Saddam's "batting averages":

If you dismiss those killed due to the Iran/Iraq War then for a period of 24 years Saddam Hussein murdered on average 154 Iraqi each and every day.

If on the other hand you include those killed in the Iran/Iraq War then his average rate jumps to 282 murdered each and every day.

Apart from that we see the usual hysterical, baseless,ramblings and rants about "The Big, Bad, West".

With regard to the numbers killed due to the March 2003 invasion. On one hand you can swallow "hook-line-and-sinker" the estimated figures provided by a poorly conducted batch-sampled survey which even those who carried it out refused to offer up for critical peer-review, or alternatively you can read the records of those who:

a: Had to treat the injured and gather up the dead (actual bodies - not estimates)

b: Morgue records ("bodies in" and "bodies out")

c: Records of burials and places of burial

Taking the alternative route via various UN and Iraqi sources the total figure comes out at ~150,000.

Of that number ~33,000 were killed by US/MNF/Iraqi Army, which means that the remainder ~117,000 must have been killed by Ba'athist insurgents, foreign jihadi "fighters", sectarian militias or criminal gangs. If you want a comparison of dead to introduce some perspective, then for our members from the USA just take a look along your southern border with Mexico and its drug wars - more people have been killed there than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Take a look at Darfur more people killed there than in Iraq or Afghanistan combined. Take a look at your road accident stats. Afghanistan and Iraq have roughly the same size populations in Afghanistan according to figures recorded since 2006 roughly on average 581,947 people die from all causes each year, over this same period the average figure for those dying sudden, violent deaths due to the ongoing "Taliban" insurrection is ~1,500. Prior to the arrival and intervention of the International Community in Afghanistan as an average Afghan "punter" you stood a 1-in-5 chance of dying a sudden and violent death, now your odds have lengthened to 1-in-272. In Iraq where Saddam killed 154 or 282 per day, since 2003 that dropped to below 40.

Depleted Uranium "dropped" on people?? Well that's a new twist depleted uranium is heavy but "soft" which makes it useless for bombs, but encased in a harder material it makes terrific anti-tank ammunition. Tell me what tank battles were fought in Basra and in Fallujah? None that I can think of. The bit that is supposedly dangerous about these munitions is the dust that may be present after the round has hit something hard (Armoured plating)and "vapourised" (in the case of a tank being hit this dust will be on the inside of the vehicle). Now tell me if these munitions fired by the US and the rest of the "Big, Bad West" are responsible for all those birth defects and cancers, why are there no similar statistics, in communities adjacent to "live fire" ranges in the UK and the USA? As for those birth defects and cancers in Iraq I suppose that we do know and can adopt it as the "Gospel" truth that Saddam's M-24 Hind Gunships could never have fired DU rounds in Basra whilst they were down there helping to kill over 200,000 people between 1st March and 5th April 1991, and that his deliberate poisoning of ground water in the area can be completely ruled out as a factor, whilst the same could be said up there in Fallujah (a centre for his chemical and biological facilities) that their "Health & Safety" record was second to none, even during the period he was "getting rid of the stuff in great haste" but out of sight of international scrutiny (That was the story he told the world wasn't it) - no possibility that that could have anything to do with birth defects and cancers.