Can't fault your math but I think there is one very important point which you left out. However many Iraqis have died in the present war, the vast majority of them have been killed by the enemy, not by our forces. It is the enemy who have waged a relentless campaign of barbaric murders of unarmed civilians.

So I guess the 98 people per day that are still alive because Saddam isn't are really happy.

But you know the left, have to spin everything they don't agree with to look bad.

Ask the 98 people per day that are still alive because Saddam isn't if they are happy or not that Saddam was disposed.

I bet that answer isn't something the left will want to hear.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/10/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

The Hate-America left won't be happy until we take responsibilty for everything bad that happens and all the evil in the world.

So how many of that number were confirmed kills of bad guys?

I have no idea what the "real" numbers are on either side, pre- and post- invasion. And I will preface this with the statement - I have no doubt Saddam was vermin.

But ... I was curious and googled "Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq" complete with the quotes. About the only thing that comes are links to news stories and blog links to those news stories. They don't seem to even have a website in English, and at least as late as 2003, were based in Iran. Which means they operated there with the blessing, if not the funding of the Iranian regime. A lot of information gotten from Iraqi ex-pat groups based in Europe turned out to be wildly exaggerated; imagine the level of reliability of data gotten from Iraqi ex-pat groups operating in Iran.

I also wonder why the US government doesn't seem to make an effort to keep track of civilian dead.

I've been through this discussion of Iraqi deaths under Hussein and at times relied on this same link from the Global Business Network (btw, a progressive business org with Stewart Brand of the Whole Earth Catalog as a co-founder). However, I hit the same wall as Cactus in drilling down into the Documental Centre for Human Rights.

I don't think there are reliable numbers for Iraqi deaths under Saddam Hussein. We can be sure they were substantial and must be considered when discussing the costs and benefits of the Iraq War.

When polled the clear majority of Iraqi people have consistently said that the war was worth it even considering the suffering during and after. Here's one link.

That 650,000 number comes from hard left propaganda. No surprise here, they won't reveal how they arrived at that figure, so they're not allowing any scientific scrutiny or for others to verify their results.

To the propaganda driven community, some deaths are more equal that others.

I don't think there's ever been a dictator that the lefties didn't love and fawn over.

Someone might want to look up the history on the numbers of French civilians killed during the pre-D-Day bombardment, or the number of German or Italian civilians who died during the immediate post-reconstruction era (say, the bitter winter of '45 to '48 or so)... and apply the typical lefty logic of asking if it was worth it.

Of course, to the Left it probably wasn't.

Comments like dday's are not reasoned statements, but professions of faith, a recitation of the progressive, nihilist credo. But this particular faith, like another causing great troubles worldwide, does not recognize nor have any diplomatic relations with reason. Not even back channels. Very pointed queries sometimes penetrate: "If civilian deaths obligate the withdrawl of soldiers from Iraq, is Al Queda similarly obligated? " Anger in reply is "A hit! A very palpable hit!"

Adding another perspective. The nihilist progressives do have not a moral viewpoint, carefully reasoned out. They practice moralism, where intentions are the sine qua non, and results are secondary or, most often, irrelvant. George Weigel's writings elaborate this very clearly. See, Moral Clarity in a Time of War, http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=426 Thank you.

The numbers for Saddam are minimalist, which was the route I went, back in 2006. The worrying part is that there are at least two confirmed 'clearings' of Abu Ghraib by Saddam where the overcrowding had him 'clear' the facility of upwards of 40,000 individuals. These folks never came *back*. This also does not count in the 'extra-judicial' killings by his thugs, Republican Guard and high ranking military and secret police organizations. The number of 'disappeared' never to show up in any prison, court or jail is uncounted, but the rampant nature of these organizations points to thousands if not tens of thousands per year. And as the multiple (upwards of 14 counting his sons personal operations) 'secret police' units operated independently and without much cross-awareness, there is no way to compile such a list, either. Simply put: every Iraqi family lost at least one family member to Saddam's regime. A gross estimate of 5 people per family into 20 million people yields 4 million dead, disappeared, liquidated or just plain killed by Saddam Hussein's regime. That is a 'rough estimate' at best, but gives the scope and scale of the regime's influence.

