When people argue statistics about deaths in Iraq compared to deaths in the US each day, does it make sense?

I know a lot of people try to spin the war off as not being so bad and not more people have been murdered in a year in the US than the number of troops that have died ever since we started the war on terror, but is their reasoning flawed? I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but for example let's just say 3,500 troops have died in the war and there are 35,000 troops over there. That's like 10% that have died in roughly 5 years. Let's say that 3,500 people get murdered in the US every year, for 5 years we'll round up and say 30,000 have died in the US since the war started, but the US has a total population of about 300,000,000, so as far as murders in the US goes only 0.01% of people have died from being murdered. So isn't it still more dangerous going into the military and going to war if we're talking statistics? I think that should make sense how I explained it, but I know military people will try to say less people died in the war than murders in a year to get people to join.

When people argue statistics about deaths in Iraq compared to deaths in the US each day, does it make sense?
Maybe if you used real numbers instead of pulling numbers out of thin air to make your point it would make more sense. However, there have been over 500,000 troops deployed in Iraq over the past five years with less than 4,000 casualties. Your 10% is WAY above the actual statistics.





*EDIT*





Okay; so after a little digging around the hard numbers are as follows:





Over 1,001,000 troops deployed to Iraq since the invasion.





Total number of deaths so far: 3,966





As you can see the numbers are still coming in at less than 1%.





*EDIT 2*





Your logic is flawed then. You can't use ONLY how many are deployed for a year (the average number of deployed for a year is a little over 140,000 by the way; not 35,000) and then use the total number of KIA's for the entire 5 years we've been there. We didn't loose those 3,966 soldiers in a single year...we lost them over a 5 year period so you would need to compare the numbers of total number of KIA's over the last 5 years to the total number of troops who have served over the last 5 years.
Reply:In terms of casualties the war's not that bad, as wars go. The US has, and always had, an overwhelming military superiority over there.





Which I think makes people who insist we're in some kind of "existential struggle" look like a bunch of idiots. Who I suppose would probably have to die of sheer fright in two seconds if a real war ever did come up.





Anyway, if the death rates are comparable, then on the whole I'd greatly prefer that our soldiers come back over here and get themselves killed for free, instead of costing the taxpayers a couple hundred billion a year to get killed over there.
Reply:I don't make comparisons between military deaths in the Long War and deaths in the U.S. civilian population. But, I do make comparisons between the active duty deaths in our armed forces since September 11, 2001 and the active duty deaths which occurred prior to the attack on America. I do that because I cannot recall any national angst over those deaths. Westboro Baptist Church wasn't picketing their funerals. The AP and other news outlets weren't keeping up a daily count.


To me, that is a significant omission and an indicator that the focus on the death rate is more political than a legitimate expression of sorrow. BTW, there were 7,500 members of the armed forces who died on active duty during the eight years of the previous administration.
Reply:Absolutely not. Out of all the people saying we should pull out of Iraq, I have not heard any say we should pull out of DC. It save more lives. Of course, like Iraq, we would have problems identifying the insurgents. May be we should just quarantine the place and starve them out.
Reply:You and so many other people use the war in Iraq as an excuse to have something to ***** about.





Here where I live thousands of people have been killed over the years I have been here. Most of them done by the police without even an attempt at arrest or justice. Most were not armed when shot either. Many times the police plant guns to make it look good for them.





People seldom look at the real problems and just pick the popular cause.





By the way I do feel safer here than I did when in the USA. There it is the law just as here that is the real threat to people.
Reply:im very much anti war but ive got to tell you that your numbers are out of whack. we have lost a lot of people, and many many more have been injured or maimed (which never gets reported) but the loss of life isnt that bad considering every other war we ever fought other than gulf war 1 and kosovo. of course since the war was never justified and is pointless to begin with it is a tragedy that we have lost any people at all but if the war WAS justified and there WAS a chance of getting what washington calls a "victory" the death toll is actually not that bad considering the norm. another thing to look at is the COST of this war, the expense is insanely high compared to the relatively small force we have (400,000 men for gulf war one and that war cost "only" 40-50 billion as opposed to over 150 billion a year today. even adjusted for inflation we arent getting much bang for the buck considering the massive debt we are earning (decision to cut taxes while spending through the roof on war is not only stupid, it is unprecidented in america's history). now anyone who tries to say that old GOP line about serving in iraq being "less dangerous than detroit" is lying their butt off, though the death toll may not be that bad for WAR, serving over there is still FAR more dangerous than any other job in the US.
Reply:The two shouldn't even be compared; there is no war going on in the USA.
Reply:I agree with you it is wrong and very scewed. It is down played in order to gain support for war.





I am not against the soldiers, I am against the war!