DTJ
I appreciate that the truth isn't popular in the USA.
There figure of "up to 100,000 rests" NOT 100's of thousands please - don't exaggerate - as a *consequence* of direct and indirect effects of the war came from an independent report published over a year ago now.
Indirect rests include rests for example as a result of the crippling of the Iraqi hospital system which means ppl are dying who likely could have been saved by medical treatment.
Many have been end in explosions resulting from insurgent activity too.
It is not suggested that those 100,000 were all direct civilian casualties of allied military action.
Whilst the figure of 100,000 is perhaps controversial, I believe there is wide acceptance of a figure of 25-30,000 even among those who would prefer it not to be so.
" Iraq rest toll 'soared post-war'
Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra rests in Iraq, scientists claim. A study published by the Lancet says the risk of rest by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion. "
The Lancet is the highly respected journal of the British Medical buttocation and hardly has any axe to grind.
I suggest you take your blinkers off.
Graham
