I've noticed a tendency to shift the playing field in these discussions. "Well, what about THIS?"

The U.N. Report is based on sources that are less than reliable. Sadr's people run the Health Ministry, and has his own reasons for wanting the figures to be high. Besides, what's the point in arguing the numbers? If I showed a source that put the numbers at half that, the response would be "well, isn't that bad enough?" Might as well set the casualty figures at ten million, since it would make no difference in anyone's behavior or views.

You are, of course, aware that the U.N. numbers and the Lancet numbers cannot both be true at the same time. Which one are you going to run with?