Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

If your evidence is media and TV then that is not an evidence.

Still you believe that few men living in caves planned and carried out 9/11 attack in the heart of most powerful country?

The official report for the destruction of building seven was released 7 years after the incident. Why it took so long? Anyways you clearly are showing no proofs and ignoring many simple facts.

As usual fantasy statements but no facts and proofs.

There's a significant range above, and it appears it depends on how you measure, and whether or not you include just direct deaths, or indirect deaths (that would not have occurred but for the war)

To me, indirect deaths are valid, as they measure the true cost of a war / of an invasion.

Those estimates are gross overcounts regardless of what they counted.

Every time Saddam's government concocted a claim about dead civilians, those bogus claims went right into those death tallies.

Later, during the insurgency, every time the insurgents concocted a bogus claim of civilian casualties, those got counted too.

We are not in any way responsible for Muslims choosing to massacre each other.

I am proving facts and proofs not just statements

only proof you ever give is your statement as if those are reliable.

Based on your mental condition, I don’t think any court would accept you as a witness. Seriously you should check with some psychiatrist. Mentally sick people are biggest threat to any society, especially in a society where guns are easy to buy.

Do you have sources verifying such claims, or are you just making things up while claiming to tell the truth?

Beyond expected rates, most mortality increases in Iraq can be attributed to direct violence, but about a third are attributable to indirect causes (such as from failures of health, sanitation, transportation, communication, and other systems). Approximately a half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war.

Logically speaking, if one site is clearly a vast overcount, then any claims that are similar or even larger are also likely to be a vast overcount.

The problem on your side is, your government was not at all interested in doing a body count (likely because it doesn't benefit them, at all, to do so). So to call anything bogus just because you don't like it isn't something that allows you a leg to stand on. You don't have counter studies showing otherwise, but are trying to claim as truth your version of events.

As I mentioned previously - it does depend on what you count, and how you count.

That's no problem at all. All I need to do is criticize their methodology.

If they count deaths that are not the result of US action, I am content to merely point out that they are counting deaths that we are not responsible for.

Which is quite meaningless because those studies are all you have to go on.

I actually find it quite remarkable how many studies have been done. They all agree that the cost is in the hundreds of thousands. They just disagree how many hundred thousand.

You could go 'I have no idea how many died, and don't want to know', and that would be more honest than what you do now.

Which is both true and beside the point. Your actions contributed to the outcome. In other words, but for the US invasions those deaths would not have happened.
Now you can go on pretending that your countries actions have nothing to do with the outcomes, but that's all it would be - you pretending such.