>Yes, I did read the whole article, and I even checked out iraqbodycount. For the sake of argument, lets take their 30K max figure. I'll even give you your "safe assumption" of 1:2 underreport (I don't believe it, but that's just me). That's 60,000, yet you choose to inflate it to 100K for "symbolic manner?" Please. Let's argue facts, not symbolism. The fact is that the toll on the Iraqi population has been grevious.
>
>In terms of history, that's not a larger percentage of the population.

Two thousand is even less percentage of the population, yet we hear them mentioned every day, including this thread. Because of their symbolic meaning, which was exactly the way I used the 100K number.

>Europe had to go through several major spasms, costing millions of lives, before democracy triumphed. You tell me if it was worth it.

And it's still not finished, and still not good enough. But then I don't think all of these lives were spent just building democracy - many of them were just the collateral damage from the play of the major powers. Was it worth it? Maybe. Not yet.