Thanks Tel,
Now, let's have a game of tennis...

1) I've read the Washington Post article. It does not make clear the make-up of the lowest body-count. However, the interior ministry's figures, from which dey drawm "do not include the wounded who die later from their injuries, those kidnapped and later killed, armed men who die in clashes with U.S. or Iraqi forces, unidentified bodies, and other categories of deaths."

2) Would you have regarded that figure as 'very much on the low side' compared to, say, Northern Ireland? Would that have been an acceptable figure in the six counties? After all, there was significant 'potential for taking life' there.

3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq was not a sponsor of interntional terrorism before 2003, and now houses quite a number of international terrorists. AS for the UNSC resolutions, with the exception of the controversial 1441, they were largely concerned with the 'oil for food' programme. Of course they was closure, you chump, as the regime was removed.

4) I asked about Germany because that is a close comparison - removal of a dictator and d-nazi/baathification by an occupying power gradually handing over to a german/iraqi government. Greece is entirely different.
And I would have thought the combatants were fairly obvious. It is a split on sectarian lines between Sunni and Shia factions. The Washington Post article refers to "politically motivated bloodshed " and "sectarian strife". To quote Edward Wong, who wrote "A Matter of Definition: What Makes a Civil War, and Who Declares It So?" in the New York Times November 26, 2006: A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

5) As I understand it, the US went to war with Iraq because Saddam allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed a threat to peace. The US announced a 'coalition of the willing' to rid Iraq of its WMDs and invaded without the consent of the UNSC. Given that we know both Iran and North Korea actually have WMDs and are run by oppressive regimes, is it not logical to assume that the US would like to do the same in their case? The US says Iran is an active sponsor of terrorism. It has also efused to exclude the use of force to stop perceived Iranian nuclear ambitions. Need I go on...?

Your go, poppet.