English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

world war 1: 117,000
world war 2: 407,000
Korean War: 33,580
Vietnam War. 58,460
Loss of life in wars ,..strictly military personell..

2007-07-08 13:02:48 · 13 answers · asked by Joseph 2 in Politics & Government Military

13 answers

The war is not over.

2007-07-08 13:11:27 · answer #1 · answered by Chic 6 · 0 2

This doesn't compare with around 3,000+/- in 5 years. We have inflicted 10 times more casualties on the terrorists then they have on the coalition forces. As wars go, this one isn't that bad. The liberal press is just driving the bad news. They do that because, "if it bleeds, it leads" as they say in the press and they make money from selling papers. Less so now thought. We just never hear about all of the good things that are happening over there: schools, water and electrical infrastructure etc. that the coalition forces are doing, all funded by America, of course. Here's some advice, believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see, when dealing with the news media.

2007-07-08 13:16:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Bit like chalk and cheese isn't it? The first three were unavoidable to a certain degree and Vietnam was a big mistake. Iraq was an even bigger mistake so a loss of less than 1% is deplorable. Averaging between 80 and 90 deaths a month to police a country the size of Iraq is sickening.

2007-07-08 13:49:04 · answer #3 · answered by Ted T 5 · 0 0

Very small compared to most other wars The U.S. was involved in.
You left out the Civil War though. I'm not 100% sure but I think we might have lost more killed in that war than even world war 2. In Iraq i think we have lost over 2000.

2007-07-08 13:10:45 · answer #4 · answered by kevin s 6 · 1 0

It's about 3K right now, so nowhere near what Vietnam was, despite the moanings of the American public. You'd think it was in the 100's of thousands by the outcry. The biggest difference is that our nation no longer has the stomach for war.

2007-07-08 13:11:40 · answer #5 · answered by Troll Slayer 3 · 1 0

Civilain 2002 data at the link.

I did a SWAG of <1% of total forces in country since 2003.

2007-07-08 13:19:45 · answer #6 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 1 0

The civil war has the most american casualties, since most people count the confederate states as american deaths.

This war is different because we arent fighting another nations army

2007-07-08 13:15:34 · answer #7 · answered by Adam Smith 2 · 0 0

i think of, simplifying it very much, the respond is compassion. human beings go with to have faith the international could be a greater proper place and via combating the warfare deaths and protecting our borders open to allow those in seek of a greater proper existence to come again right here, they're assisting to realize that purpose. regrettably the reality of open border migration no longer in basic terms enables the basically inspired via a could join our society in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it additionally enables those with much less honorable purpose get admission to. what's the answer? do no longer understand. i understand that i think our protection rigidity and our country could be greater proper served via being a shielding rigidity somewhat than an offensive weapon, sent international in accordance with political benefit.

2016-10-20 08:25:38 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I hear in not only is low but it is comparable to the same number of young adults who die every year in New York

2007-07-08 13:13:10 · answer #9 · answered by johnhenrykane 1 · 1 0

It really doesn't compare at all. Most of the troops killed have not been combat troops.

2007-07-09 02:29:57 · answer #10 · answered by Stew 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers