The death toll of a non-nuclear war on Iraq would be between 49,060 and 481,100, according to a report issued by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and produced by Medact. Most casualties would be civilians, and the global financial burden could exceed $200 billion. A nuclear strike limited to Baghdad would kill up to another 3.608 million.

A report by the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs states that 1.26 million Iraqi children under 5 would be at risk of death from malnutrition in the event of war. It also predicts an exodus from Iraq of up to 1.45 million refugees and asylum seekers.

The warmongers claim that:

1. Military action might result in saving some lives at some unspecified future time.
2. It is "morally right" to bring about certain death and disability so that others might live (explicit), particularly if most casualties are foreigners (implicit).
3. Therefore a war on Iraq is "morally right".

Since the aggression is likely to foment anti-Western terrorism and Saddam Hussein does not have a monopoly on iniquity or armaments, premise (1) is highly suspect. I suggest the morality of (2) is mainly limited to Presidents who used to love blowing up frogs, failed Prime Ministers who are clinging to office due to a useless opposition and who have targeted America as their next career move, leaders of countries requiring aid or desiring territory such as Gibraltar, and the cronies of the above.