Following are the latest figures for military deaths in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003:?

Question

U.S.-LED COALITION FORCES:

United States 3,297

Britain 142

Other nations 124

IRAQIS:

Military Between 4,900 and 6,375<#/p>

Civilians Between 61,391 and 67,364*

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070415/tpl-uk-iraq-toll-61a15b8_1.html
When looking at other conflicts and wars the casualties are very low,what do you think?

after reading some remarks,i would like to point out that yes i have been to trauma units and burns units and yes i have been to funerals.
not just that i have served along side guys for years.so dont give me the crap about how i feel,im only putting a question to you>>>>>

Answer 1

Have you been to any funerals for the fallen yet? I have been to 2.Both would have drug you out by your shorthairs if you would have made this remark.What many of you forget is the Pentagon and Veterans administrations reports that we have over 50,000 who are severely injured and would have died in any other war.But thanks to better medical in theatre they are living.How they are living is another story.Have you visited one of the burn centers yet?How about a head trauma ward?I didn't think so.Or you wouldn't be dismisssing these numbers as low.

Answer 2

Retrospectively you are correct. Do not let the opposition know you know. Their whole argument is that we are losing people every day in large numbers. The one number you forget is the injured. This war , with its different type of fighting with IED's has created a larger than accepted rate of injuries. This will also go down if funding is put in the new technology needed to protect our troops. You cannot judge a war by the casualties only by the missions success or failure. We do need to finish the job as quick as possible without a democratic Party intervention that is going on today. We do need to let our military leaders fight this fight to win, so they can get out sooner. We need to take the gloves off and finish the job. Sometimes we need to be as ruthless as our enemies are.

Answer 3

First, when you consider that the "war" is over. It's the peace that is such a problem. The number would be considered low, if you compare it to Vietnam or WWII, but then again, during those wars, how many people were involved? Considering that at any given time, there were around one million American troops in country, and over a ten year period, around 50,000 died, so over the 10 year war in Vietnam, there would be an equivalent to 10,000,000 personnel in the war zone. that would equate to .005%. The conflict in Iraq has only gone on for 4 years, with an average of 100,000 personnel in country per year or around 400,000 troops total. The death rate there would equate to .0075%, which is slightly higher.

Answer 4

I am SO tired of that trivialized argument
I think that argument is very insensitive to the mothers, wives and relatives that have lost their loved ones. It is reducing them to an insignificate number that says 'he is only a minut fraction of what could have been and less than the more that has been so what does it matter.
These WERE REAL people with REAL families that barely had any chance to have lived any type life.


http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html



and for -mandability that is a big lie you try passing the ASVAB and other tests in order to join
My daughters are C130 mechanics, smart and no criminal record. Go to a base sometime and actually talk with Military people you might be surprised!

Answer 5

It is a very successful wars in terms of casualty rate. You can rant and spew your unproveable, unsupported, unsubstantiated in any way other than you don't like bush so you make crap up lies but that doesn't change the validity of pure statistics? I believe it would stack up quite favorably in a chart of American conflicts and the casualties that came about.

I will believe it's a war for oil when you can prove it is.

And how could you not destabilize a region in the process of rebuilding it? That's like saying D-Day destabilized France.

Answer 6

yet i presumed all the nonsence started previously March 2003. Wasn't there some western targets around the globe. develop into Saddam in charge for any carnage. develop into Kuwait ever invaded.

Answer 7

Historically ,very low.
Still it's not easy getting the 1 sniper or bomber hidden in the crowd without taking the whole block.
Still the bad guys are dying at a rate of around 17 to 1.

Answer 8

Compared to other conflicts yes. I don't know why... more advanced weapons targetting smaller areas, perhaps?

Although this conflict isn't over yet, so I'm sure the death toll will continue to rise.

Answer 9

Tell that to the families who lost their loved ones to this senseless war that has no EXIT strategy.

And how can 60,000+ civilian deaths still be considered low?
Would you say that the death rate on Sept 11th to be low too?

Answer 10

YEAH, let's have more killing! 12 million civilians died in WWII, so let's try to match that!

What's wrong with you? How about this madness ends NOW? How about you go and ask the family of a dead serviceman or an innocent Iraqi to their faces how they feel about the casualties being so low?