About the 100,000 number of innocents that 1485 brings up, I know a little more about those numbers than he does.

The 100,000 number was reached by the British journal named Lancet. How did they guess that number? They said it could be anywhere from 8,000 to 194,000, making 100,000 a nice, even number in the middle. That's approximately a 99.6% margin of error. That's far from acceptable to take something as fact.

Plus, if you take that 100,000 number and apply it, it'd mean that anywhere from .5 to .75 civilans would be killed by each Allied soldier (depending on how you count our own troops).

Considering that there is a 6:1 ratio of support troops to frontline combat arms soldiers, they'd have to kill 3 to 3.5 people a piece. I know many veterans, all of which disagree with that even being possible. One of which scoffed at the idea that his battalion of 400 even could have killed 1200 or more civilians. It's downright ridicilous.

Besides, all of those numbers, with the exception of Iraq, could be spun towards the number of people that died for the sake of communism.

100,000 in a Iraq is a tragedy, but nothing compared to the 100,000,000 killed by communism. Get real here, bud.