As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq (iraqbodycount quoted by Carol)

If I read just that one sentence quoted prominently by Carol I wonder how anyone can take them serious anymore (One might think that Carol only quotes that sentence to criticise but it looks as if she sees nothing wrong with it). They make in a blatant way one of the worst mistakes such a site can make: They mix data and interpretation in one sentence. Reading such a one-sided sentence makes me start to distrust even their data (they have explained their method but whether they have done it correctly in detail I cannot say and have to take their word for it).

The correct sentence of course would have been:
As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far since the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq

The causation is a completely different question and should not be treated cavalierly in a sentence stating the facts. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy involved here ("I only had that accident because aunt Martha wanted me to buy her some potatoes when coming back from work"). Many different causes can be argued to have led to the present situation in Iraq. The invasion is surely prominent among the possible causes. But in the wise warning words of McGrath:

Events don't just have one cause, bruce.

One can only wonder why he only addresses Bruce here and not for instance Carol who had posted this before Bruce who was only parodying her:
ALL of the people who died in Iraq died because of the US led invasion and occupation of that country, regardless of who killed them.

Wolfgang