Is 3,000 US deaths in Iraq really a lot for war?

Question

I hear people talking about the death toll in Iraq and making such a big deal out of it. I do feel sorry for the soldiers that lost their lives and I feel sorry for their families. But the number game has got to stop.

We lost at least 618,000 soldiers in the Civil War.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

We lost 400,000 soldiers in 4 years in WW1, not counting the other countries.
http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

We lost 500,000 soldiers in 6 years in WW2, not counting the other countries.
http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html

We lost 36,940 soldiers in 3 years in The Korean War.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/06/04/korea.deaths/index.html

We lost 58,156 soldiers in 10 years in The Vietnam War.
http://www.mrfa.org/vnstats.htm

I'm not for war, but considering how long we've been in Iraq, this number is exceptionally low. Does anyone else agree?

That's alright if I get thumbs down for this question. I'm not surprised. At least I'm able to see the bright side of the situation, no matter how bad it is, it could always be worse.

Answer 1

your right its very trivial given those numbers considering
50 MILLION troops and civilians died in WW2...i believe
all told 17 million troops died...

however i wouldnt want to deliver the news that someones
(1)son is dead in a face to face presentation it would break
my heart forever....

Answer 2

i comprehend how you sense. My brother replaced into military and have been given out merely earlier than the war... he easily knowledgeable some infantrymen which could be in Iraq on his way out. Any volume of deaths I view with a heavy heart. those are our boys, our ladies... regrettably, i don't think of human beings will stop making use of the be conscious "in easy terms" till the numbers attain Vietnam proportions. i think of human beings additionally don't comprehend that we are having much greater human beings stay to tell the story injuries that weren't surviveable earlier. it truly is not that we are taking much less casualties, it truly is that we are having greater survivors. they have a burden to hold, too. yet they provide the effect of being forgotten via the media... or in easy terms a pick few very beneficial situations get lined. yet I shop listening to further and extra thoughts approximately infantrymen who're not getting insurance because of the very slow bureaucratic technique to get pointed out as wounded. Mr Marine... I savour your frustration with human beings over speaking approximately negativity from the war in Iraq... yet you may comprehend, we are legitimately in touch approximately our troops. those are our boys and girls! Why attack the asker and tell them to close up and meet up? Our boys and girls at the instant are not getting the treatment they deserve! would not that trouble you the least bit?

Answer 3

The death toll is higher for Iraqi's and other american/British private citizens working over there for companies like Haliburton.

The current death toll reported is in excess of 50,000 people killed and hundreds of thousands wounded.

Iraq is only a tad bit bigger than the state of California.

If 50,000.00 people died over a couple years that is quite a lot. Especially for a war that was announced it was over years ago by President Bush.

A police action should not have so many deaths.

So add the 50k civillian deaths to the 3k US deaths plus however many UK has had and you get on the min side about 55k deaths.

Answer 4

We are fortunate that medical science has advanced to the point that injuries that would have normally been fatal are now survivable. But that leads to an incredible amount of injured men and women who will need care for the rest of their life. And many of these soldiers are in their 20's so do the Math. $$$$$. I read that if you take into account the advances in Medical sciences the fatalities in this war are actually higher than in the wars you listed.

Answer 5

It is one of the best kill ratios in war ever. Depending on which reports you read it is somewhere in the100:1 range. 100 of theirs for each one of ours. If you have to fight a war this is the kind of numbers you hope for.

Edited: Those of you that suggest this is not a war are not only naive but marginalize the efforts of those Americans over there fighting for their country.

Answer 6

I would certainly agree. If someone wants to play the numbers game lets start with the number of folks killed every day in auto accidents. Lew Dobbs keeps telling us how many have been injured and not able to return to combat. Let me ask how many have been injured in auto accidents and not been able to return to their jobs over the past 3 years?

I get sick and tired of this numbers game and wish it would stop or put some perspective into it.

Answer 7

Going by your quoted statistic...yes it is a low number HOWEVER....3000 is still way too many people and that is only the number of Americans that have died..this doesn't not include the other countries as well as the Iraq citizens. The "question" seems a little insensitive. I mean a car crash kills two people; an airplane crash kills 300...everything is relative (and hopefully not one of yours)...Regardless...people are still dead!

Answer 8

All the deaths are tragic, but more people have died on Kentucky roads in the time we have been in Iraq. 10,000 Americans are buried at Omaha Beach. We do need a little perspective.

Answer 9

no its way too many if you think back to those wars they didnt have the equipment that the solidiers have now they have more advanced weapons so the death toll should be low and its hard to compare all those wars cos they happened in different eras and there were different kind of enemies in my view 1 death is a death to many

Answer 10

3,000 people per night for 2 yrs were being killed during the bombing of London during WW2.

Answer 11

If you think of it, yes its a lot. But I dont consider this a war's usual death rate. This is just a conflict with a group, not a war.