The US has killed in excess of a million people in the Middle East. Around 650 000 people died as a result of the Iraq War, around 50 000 in Afghanistan, around 400 000 in Syria and around 20 000 in Lybia.
Of course, neither were purely by the US but rather by a Coalition, but none of them would have happened if it wasn't for the US.
I also include deaths from destruction of infrastructure and subsequent power vacuums, as is customary for crimes against humanity.
Imagine the roles were reversed and some jerks from the US went and killed 3000 middle easterners. As a response they invade america and over the course of 10 years kill nearly 20,000% as many people as died in that original attack. Still call the death toll from the original jerks to the middle easterners significant?
Yep, the us is definitely killing foreigners, and its own people for that matter, but the direct impact on citizens' everyday life is pretty minimal. No war has been declared, and apart from a distortion to the budget and impact on GDP it's essentially invisible.
That's because nothing of consequence happened at this time. Had the actions resulted in deaths of a few hundred or a few thousand Americans the response would most likely be very different.
The body counts are not even comparable. In Iraq, ALONE, the U.S. is estimated to have killed 1M+ civilians, between the sanctions it pushed before the 2003 war and the war itself.
Here is Madeline Albright saying killing 500k+ kids in Iraq via sanctions was "worth the price" (despite the fact that those sanctions achieved nothing in terms of real political goals):
reply