Precision about exactly how many civilian Iraqis have been killed (are being killed) is almost irrelevant. It is abvious from daily news headlines that Iraq no is no longer a viable country - thanks to the American led invasion.

It was by no means perfect beforehand, but Iraq was at least a functioning, pluralist society with Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds living and working side-by-side. (This is not to excuse the abuses conducted by the partisan government of Hussein.)

Fascinating how many people who were genuinely traumatised by 9/11, Bali and London bombings suffer no distress about far greater numbers of innocent Iraqis being killed - happy to trivialise them or pass them off as mere statistics.

The number of real civilian deaths probably lies somewhere between the Lancet's figures and that of the US administration, but either figure is way too high, especially since there is no sign of abatement.

I was previously persuaded that a pull-out would cause even more chaos, but, like many others, am now convinced that an early pull-out provides the best chances of minimising further carnage.

The lesson we should learn is to not leap into another premeditated war without a really thorough national debate about what we are letting ourselves in for. It is not as if the consequences could not be predicted.

It never ceases to amaze me how these spin-doctors can so brazenly take issue with reputable peer-review scientific journals. Ted Lapkin is a policy analyst for the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council - an organisation that is dedicated to embroiling Weetern countries in wars against Muslim countries on Israel's behalf. He has no scientific background whatsoever but does not see any irony in ripping into a professional epidemiologist who dares to challenge his flat-earth dogma on Iraq.

Maybe Mr. Lapkin should consider a career as a climate change sceptic?

According to Ted Lapkin, Dr. Les Roberts "makes no secret of his anti-war sentiments", as though the doctor were suffering from some loathsome disease. It's tragic that such blinkered warriors as Lapkin are frequently quoted in the media as representative of Jewish opinion. He even writes of "fellow-travellers", almost as if the late Senator from Wisconsin were still around and poisoning the atmosphere. Feh.

In the end the West had no alternative but to go into Iraq. Their leader was refusing to budge with weapons inspections and that attack on 9/11 was a great chance to rid Iraq and the world of an evil man and give that country a second chance!

It has not all gone to plan but how many plans do?

Before questioning the death toll in Iraq you have to look at 3 things.

1. How many people died in wars in Europe ridding it of evil power hungry people?

2. How many people died in Iraq between 1991-2001 becasue of
necessary UN sanctions?

3. If we had not gone into Iraq could we now be dealing with both an Iraq and Iran who are both trying to get nukes?

Sanity Check, how do you do?

This post is neither in support of the author of the article, nor against him, or against your stance, except to say that I have seen so much utter bald faced rubbish and lies eminate from what you describe as "reputable peer-review scientific journals", that frankly I no longer trust anyone in research these days.

So many studies and surveys are bent beyond the wildest possible imaginations of anyone and obviously politically spun and by researchers who publicly and unashamedly advocate specific causes for which they then do the research. Their bias is overt.

I don't believe that the word "reputable" can be applied to ANY research anymore, or journal, in any field of endeavour. In fact, I'm more likely to believe the word of a used car salesman than anyone who calls themselves a researcher. In my opinion, researcher = liar.

Sanity and Youngsteve:

So let me get this straight - you guys really believe that in a little over three years of low-intensity conflict, Iraqis have suffered half again as many fatalities than the Brits did during six years of high intensity conflict in WWII?

Sorry, but that proposition is utterly absurd.

I don't consider anti-war sentiments to be some form of "loathsome disease," as Youngsteve purports. I do, however, consider them to be wrong. But that's not the point. The point is when Les Roberts freely concedes that he timed the release of his 2004 report for political reasons, then the political views that motivate those reasons are relevant to the debate.

The simple fact is that both Roberts and the Lancet editor Horton have revealed themselves to be extreme anti-war partisans. Fair enough. But if they are going to much so blatantly about in the political arena, then they can't turn around and claim scientific impartiality as they blatantly attempt to sway two US election campaigns.

And Youngsteve - I find it instructive that you found Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy to be so much more offensive than the Soviet agents who were operating in support of one of the 20th century's most murderous regimes. McCarthy was a bit rough around the edges, and he overplayed his hand in a crude fashion. But on the essential question of communist subversion, he was correct.

The KGB Venona transcripts, released after the collapse of the USSR, put an end to the debate about communist espionage in post-WWII America. Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent, as were the Rosenbergs and myriad others.

I don't want to take our debate off on a tangent, but the fact of the matter is that Ronald Reagan was correct, the Soviet Union was an "evil empire" that was bent on global domination. And defenders of liberty during the late 1940s and 1950s had valid reasons to be concerned about communism. But then again, perhaps you believe that Philby, Burgess and Mclean were mere innocents who fled an unjustified wave of Red Scare hysteria?