This seems to be the only place to pose this question to all perhaps not but...

I'm wondering that if we have so many coalition forces helping us in the peace keeping efforts in Iraq, why haven't there been any reports of (I'm not wishing for any) injuries or deaths besides US forces?

Do you think that by now, with all the bombings and attacks, its odd that not one other allied nations soldier has been hurt.

well, US troops are much more visible because of their sheer numbers and unfortunately they are more hated by the rotten eggs with guns in Iraq. Spain only has about 1500 troops, other members of the coalition even less. The Brits are down in Basra where there is a heavy population of Shiia who are more than happy to be rid of saddam.

The American troops have been stationed for the most part in the deadly Sunni(psychotic) triangle around some 40 miles in and around Baghdad which is where the majority of baathists reside. It'll be a tough town to control.

Edited to add:
I was originally going to start off by saying that the America media probably isn't interested in reporting the deaths of other forces as some kind of slight on parochial US attitudes. However, having done a bit of digging, and while that still might be ture, it appears that the British media have also been keeping us in the dark on international comparisons of casualty rates. Either they aren't interested either, which I find hard to believe, or they just don't want us to know. A sobering thought. Edited insert ends

As at 5th november, there have been 211 US casualties and 19 British. I couldn't find any up to date figures for other countries, but at 7 October, the breakdown was:

COMBAT/ATTACKS

United States 206 (91)
Britain 19 (11)
Multinational 0 (0)

NON-COMBAT

United States 117 (94)
Britain 32 (7)
Multinational 0 (1)

IRAQIS KILLED:
MILITARY 2,320#
CIVILIANS Between 7,376 and 9,178*

Figures in parenthesis indicate casualties since the May 1 2003

# = U.S. military estimates relating only to fighting in or near Baghdad. No other figures available.

* = Figure compiled on Web site www.iraqbodycount.net, run by academics and peace activists, based on incidents reported by at least two media sources.

NOTE: NON-COMBAT is defined as accidents, U.S. or British fire killing or wounding their own troops, and other incidents unrelated to fighting.

(Source)

Here's a link showing troop strength by country for the coalition as at 7 September

So very roughly, the USA has lost one man in every 616 deployed, while Britain has lost one in 558. In that respect, the casualty rates are rather higher for America's coalition partners (well, us Brits, anyway) than they have been for America. I must admit to being rather surprised by this myself, having heard the same things about the Sunni triangle, the comparative friendliness of the Shia's in the British-controlled areas, and so on.

The easiest thing to do would be to blame American friendly-fire, but that to me would indicate more casualties during the main conflict when our forces were in the field together, rather than in their own separate areas. which isn't borne out in these figures.

Maybe the British penchant for doing without body armour etc. is just a higher risk strategy? Or maybe we just have a harder attitude to troop deaths over here and are prepared to accept higher casualty rates? If so, I certainly wouldn't attribute any values to that attitude compared to the US, as I'm still vaguely surprised to learn that we have higher casualty rates than the US, man for man.

It's because deaths of other coalition partners are rare. The Brits have most of what used to be the southern No Fly Zone, specifically Al Nasiriya all the way to the Kuwaiti border and Basra and the port city of Umm Qasr, and there are rarely attacks down that way because down there it's mostly non-radical Shiites who live there.

And where the Polish are, they get the Turkish/Iraqi border area where the Kurds live (rarely any attacks North of Mosul, where US troops are located. Also, rare attacks in Erbil where the Polish have their HQ).

The Spanish have Najaf, where it is also calm.

It's not because they are censored, but it's because they got the calmest spots to patrol whereas we get the rowdy areas

Exactly right, though I'll add in my suspicion that the "resistance" is targeting US/UK public support because of the enormous import the withdrawal of either. I believe it is rather silly to suspect a world-wide media conspiracy to cover up coalition deaths. If the individual governments are to be implicated, we would need evidence of a cover-up. Otherwise is seems that the members of the coalition are doing quite well. I have heard of the deaths of Danish soldiers (two I believe) but the Polish, Spanish, Mongolians, and on and on all seem to be having minimal trouble. It seems the real disparity is in the reporting of the situation Iraq, which might leave some to believe that:
1. The Iraqis support the attacks on coalition troops.
2. The situation in Iraq in not mostly calm and improving.

Afraid both of these are common misconceptions.

Edited to Add:
I am not accusing anyone of supporting conspiracy theories here, just attempting some preemptive action.

Sorry to report this Turnea, but there has been a death among the coalition forces:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two American soldiers were killed near Baghdad and along the Syrian border, the U.S. military said Thursday, and Polish forces suffered their first combat death - a major ambushed south of the capital.

The new violence occurred as a senior Japanese official said his country would honor its commitment to send peacekeepers to Iraq despite the heightened threat to Japanese military and civilian personnel.

Yukio Okamoto, top diplomatic adviser to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, said withdrawing from Iraq would send the wrong message to "terrorists who seek to thwart international support efforts," the Kyodo news agency reported Thursday.

I certainly sorry to hear it, but in context with the original question I think it goes to support the fact that we are not being mislead in regards to coalition deaths. The Polish sector of Iraq has about 12,000 troops from 15 countries (at least that is the projection). The death of on soldier is certainly bad news, but does little to support the theory of a chaotic Iraq and angry Iraqis. Not to mention the theory that coalition deaths are being obscured.
Warsaw Voice-A Tough Assignment