2,000 deaths too many

[theloniusfleabag]

From Global Security.org,

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...51025-voa04.htm

A shame so many died for such a misguided approach.

The U.S. military death toll in Iraq officially reached two thousand on Tuesday, with the announcement of the death of a soldier who was injured last week.  The figure includes 427 troops whose deaths were not directly related to combat operations.  Speaking shortly before the announcement, President Bush said the American sacrifice in Iraq has been worthwhile, and more sacrifice will be needed before the war against terrorism is finally won. 

One can't win a war with sacrifice alone.

And the president told the military families more sacrifice will be required.

It seems lessons are never learned...

On Tuesday, President Bush repeated his vow to stick with the war on terrorism until it is won. 

But in a speech in the U.S. Senate, Democratic Party senator Russ Feingold said the U.S. presence in Iraq does more harm than good.

"Right now we are making the insurgency stronger with our apparently indefinite presence in Iraq, and our failure to articulate a timetable for military withdrawal," Senator Feingold says. "We also know our commitment of resources - money, troops, time - to Iraq is detracting from our ability to focus on our most pressing national security goals, and stretching our military budget to the breaking point."

Senator Feingold has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of the year.

Senior generals say that would be a bad idea with the insurgency still strong, Iraq's new forces still developing and the country's political process at a delicate stage.  The generals say they may be able to recommend some U.S. troop withdrawals before the end of next year, if Iraq's political process moves forward, if country's new security forces continue to develop and if the insurgency eases.

The previous lesson not learned?...

As paraphrased from "Soldiers of God: With the Mujahideen in Afghanistan" by Robert Kaplan, an Afghani (Pathan) fighter was asked, "If the Russians are leaving, why don't you suspend operations against them?" The fighter (now called 'terrorist') replied, "They are leaving because we killed so many of them. They are leaving because we killed them and we will kill them until they leave".

One must understand the mindset of the 'enemy' if one hopes for victory, and you can't hope to win if you lie to yourself and others about the nature of, and the motivation of, your opponent.

[Montgomery Burns]

I knew the far left would be on the "2000 dead" like a bunch of grave-robbing ghouls. They have no shame when it comes to robbing the fallen US soldiers of their honor. They are just a number to be exploited for leftwing political purposes.

These people who exploit the freedom-fighting dead are beneath contempt. :angry:

You should be ashamed of yourself for your utter contempt (like Melanie etal) for the long-suffering Iraqi people.

Your icon is in a cage in a courtroom being judged by his peers and will, for all intents and purposes, be put to death. He's not coming back.

[newbie]

Monty, all the major news media covered the 2000 milestone, even Fox. The only ones to be shamed on this day is George Bush and his administration.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Montgomery Burns,

I knew the far left would be on the "2000 dead" like a bunch of grave-robbing ghouls. They have no shame when it comes to robbing the fallen US soldiers of their honor. They are just a number to be exploited for leftwing political purposes.

I was somewhat reluctant to post anything about it, as I knew what rubbish was coming. As newbie states,

Monty, all the major news media covered the 2000 milestone, even Fox.

Perhaps it would have been, in your eyes, less contemptable had I picked 1,999 tragic deaths instead of 2000?

[Black Dog]

Stop feeding the troll, folks.

[Yodeler]

Perhaps it would have been, in your eyes, less contemptable had I picked 1,999 tragic deaths instead of 2000?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sure would. Or else the retailers wouldn't bother with such deceptive tactics.

It would also be less contemptable had you discounted the tragic deaths that would occur had they all stayed home and were assigned to do lots of vigorous training exercises instead.

[Yodeler]

The only ones to be shamed on this day is George Bush and his administration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even for 427 troops whose deaths were not related to combat operations?

"The U.S. military death toll in Iraq officially reached two thousand on Tuesday, with the announcement of the death of a soldier who was injured last week. The figure includes 427 troops whose deaths were not directly related to combat operations.

[Riverwind]

Even for 427 troops whose deaths were not related to combat operations?

What were those deaths caused by? How many were suicide? Would they have happened if the US had not forced tens of thousands of civilians/reservists into a combat situation? I suspect that these most of these deaths would not have happened (although some would have) which means they should be included in the total.

[newbie]

The only ones to be shamed on this day is George Bush and his administration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even for 427 troops whose deaths were not related to combat operations?

"The U.S. military death toll in Iraq officially reached two thousand on Tuesday, with the announcement of the death of a soldier who was injured last week. The figure includes 427 troops whose deaths were not directly related to combat operations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll excempt Bush for those soldiers who bought their own ticket over there.

[tml12]

The only ones to be shamed on this day is George Bush and his administration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even for 427 troops whose deaths were not related to combat operations?

