Fewer people died in Iraq than any other war ever.

I keep hearing this argument as though it makes the War in Iraq OK somehow. Asside from being factually false, it represents the sick,twisted logic you have to resort to to justify the unjustifiable.

This opinion comes I'm sure from someone who doesn't have the foggiest clue how many people died in every war ever, so it's kind of a "from the ass" statement to begin with, but let's just stick to American wars. Here's a list of American wars with fewer casualties than Bush's war in Iraq (so far --remember we're loosing more every day, so the number keeps going up).

War of 1812 2,260
Mexican-American War 1,733
Spanish-American War 385
Persian Gulf War 148

Now I'm not even counting stuff like Grenada and Panama or even Kosovo where we stopped a civil war (as opposed to starting one like this invasion has).

This is academic, however. Factual inaccuracy is the least of this argument's problems. Since we're loosing more and more soldiers each week, I wonder when the number will be high enough for chickenhawks to admit it's not the miracle that was advertised. What's the magic number where the price becomes too high? 3,000? 10,000?

What's the point? If fewer people died of AIDs than any plague that swept across Europe, should we inject ourselves with it? If the Green River Killer killed fewer people than any other serial killer should we invite him over for dinner? 2300 young sons, daughters, husbands, fathers not coming home to their families ever again is no big deal in this new crazy neo-con world I guess.