[orionblamblam]

> those are generally people much more relevant to the US than Khan.

That's debatable. I've seen lots of statues of, for example, Poles who came to America to help fight in the Revolution (Casimir Pulasky and whatnot). These people ahve a tendency to be almost *entirely* irrelevant to the bulk of American history... certainly nowhere near as important as Ghengis. Had some minor European army Major not come to the US and gotten shot dead in his first battle, the US would almost certainly still exist, perhaps with no recognizable changes. Had the Khans not existed, the US probably wouldn't either... except as part of the greater World Caliphate.

Nevertheless, these minor Euro figures are relevant to the people who actually paid for the statue - typically the Poles in Chicago, the Italians in New York, whoever.

[verum ago]

those are generally people much more relevant to the US than Khan.
yes, that's debatable. One could hypothetically argue that some long dead minor European infantry Major who died in the American Revolution is more relevant to the US because he better embodie the American spirit and ideals. Once again, debatable.

but that's a matter of degree (who is more relevant than whom). As a matter of principal, however, if the Mongolians want to pay for and put a statue, I see no problem with it. People don't have to be happy with a Khan statue, but there's no legitimate reason they can't put one up. And personally, I do agree that if some "irrelevant" dead European soldier can have a statue then Khan deserves one even more. In other words, you're right, I agree with you, and you were right all along. There, I said it :)