Which dictator were Iraqi's worse under, George Bush or Sadamn Hussein?

Question

The Lancet published two studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on Iraqi mortality, the first in 2004, the second in 2006. The studies attempt to estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).

The first survey published on 29 October 2004, estimated the risk of death following the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to be 50% higher than that prior to the invasion. This led to an estimate of 98,000 excess deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000, using a 95% CI (confidence interval). The authors called this a conservative estimate, because it excluded the "extreme statistical outlier" data from Falluja. If Fallujah were included, the estimated increased risk of death was 2.5 fold (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2). The second survey
published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths.

ok by definition he is not a dictator as his posisition is not permanent however he doesn't listen to the will of the people

lol @ david. regardless of who is killing who, plain and simple, iraq is worse off now than before. And for new orleans, George could have used some of the billions of dollars blown in iraq on programs to help the people of new orleans

Answer 1

Britain and other countries put the number above 3/4 million. Sounds reasonable to me. That's why Bush and Cheney don't want war statistics published in the US.

The WORLD is worse off under Bush, the evil war mongering, president who is a yellow bellied coward.

Answer 2

Saddam was vicious man, and no one can debate that. However, under his rule Iraq was stable.

Or, as a disclaimer, more stable than it is now.

Bush has pressed democracy into a religious society. We haven't even proved that democracy can work in a society not driven by one religion, so who are we to say that it can work now?

Bush has thrown those citizens into a civil war that does not have an end. It's being obvious that Bush's example of democracy in Iraq is failing!

Answer 3

First of all, George W. Bush is not a dictator. He may be a simple minded chimp, but he's no dictator. Second of all I don't believe the Iraqi people faired very well under either Bush or Hussein. The U. S. should just get our troops out now and let the Iraqis figure out what they want for their government.

Answer 4

Did you expect that problems with such deep roots would be fixed overnight? Bush said from the beginning it was going to be a long fight and that the American people would have to be patient. But when the media started putting out daily death totals the people lost patience and the Democrats lead the way. Just wait and see what happens if we pull out.

Answer 5

Riddle me this. How many of the so called casualities are the result of the terrorist killing people and how many are the result of the Americans killing them? You could say that because Bush became president of America the murder rate in New Orleans has gone up, but the two have nothing to do with each other no matter if you think Bush is responsible for Katrina. The terrorist are killing people not US.

Answer 6

GWB - Why? because he is simple-minded and a "chimp" to boot. Saddam Hussein - well he is dead, so there is nothing to compare!

Answer 7

bush

Answer 8

You are an idiot! Why don't you just go live in Iran. That is about like Iraq was with Saddam.

Let me give you a short lesson...THE TERRORISTS ARE KILLING THE IRAQIS. Moron!

Answer 9

bush