2000 - Now dead

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by -Cp, Oct 25, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    My hearts go out to their families:

    A U.S. Army sergeant died of wounds suffered in Iraq, the Pentagon announced Tuesday. The death _ along with two others announced Tuesday _ brought to 2,000 the number of U.S. military members who have died since the start of the Iraq conflict in 2003.

    Staff Sgt. George T. Alexander, Jr., 34, of Killeen, Texas, died Saturday at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, of wounds suffered Oct. 17, when a bomb exploded near his vehicle in the central Iraqi city of Samarra, the Defense Department said.

    The announcement was made after Iraqi election officials declared that voters had ratified the new constitution, which the United States hopes will boost the political process seen as key to ending the insurgency and enabling the U.S. and its coalition partners to bring their troops home.

    The grim milestone was reached at a time of growing disenchantment over the war among the American public toward a conflict that was launched to punish Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for his alleged weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found.

    Earlier Tuesday, President Bush warned Americans to brace for more casualties because the U.S. military faces more challenges before it can restore stability to Iraq.

    "The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we have ever faced, unconstrained by any notion of common humanity and by the rules of warfare," Bush told the Joint Armed Forces Officers' Wives' luncheon at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington. "No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead."

    Earlier Tuesday, the military announced the deaths of two Marines in fighting with insurgents last week west of Baghdad. The Marines' names were not immediately made public.

    The spokesman for the American-led multinational force called on news organizations not to look at the 2,000 death as a milestone in the conflict. Lt. Col. Steve Boylan described 2,000 figure as an "artificial mark on the wall."

    "I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq," Boylan said in an e-mail. "The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."

    Boylan said the 2,000th service member to die in Iraq "is just as important as the first that died and will be just as important as the last to die in this war against terrorism and to ensure freedom for a people who have not known freedom in over two generations."

    He complained that the true milestones of the war were "rarely covered or discussed," and said they included the troops who had volunteered to serve, the families of those that have been deployed for a year or more, and the Iraqis who have sought at great risk to restore normalcy to their country.

    Boylan said they included Iraqis who sought to join the security forces and had became daily targets for insurgent attacks at recruiting centers, those who turned out to vote in the constitutional referendum, and those who chose to risk their lives by joining the government.

    "Celebrate the daily milestones, the accomplishments they have secured and look to the future of a free and democratic Iraq and to the day that all of our troops return home to the heroes welcome they deserve," Boylan wrote.



    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/25/D8DF8UM01.html
     
  2. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    It's truly astounding isn't it? 2000 people on our side are dead. Crazy.:eek: I wonder how many of them would still be alive if proper armor for bodies and vehicles had been sent by the pentagon or if there had been a cohesive plan of action following the invasion.:huh:
     
  3. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234
    I agree it is crazy. 1000/year is probably one of the least deadly wars in history.
     
  4. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    Does that make it any less wrong or go toward rationalizing it? Or are you just stating fact?
     
  5. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Re: proper vehicle armor: the HMMWV was originally meant to be a high mobility vehcile. That's what the HM stands for (High Mobility Multi-Wheeled Vehicle). More armor = less mobility. When the Pentagon figured out the threat from IEDs, they started fabricating armor for the HMMWVs. All things considered, the up-armor HMMWV program has been pretty successful.

    This ought to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: my post does not mean that I'm callous to the number of casualties. I knew 3 of those 2000 soldiers personally, and was aquainted with several others.
     
  6. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    How did we establish it was wrong to begin with? Or is that just your opinion?
     
  7. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    My bad, I thought for sure we had established that killing people is wrong...Are you postulating that it is right in some circumstances?
     
  8. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    Killing people in general is wrong? or? what do you you mean by that statement exactly?
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    War is not 'murder.' In any case, while the left :dance: Links at site:

    http://www.facesfromthefront.com/content/view/137/3/

     
  10. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    Are you insane?

    Self defense isnt a justified homicide?
     

Share This Page