insurgency).

What we'll never know - thankfully - is how many would have died if Saddam Hussein had been left in power and had started weaponising again.

Comments

[Richard Calhoun]

Interesting stats Tim, but how many did Saddam kill in the period between the 2 invasions on Iraq??

[Umbrella man]

Thousands died most months during the sanctions regime Richard.

[rightsideforum]

And the idiot Humphreys' also forgets the wars saddam STARTED, i.e. the Iran Iraq war which killed nearly 2 million alone. The despicable cretin should get his facts straight.

Furthermore, lets consider his funding of Palestinian terrorism, which has resulted in many many deaths, his regimes former military commanders who have been heavily involved in organising terrorism since his removal and so and so on.

There is no comparison, and even if there was - he might like to think our brave soldiers putting their lives on the line to keep the peace is justification for terrorism - and it's alright him sitting in his little studio - but he's a clueless and gutless liar that should be exposed.

[Tony Makara]

How many was Saddam killing when he had the full backing of Donald Rumsfeld? A man who even had the manners bow deferentially before Saddam when shaking his hand. Saddam was a tyrant and a muderer, no argument about that. However using deaths as some sort of trade-off is a bit tasteless and I regret having to do so to make a point myself. No-one will miss Saddam, but his show-trail and execution, with political opponents gleefully watching as he died, were a farce. Justice for the Kurds? Remember how George Bush promised safe passage out of Iraq for Saddam and his sons, without trail, if only he stepped down peacfully? Where was the justice for the Kurds then? We will never know how many more would have died under Saddam, just as we don't know how many more brave servicemen will have to die to prop up the folly of this unnecessary war. The lesson the west must learn from this is that it must be consistent in the way it deals with unsavoury regimes, shaking hands with them one day and hanging them the next sends out all the wrong signals.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Saddam was a tyrant and a murderer, no argument about that. However using deaths as some sort of trade-off is a bit tasteless and I regret having to do so to make a point myself".
Tony Makara.

I quite agree Tony and the BBC should not have allowed its employee Humphry to do it.

I don't doubt that Rumsfeld did shake hands with Saddam if you say so, but when do you say it was? Kissenger said of the war between Iraq and Iran: "It is a pity that there has to be a winner".

"The lesson the west must learn from this is that it must be consistent in the way it deals with unsavoury regimes, shaking hands with them one day and hanging them the next sends out all the wrong signals".

Hanging them the next day sends all the right signals- if you are interested in preserving your own civilization, unlike the disinterested and "impartial" BBC.

[Tony Makara]

Dontmakemelaugh, here is a link to a picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam.

http://attendingtheworld.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

[Andrew Lilico]

>six times as many have died since<

Is there a typo here? Do you mean "six times as many *as* have died since"?

[Tim Montgomerie]

Sorry Andrew. Now corrected.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Dontmakemelaugh, here is a link to a picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam.

http://attendingtheworld.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

Posted by: Tony Makara | March 25, 2008 at 13:48

Tony: I am not disputing that at some time or other that Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam; I was curious as to when? I was unable to download the photo. The date when the photo was taken would be of interest - not the date the photo appeared.

Incidentally, Chamberlain shook hands with Hitler and Churchill shook hands with Stalin, but they were hardly fans. As Jack Stone would probably say, "better to shake hands than fists".

[Tony Makara]

Dontmakemelaugh, I see your point about handshakes. Perhaps the issue is more the level of support afforded to Saddam by the US government at a time when Saddam was engaged in killings.

Its an interesting thought that Neville Chamberlain shook hands with a dictator who invaded poland from the west and Winstone Churchill shook hands with a dictator who invaded Poland from the east. Fighting a war to liberate a country from a dictator who invaded it and ending the war by handing the country over to a dictator that invaded it. The complex nature of history.

[Yogi]

I still think that we picked the wrong guy. The West should have left Saddam alone and taken on Iran instead. Unfortunately, George W Bush had a score to settle on behalf of his father and Blair never understood the power balance in the middle east.

[Andy Stidwill]

Saddam's regime was the kind of dictatorship which would have killed anyone who showed the slightest opposition to his rule at any time, even with the most minor things such as looking at someone in the wrong way, failing to show sufficient deference to members of his clique, etc. I would expect that many people were killed every day during his regime in this way, most of which we will never know about.