This doesn't even begin to address the alarmist left for what was expected going in... with various organizations looking at tens of thousands dead in 6 months, millions of refugees flooding the Middle East, mass starvation of millions in Iraq... really, its as if they all ignored Afghanistan, which also had truly awful predictions about it that never did show up, just like the dread 'Afghan Winter'. They do have bad winters there, just like the US... not all places, all the time, all at once, for all the winter.

Now if you want to look at a *real* 'civil war' look at the US... if the Iraqis can't meet up to those levels *with* a higher population base *and* automatic weapons, then its not much of a war, really.

If the current war is an unnecessary war of choice, let's remember that the choice was Saddam's. Pres. Bush gave at least three major speeches to the world before the invasion but after we had massed our troops on Iraq's borders saying in effect, "the choice is in Saddam's hands". He made is clear that if Saddam honored his promise to allow "unfettered inspections" (remember that phrase?) and/or demonstrate that he had really destroyed the wmd that everyone agrees he had, the invasion wouldn't be necessary.

To sharpen your point, currently for every Iraqi civiilian killed inadvertently by our troops in combat, 600 Iraqi civilians are killed on purpose by the insurgents and jihadis.

Plus, the people experienced deep psychological trauma from living in a police state for 30 years...

But whatever the costs in Iraq. The demonstration value alone was worth it, because we got Khadaffy to give up his very advanced weapons program as a direct result of taking out Saddam.

When all the birdbrains on the reactionary left are dead and gone, historians will mark Iraq as a turning point in the war against radical Islam. And the credit will go to one man: George W. Bush.

But Saddam was just about to stop killing internal enemies and become an anti-globalist, I'm sure. Just before we invaded, he was beginning to see that it was unrestrained capitalism that is the root of the world's problems. If only we could have sent more Deeply Sensitive progressives to explain it to him...

If only.

That makes Saddam a WMD, doesn't it.

Leftists love it when colored people kill other colored people. Dozens of examples abound.

Please do NOT call them 'liberals'. You are doing half of their job for them if you give them ownership of such a positive word.

The Saud's produced all the terror in Iraq; that got delivered through the sunni tribes. Because? They had "their man" Bush, in the White House.

Finally, having had "enough" ... the American military went after ONE TRIBAL SUNNI CHIEF, who was killing off sunni tribal leaders who took part in the surge.

As to Iraq, itself, it's the EDSEL in George Bush's showroom. It didn't sell to the American people!

Is there a difference with Saddam gone? YES! Maliki works with IRAN! He lived in Iran for 10 years. He also lived in Damascus for 10 years. In other words? For 20 years he couldn't set foot into Saddam's Iraq.

Lots of opportunists have flown into Iraq with America's CIA, and other nefrarious ex-pats. Thinking this was gonna be one huge pie!

In August 2001, BEFORE 9/11 ... the Saud's received a 3-page3-handwritten letter from the EDIOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE, promising the saud's a "new mideast."

Everything, however, has been weakened. Maliki, who hates Bush's guts, is working with Iran. And, putin CAME BACK TO THE TABLE!

Some day, someone will end the silence; and the truth about Bush's behaviors will spill out.

Meanwhile? The republicans aren't making a dent on the public. And, what if Hillary wins? What if most American voters want to go back to the world when Bill Clinton was president? And, we were on a successful roll?

No one can make predictions. The arabs are a bunch of thieves. And, can't run any government, well.

What the Saud's wanted, however, was to sweep in as "king pins." And, now? They don't even have gaza.

Well? What about the other arab leaders? Like Mubarak, who stands on his last leg. Or Musharraf. What did he learn about being friendly with Americans?

What about Olmert?

Bush is an idiot, even worse than Jimmy Carter. But the "message" that gets combined in voting booths, doesn't come out until the day after November 4, 2008.

Someone left the door of the loony bin open.

Turns out uber leftist/terrorist apologist/ conficted crook George Soros funded the lancet "study".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3177653.ece