"The U.S. military death toll in Iraq officially reached two thousand on Tuesday, with the announcement of the death of a soldier who was injured last week. The figure includes 427 troops whose deaths were not directly related to combat operations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll excempt Bush for those soldiers who bought their own ticket over there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I really think that if the left wants to blame someone they should blame (formerly) one of their own...Tony Blair.

If anyone had the power to stop Bush it was Blair...but he didn't.

And don't tell me the US would have gone in alone...Bush is not that stupid.

[Guest eureka]

O but he is! I think Blair went along just to keep down the level of barbarism.

[Black Dog]

I really think that if the left wants to blame someone they should blame (formerly) one of their own...Tony Blair.

I'll stick with blaming the country that chose to start this war and the Cheney-Rumsfeld neocons in particular.

If anyone had the power to stop Bush it was Blair...but he didn't.

Nonsense. What power does the poodle have?

And don't tell me the US would have gone in alone...Bush is not that stupid.

Sure they would have. They didn't need anybody else for anything but the veneer of multilateralism.

As for why Blair went along, I don't doubt there was some political bribery thrown his way. I also wonder if there wasn't a bit of nostalgia on the Brits' part for the good old days of giving the recalcitrant Arabs a good walloping.

[Montgomery Burns]

To the far left, being able to say “I told you so,” being able to point to the futility of American military might, being able to point their fingers at the “evil ones” and their leader--the Republicans, the pro-war crowd, the military and especially President Bush--means more to the far left than does the ultimate well-being of their fellow human beings and the eventual defeat of those who would see us dead or converted to Islam at gunpoint.

The far left doesn't give a damn about the consequences for the people of Iraq any more than their ideological parents cared about the fate of the Vietnamese, nor do they care about the honor and free will of the US men and women who are going to bat for the Iraqis. Some are even hosting a vigil to celebrate the death of the 2000th GI in Iraq. Power is the far left's goal and they feel it must be reached no matter the cost.

[Riverwind]

The far left doesn't give a damn about the consequences for the people of Iraq any more than their ideological parents cared about the fate of the Vietnamese

How much do the wor mongers in the US care for the people of Sudan? Tibet? Myanmar? North Korea? All of these people are suffering under the boot of a vicious dictators yet the US does nothing for them. Why are the Iraqs the annointed people worthy of sheading so much US blood and money?

[Montgomery Burns]

The far left doesn't give a damn about the consequences for the people of Iraq any more than their ideological parents cared about the fate of the Vietnamese

How much do the wor mongers in the US care for the people of Sudan? Tibet? Myanmar? North Korea? All of these people are suffering under the boot of a vicious dictators yet the US does nothing for them. Why are the Iraqs the annointed people worthy of sheading so much US blood and money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typical leftie rebuttal; change the subject.

[Riverwind]

Why are the Iraqis the anointed people worthy of shedding so much US blood and money?

Typical leftie rebuttal; change the subject.

Hardly, you can't be self righteous about 'helping' the Iraqi people right now without answering that obvious question. In any case, the best thing the US could do right now for the Iraqis would be to pull all of its troops out and close any permanent bases. If the Iraqis want to have their civil war then let them. However, I suspect that things would get quite civilized quite fast as soon as the invaders have left the country.

But we know that won't happen because Bush does not want a free and democratic Iraq unless the democracy produces results that Bush wants. I don't really call that freedom.

[newbie]

The far left doesn't give a damn about the consequences for the people of Iraq any more than their ideological parents cared about the fate of the Vietnamese, nor do they care about the honor and free will of the US men and women who are going to bat for the Iraqis.  Some are even hosting a vigil to celebrate the death of the 2000th GI in Iraq.  Power is the far left's goal and they feel it must be reached no matter the cost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do yourself a favour and read this: http://www.bcpolitics.ca/left_conservatism.htm.

It might help you to understand that the left does not need power, but the right can't exist without it.

[BHS]

Stop feeding the troll, folks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shut up, asshole.

[BHS]

By the standards of any war of conquest that preceded it, 2000 dead is paltry. Get over it. The people who fret about this are strictly being partisan, and ridiculously so.

[PocketRocket]

The far left doesn't give a damn about the consequences for the people of Iraq any more than their ideological parents cared about the fate of the Vietnamese

How much do the wor mongers in the US care for the people of Sudan? Tibet? Myanmar? North Korea? All of these people are suffering under the boot of a vicious dictators yet the US does nothing for them. Why are the Iraqs the annointed people worthy of sheading so much US blood and money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typical leftie rebuttal; change the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh-huh, whereas you simply..........

I knew the far left would be on the "2000 dead" like a bunch of grave-robbing ghouls.  They have no shame when it comes to robbing the fallen US soldiers of their honor.  They are just a number to be exploited for leftwing political purposes.

These people who exploit the freedom-fighting dead are beneath contempt.  :angry:

You should be ashamed of yourself for your utter contempt (like Melanie etal) for the long-suffering Iraqi people.