[Richard Calhoun]

John Humphreys may not be to the political taste on Conservative Home but he makes a valid point.
The post invasion strategy was non existent and the numbers of Iraqi's and coalition troops killed have been far higher because of this .
This is not something that should be swept under the table by those who wish to avoid facing the disaster of the post invasion strategy.
I believe that the decision to go to war in Iraq was the correct one but we will only learn by facing up to the mistakes as well as the positives

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Posted by: Tony Makara | March 25, 2008 at 16:40

Tony: As far as Poland goes Churchill did not hand it over to dictator Stalin, he was already there at the end of the war. There was no way Britain could take on the Russians to free Poland. The somewhat naive Americans thought that Stalin was "Uncle Joe".

In the Iraq/Iran war the USA supplied only a small percentage of the arms. We supplied an even smaller amount. Look it up on the web and check. BY far the largest contributors were France and Russia if memory serves.
Jimmy Carter subsequently sold a few planes to Iran (three I think).

[Tony Makara]

Dontmakemelaugh, yes I take you point over the fact that the Soviets had regained the ground they stole from the Poles and which in turn the Germans stole from them etc. The fact that Britain was prepared to turn a blind eye to the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 makes one wonder whether the war against Germany was ultimately about regime change, echos of Saddam.

[Sophia]

"The Iraqi special tribunal will try former dictator Saddam Hussein on war crimes charges stemming from 14 incidents, according to a list recently obtained by The Associated Press:

_ The 1987-88 Anfal campaign, a depopulation plan in which hundreds of thousands of Kurds were killed or expelled from northern Iraq.

_ Mortar bombardment of Kirkuk. No details available.

_ The events of 1991 in southern Iraq, referring to Saddam's suppression of a Shiite uprising following the U.S.-led Gulf War in Kuwait.

_ The massacre of Dujail, the 1982 execution of at least 50 Iraqis in the Shiite town 50 miles north of Baghdad, in retaliation for a failed ... "

Saddam killed quite a few Kurds and 50 Iraqis then?

Belgrade was bombed for 78 days on the excuse of. 40 to 45 Kosovo Albanians being killed in the village of Račak.

The Yugoslav Government asserted that the casualties were all members of the Kosovo Liberation Army who had been killed in a clash with state security forces. It is the only incident prior to the NATO intervention for which war crimes indictments were issued.

Then there were the Tora Bora Mountains and the mystery fortress. Tribesmen stated that after the bombing they looked exactly the same!

Like Hillary Clinton truth is a stranger to the US Government.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Dontmakemelaugh, yes I take you point over the fact that the Soviets had regained the ground they stole from the Poles and which in turn the Germans stole from them etc. The fact that Britain was prepared to turn a blind eye to the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 makes one wonder whether the war against Germany was ultimately about regime change, echos of Saddam.

Posted by: Tony Makara | March 25, 2008 at 19:05

Sorry Tony, you have lost me. There is no way that we were in any position to attack Russia over Poland. During different periods in history the Russians and Poles have been at war occupying bits of each others country. We were n't in a position to do anything about that either no more that we are in a position to attack China over Tibet even if we thought we should do so. There are some things you can do and there are some you can't.
Looks like an agreement to differ job.

Sophia | March 25, 2008 at 20:06

Soph, sorry to be thick, but I don't know what you are on about?

[Tony Makara]

Dontmakemelaugh, the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 has largely been airbrushed out of history. That invasion was just as wrong as the German invasion of Poland. The allies should have called for Polish independence to be guaranteed after the end of hostilities. The fact that they didn't and the fact that Britain and France gave a mute response to the orginial invasion in September 1939 indicates that the primary objective of the war with Germany was regime change rather than an attempt to restore Polish borders and sovereignty. The fact that Britain and France were not in a physical position to respond and that a secret appendage only guaranteed Poland against German aggression, should not have prevented relentless and vocal condemnation of the Soviet invasion. At the time the Soviets were not our allies and were still enjoying mutual co-operation under the Moltov-Ribbentrop agreement. In fact the Germans and Soviets even held a victory parade together in Brest-Litovsk on 22nd september 1939.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Tony Makara | March 25, 2008 at 22:45

In answer:

So what has that comment got to do with Saddam - I've forgotten, it seems so lng ago, unless it was something to do with us not criticising Russia's marching into Poland, How do you know we did n't? I rather suspect we did. Nothing we could do about it anyway and France was in no position to demand anything. We were to busy preparing for war with Hitler. We did not feel threatened by Russia. We had enough enemies for one night, thank you.

I am bored with all this going round in circles so I am going to bed. Goodnight.
(And I thought the BBC was a hopeless case).
Ah well! There is always the illegal war syndrome to look forward to in the morning and the let's "pullout of Iraq and leave everything to the misunderstood Ahammadagen,President of Iran" brigade. Ahamadeagen, (sounds a lot like Armageddon, but I am sure just a coincidence?) Definitely goodnight.