If Saddam had remained in power would less people have died??

Question

ok, he was a killer dictator got it - but, how many people did he kill in comparison to how many people American Soldiers have killed

Obviously, if he would have remained in power 2000 soldiers would be alive today, but would there be still be 50,000 less Iraqi?

Was the cure worse than the disease??

Answer 1

u r a moron....what a stupid question.....do you really think they'd be better off?

Answer 2

I believe that if Saddam was still in power there would have been alot less people killed! Saddam was the only person that could control Iraq! He kept everybody in line, he kept the terrorist under control, and the sunnis and shi'ites from fighting. Now, there not only is a fight with the Americans and Iraqis, there is now a civil war in Iraq and the terrorist are out of control there! Saddam was feared my the ones that we fear. They should of left him alone! We only caused more trouble for innocent people! Americans as well as Iraqis!

Answer 3

How many people would have died had we lived under the rule of the King of England? Not very many. How many would have died if we'd just have let the Union succeed and fracture the country?

Now they have the possibility of being free. Just because some of the old leadership and Islamic fundies want us to leave so they can shape the new Iraq in their image doesn't mean that all the rest of them aren't better off with the ability to vote and shape their own future.

Hopefully the killing can end soon and maybe someday they'll have a democracy.

Answer 4

182,000 - Iraq (1986-1989) under Saddam Hussein, see also Al-Anfal Campaign
5,000-7,000 - Halabja poison gas attack (Halabjah, Iraq, 1988)
1,000,000 - Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) this is total Iran and Iraq
this is the short list.
Short term no, long term yes.
Are the deaths of civilians at the hands of insurgent/terrorist to be blamed on US soldiers? I think not, blame Bush, congress, senate and over half of the American public,(including me) but not the soldiers.
Was the cure worse than the disease??
Will not be able to answer for about five more years. I hopeful

Answer 5

Its an unfair question. What if we somehow knew that he would have murdered 25,000 Iraqis, does that mean it would have been a wise decision to allow that to occur? How many fewer Americans would have died between 12/7/1941 and 5/7/1945 if only we didn't declare war on Japan and Germany? Would refusing to confront evil then been the wise choice? No, and refusing to confront evil now would be ill advised as well!!

Answer 6

Short answer is yes, but the only important part of that answer for me is that a lot of Americans would still be alive. The Iraqis did not have what it took to free themselves from Saddam, but somehow they found the will to kill Americans who only wanted to help them.

Why do we give a rip about these people?

Answer 7

If Saddam remains in power. His family members may continue the dictatorship and body count will continue rising to reach or even tops the number of deaths caused by the cure.

Answer 8

Okay I think that people have managed to forget that during the first gulf war american forces uncovered mass gravesights all over southern iraq. Saddam was responsible for the systematic murder of anyone who stood in his way and was working toward creating and empire within the middle east.

Answer 9

Great question, Probably less people would've died if he was still in power but then george w. bush wouldn't feel like such a big man then would he?

the cure was likely worse than the disease

Answer 10

Give me a break.....there has been death in the Middle East for thousands of years....it doesn't matter who is in power...it is a way of life ...we have no business being there....and we are foolish if we believe we will change their ways. I suggest reading more about the history of these countries before making this kind of lame statement.

Answer 11

Probably less Iraqis would be dead. And America wouldn't be stuck holding the tab.