Your icon is in a cage in a courtroom being judged by his peers and will, for all intents and purposes, be put to death.  He's not coming back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

......try to spin anything you disagree with into an anti-laft tirade, complete with venom-laden rhetoric and the same similes you would deride if they were invoked by anyone you perceived as being on the left.

"Like a bunch of grave-robbing ghouls"???

Pot, meet kettle.

[Black Dog]

Shut up, asshole.

You kiss your mama with that mouth?.

By the standards of any war of conquest that preceded it, 2000 dead is paltry. Get over it. The people who fret about this are strictly being partisan, and ridiculously so.

Thanks for the admission that this is a war of conquest. But let's not forget that 2,000 is only U.S. military deaths. That doesn't include other coalition deaths, Iraqi military casualties, foreign bystanders (ie. journalists), Iraqi security forces, "contaractors", and, of course, Iraqi civilians (which could be between 26,000 and 100,000). So we're not talking mass death. But then we're not talking total war either, but a small scale guerrilla/civil conflict, th ebiggest losers of which have been Iraqis themselves.

How much do the wor mongers in the US care for the people of Sudan? Tibet? Myanmar? North Korea? All of these people are suffering under the boot of a vicious dictators yet the US does nothing for them. Why are the Iraqs the annointed people worthy of sheading so much US blood and money?

Excellent point. And a predictable response.

[Montgomery Burns]

TLFB should've titled this thread the "Grim Milestone" like the liberal media did.

And then type this emoticon to pretend that you are saddened:

Pics of the far left celebrating at their 2000 American Deaths Party

Rope.Tree. ----- :angry:

[Shady]

Pics of the far left celebrating at their 2000 American Deaths Party

Great post MB! They really look torn up about the dead soldiers huh? Everyone knows they don't give a flying fuck about the soldiers. In reality, they despise the military. It's just all about Bush to them and everyone knows it.

[BHS]

You kiss your mama with that mouth?.

It wouldn't be the worst thing she's ever heard me say.

Thanks for the admission that this is a war of conquest. But let's not forget that 2,000 is only U.S. military deaths. That doesn't include other coalition deaths, Iraqi military casualties, foreign bystanders (ie. journalists), Iraqi security forces, "contaractors", and, of course, Iraqi civilians (which could be between 26,000 and 100,000). So we're not talking mass death. But then we're not talking total war either, but a small scale guerrilla/civil conflict, th ebiggest losers of which have been Iraqis themselves.

What do you mean, let's not forget? That's the only number anybody on the left has in their heads these days.

How much do the wor mongers in the US care for the people of Sudan? Tibet? Myanmar? North Korea? All of these people are suffering under the boot of a vicious dictators yet the US does nothing for them. Why are the Iraqs the annointed people worthy of sheading so much US blood and money?

Excellent point. And a predictable response.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you suggesting that perhaps the US should invade Sudan, Tibet, Myanmar and North Korea? And about the US doing "nothing" about the last case: America has been maintaining tens of thousands of troops on NK's southern border since the 1950s. In case you forgot.

[Black Dog]

Great post MB! They really look torn up about the dead soldiers huh? Everyone knows they don't give a flying fuck about the soldiers. In reality, they despise the military. It's just all about Bush to them and everyone knows it.

You morons. For all you know, the photog pointed the camera and yelled "smile!"

What do you mean, let's not forget? That's the only number anybody on the left has in their heads these days.

Right I forgot: the monolithic "left".

Are you suggesting that perhaps the US should invade Sudan, Tibet, Myanmar and North Korea?

Not necessarily. But all those regimes are demonstratably worse than Saddam Husseins. Yet the U.S. does brisk business with China and Myanmar, pussyfoots around North Korea and works on a policy of appeasement with regard to the Khartoum regime. Meanwhile Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab states enjoy tremendous amounts of support from the U.S. So yeah, it's a little odd that he U.S. would opt to pursue its "freedom" campaign through bombs over Baghdad, rather than by peacefully exterting its considerable influence on some of its clients and business partners.

Here's the other crazy thing: if the U.S. intended to turn Iraq as a bastion of freedom, why did they not have a plan to rebuild it?

The US government had “no comprehensive policy or regulatory guidelines” in place for staffing the management of postwar Iraq, according to the top government watchdog overseeing the country’s reconstruction.

The lack of planning had plagued reconstruction since the US-led invasion, and been exacerbated by a “general lack of co-ordination” between US government agencies charged with the rebuilding of Iraq, said Stuart Bowen, the special inspector-general for Iraq reconstruction, in a report released on Sunday.

His 110-page quarterly report, delivered to Congress at the weekend, has underscored how a “reconstruction gap” is emerging that threatens to leave many projects planned by the US on the drawing board.