Casualties for the entirety of the ‘War On Terror’, including seriously wounded (and including part of the period, likewise, ‘beyond the 20 year cutoff’), usually hover around 1.5 million.

Your own fucking source:

937,000+ direct deaths including 387,000+ civilians,

Would you like to remind me what 937,000 is lower than? Perhaps a number like… 1.5 million?

As I said, if you want to discuss indirect deaths, that’s going to lead to significantly increased numbers for Russia as well.

Absolutely not, but the sanctions were excessively brutal considering that “The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”.

Again, from your own fucking cited source:

There is a general consensus that the sanctions achieved the express goals of limiting Iraqi arms. For example, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith says that the sanctions diminished Iraq militarily.[25] According to scholars George A. Lopez and David Cortright: “Sanctions compelled Iraq to accept inspections and monitoring and won concessions from Baghdad on political issues such as the border dispute with Kuwait. They also drastically reduced the revenue available to Saddam, prevented the rebuilding of Iraqi defenses after the Persian Gulf War, and blocked the import of vital materials and technologies for producing WMD.”[26][27][28] Saddam told his Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) interrogator[29] that Iraq’s armaments “had been eliminated by the UN sanctions.”[30]

Some commentators blame Saddam Hussein for the excess deaths reported during this period. For example, Rubin argued that the Kurdish and the Iraqi governments handled OFFP aid differently, and that therefore the Iraqi government policy, rather than the sanctions themselves, should be held responsible for any negative effects.[58][59] Likewise, Cortright claimed: “The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are the result of Baghdad’s failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief effort.”[27] In the run-up to the Iraq War, some[60] disputed the idea that excess mortality exceeded 500,000, because the Iraqi government had interfered with objective collection of statistics (independent experts were barred).[61]

The Iraq Inquiry led by Sir John Chilcot examined a February 2003 statement by then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair that “today, 135 out of every 1,000 Iraqi children die before the age of five”. The inquiry found that the figure in question was provided to Blair by Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) based on the 1999 ICMMS study, but an internal caveat from the FCO and the Department for International Development (DFID) to the effect that the ICMMS was of questionable reliability because it had been “conducted with the Iraqi regime’s ‘help’ and relied on some Iraqi figures” was not communicated to Blair by a 10 Downing Street official. The inquiry noted “The level of child mortality in Iraq estimated by the ICMMS was significantly higher than that estimated by later surveys,” citing “estimates that the under‑five mortality rate in Iraq was 55 per 1,000 in 1989, 46 per 1,000 in 1999, 42 per 1,000 in 2003, and 37 per 1,000 in 2010 (when Mr Blair gave his evidence to the Inquiry).”[73]

I support sanctions only to the extent they can achieve the desired effect without causing large amounts of harm to unrelated people. The Iraq sanctions had multiple UN officials resigning specifically because they weren’t that. There was no need to kill half a million children to prevent Iraq from rearming itself. This isn’t exactly a controversial position.

Clearly it is, as your own fucking source notes that it’s controversial, both in terms of child mortality and in terms of efficacy.

I mean he literally backed down today (or was it yesterday in America?), so clearly he’s not unafraid of the economic effects of his policies. Or this is all just a front for insider trading. Probably the latter.

The latter. If Trump was ‘afraid’ of the economic effects of his policies, the entire tariff conversation would look nothing like… well, what it does.