here are the nationbook numbers republished on wicki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate
The US ranks at 97 with a VERY respectable 8.27
Iraq is 165 at 5.14
you might want to mention that to the next person that tells you we are wasting time with our troops in iraq...
<obtw the iraq death rate in 2000 was 6.4 so it has improved a lot
Anonymous
Favorite Answer
no, I didn't realize that. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
?
?? nicely, I grant you with this, you researched your question. So I definately appreciate you for dealing with the hassle. and that i checked for accuracy (on a number of it, no longer all) too. sturdy pastime!! I surely have a pair topics with this even if. a million. you're comparing apples and oranges. each warfare is different. Our WWII losses would have doubled if we did not drop the bombs. ought to we evaluate doing that now, as Nixon apparently did throughout Vietnam? 2. keep in mind "challenge carried out"? replaced into that the end of the warfare? Technically, we are no longer in a warfare at present. perchance it truly is why the dems are disappointed. what's the challenge in Iraq? First it replaced into WMD's. Then even as that grew to change into out to be a bald-confronted lie, we shifted to "isn't it extra positive now that Saddam isn't in skill?". After that, it replaced into "we favor to grant stability until eventually a authorities is formed". All that has been achieved. So, what's next? what's the challenge? Oh, now we ought to attend until eventually the Iraqi military is as a lot as pastime. BTW, keep in mind how Rumsfield demanded that the Iraq military be disbanded? would it not no longer were extra positive to save them in service? 3. have you ever requested the mamma and papa of #2,582 on your stat sheet about how they sense? you're lacking the finished factor of the talk via specializing in "deaths", and showing us that it purely isn't that undesirable. the point is, we are stuck, a useless ringer for Vietnam and Korea. even as are the troops coming living house? We nevertheless save 30,000 plus (i imagine, be at liberty to acceptable me if i'm incorrect) in South Korea. yet our troops in Korea are not demise. Iraq troops are. And, the democrats ask, WHY? It has no longer some thing to do with death expenses, yet why we are over there, what's the challenge?
Anonymous
It is not clear exactly what these statistics mean. The US has a generally older population, so there will be more deaths from old age.
US population 65 and older: 12.6%
Iraq population 65 and older: 3%
A more telling statistic might be death rate by violent means. I haven't found anything for that yet and now my wife is bugging me for dinner. Maybe someone else can do some more research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Age_structure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq#Age_structure
celtic tart
As of February 2009 the U.S, population is 306 million :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
As of 2008 the population of Iraq is barely 31 million :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
At more than 10 times the population than Iraq,
the U.S. has barely 3.12 more death's per 1,000 than
Iraq at the 5.14 rate you originally quote for Iraq.
And only 2.23 more deaths per 1,000 at the 6.4 rate
for Iraq that you ammended your figure to.
Either way, it still puts living in the U.S. at a far
greater advantage to dieing in Iraq...any old way
you want to try and add it up.
Davis M
Libs don't want to hear numbers like that they just want to hear change you can believe in, and yes we can, and socialized health care, and more taxes, and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is failing and that our imperial troops are dying by the thousands it would really get them angry if you posted how many of those deaths were accidental or natural causes.