Sharon or Saddam? I would like to discuss who has killed more people and who is a bigger threat to the security of the middle east. I would request to participants to keep this discussion limited to Sharon and Saddam and not discuss other monsters, such as Arafat or Asad or Khomeni, etc. Thanks you.
It is like comparing apples and gulaab jamuns.
Channji: Gulab Jamuns never killed more than 20,000 people. I can't say the same for apples though!
My vote will go for Saddam. Sharon's targets Muslims and Arabs, not his own kin. But Saddam is not only a threat to Isreal (at least in his foe speeches against Isreal if not practically), but also a risk for his own kin people, namely the Muslim and Arab states (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran). Even his own people are not safe from his brutalities (I mean the Kurds in the North and the Shias in the South).
Even if there is not much quantitative difference in the killings of the two, the qualitative difference for sure is significant.
Big monster, small monster what difference does it make. Both are guilty of crimes against Humanity… But at the moment its not Sadam that is killing innocent civilians its ‘Monster Sharon’ so WHY is he not the centre of attention in the Tabloids, why aren’t the main news bulletins giving full coverage to the wholesale destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure and the indiscriminate killings Sharon has ordered, which has included women and children.. 
There is no doubt about who has actually killed more people. You can throw in the 1,000 plus Palestinians who have died since the start of the 2nd Intifada and combine them with everyone who died in the Sabra and Chatilla camps and you will not get close to the number of Iraqis alone that Saddam has killed on a bad day.
As to who is the bigger threat to the security of the Middle East, at first blush, Saddam because, he poses a direct threat to his neighbors, would again seem to be the winner. Israel clearly does not have aspirations for conquering any of its Arab neighbor countries.
However, Sharon’s policies actually are more likely to endanger certain fragile global alliances that have preserved a broader regional peace for some decades. In splintering these alliances, he has a greater capacity for inciting and triggering a wider Middle East conflict than does Saddam. (Of course, if Saddam starts lobbing a bunch of chemical and biological weapons around in response to a US attack then he will have pretty much clinched his status as most dangerous.)
Originally posted by myvoice: *
**There is no doubt about who has actually killed more people. You can throw in the 1,000 plus Palestinians who have died since the start of the 2nd Intifada and combine them with everyone who died in the Sabra and Chatilla camps and you will not get close to the number of Iraqis alone that Saddam has killed on a bad day. *
Myvoice, in an International court of Law, would the number of people killed be a significant factor in influencing the punishment given to the guilty party?? I think murder is murder, trying to say that Sharon is a better murderer than Sadam is a lame excuse to justify US support of his right wing policies.
to who is the bigger threat to the security of the Middle East, at first blush, Saddam because, he poses a direct threat to his neighbors, would again seem to be the winner. Israel clearly does not have aspirations for conquering any of its Arab neighbor countries.
I disagree about your assumption... Iraq has been devastated by two wars and its infrastructure was all but destroyed in operation 'Desert Storm'. After that the US sponsored sanctions regime was implemented which many believe caused the deaths of 1000's of people from lack of medical facilities, medical supplies, drugs, staple foods, fresh water supplies, and many, many other essentials.
Btw, The International Community has REJECTED the US assumptions that Iraq has WMD. Most analysts believe that these were all but destroyed by the UN weapon inspectors. So the question is where’s the proof about Iraq's WMD.. ?? and how is it a threat now to its neighbours ??
However, Sharon’s policies actually are more likely to endanger certain fragile global alliances that have preserved a broader regional peace for some decades. In splintering these alliances, he has a greater capacity for inciting and triggering a wider Middle East conflict than does Saddam.
Once in a while I have to agree with you, Sharon is endangering the whole Middle East with his extreme policies, which want to destroy Yasser Arrafat and his support base in Palestine.
DHP:
Your comments about whether the number of people killed has relevance in an international court is irrelevant to the question posed by NYA to open the thread. His question was, who has killed more. I answered.
Similarly, the lack of “essentials” and whether someone agrees with the US position on Iraq is pretty much irrelevant to my statement that Saddam’s eyes, stomach and craving include gobbling up some of his neighbors while Israel has no such intent. In picking Sharon as the most dangerous to Middle East peace, I factored in Saddam’s weakened condition and hope that many in the world are not surprised to find Saddam retaliate to a US attack with the chemical and biological weapons they are so sure he does not possess.
Anyway, it is nice to occasionally find that you and I find something to agree about. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Israel clearly does not have aspirations for conquering any of its Arab neighbor countries.
[/QUOTE]
Israel has invaded its neighbors on more than one occasion, and has receded only in Egypts case. It still stands on occupied land, and has no aspirations of giving it up.
Saddam is no doubt has more blood on his hands, so long as its a numbers game.
myvoice, not surprising to see you dodge my question about the International court.. the reason why I mentioned it was because Nya opened up a huge can of worms; the thread is about which leader has killed more people, no doubt Sadam has but THINK about the background to the killings, what about US support to sadam during the Iran-Iraq war, and US silence/inaction when he attacked the Kurds and shias in the south. There is far more to it than what one reads in the tabloids.
As for US foreign policy, the Bush administration seems to have a two-tier interpretation of International Law, one for its own actions and Israel and one for its self-proclaimed enemies such as Iraq.. If the Bush Administration wants to impose its own will on Iraq for flouting the UN resolutions than it MUST do the same on ISRAEL.. Another words Respecting and Upholding International Law should apply to all member nations.
As for the alleged WMD threat, let the UN inspectors back into Iraq without any further delay… STOP the whining and allow the professionals to do their jobs. It’s as simple as that. This is what the Big regional powers France, Russia and China and almost the entire world have demanded but it seems the Bush administration seems intent on military action regardless.
Btw, yes its good to see some harmony in this forum. :k:
Israel invaded Egypt when Egypt was told by the Soviets that the Israelis were going to attack in '67. Egypt, then prepared to go on the offensive and Israel took them on before they actually moved. To mess with the Israelis, even before big US support, was never wise. This statement only reflects a military analysis, not opinion on the actions of countries.
Tomasso, wasn't there US assistance to the Israelis even before the 1967 war against Egypt ? Did the US play a key role in the Isreali victory's over Egypt and Syria?
Going back to the topic, in my opinion, if you look at the regional situation, Sharon is the more DANGEROUS Monster of the two.
Shot them both. Both do not deserve to live. What a stupid thread, who gives a damn who was worse. Both deserve death.
Why don't we use a third for comparison and use President of America (last 25 years) as an stand alone attribute?
Well it looks like Monster Sharon has survived a vote of no-confidence in the Knesset. One can only hope that in the upcoming elections the voice of reason will prevail and the Israeli public votes for an alternative to Sharon’s right wing agenda of subjugation of the Palestinians.