2000 - Now dead

-Cp

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2004
2,911
362
48
Earth
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
 
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:
 
Hagbard Celine said:
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:

I agree it is crazy. 1000/year is probably one of the least deadly wars in history.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
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:

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.
 
Zhukov said:
How did we establish it was wrong to begin with? Or is that just your opinion?
My bad, I thought for sure we had established that killing people is wrong...Are you postulating that it is right in some circumstances?
 
Hagbard Celine said:
My bad, I thought for sure we had established that killing people is wrong...Are you postulating that it is right in some circumstances?

Killing people in general is wrong? or? what do you you mean by that statement exactly?
 
War is not 'murder.' In any case, while the left :dance: Links at site:

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

Taking a Number
"The Pentagon announced that Staff Sgt. George T. Alexander Jr., 34, of Killeen, Texas, died Saturday in San Antonio of injuries sustained Oct. 17.

Alexander was wounded in Samarra, a town 60 miles north of the Iraqi capital. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga."

Unfortunately, the media and the anti-war factions will never see Staff Sgt. Alexander as more than number 2000--a number used to wage a political battle.


Number 1,999 was Sgt. Jacob D. Dones, 21, of Dimmitt, Texas, died in Hit, Iraq, on Oct. 20, when his forward operating base was attacked by enemy forces using indirect fire. Dones was assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, Calif.

Number 1,998 was Lance Cpl. Kenneth J. Butler, 19, of Rowan, N.C., who died Oct. 21 from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces near Al Amariyah, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

Number 1,997 was Cpl. Seamus M. Davey, 25, of Lewis, N.Y., who died Oct. 21 from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the vicinity of Haqlaniyah, Iraq. He was assigned to Marine Forces Reserve’s 4th Force Reconnaissance Battalion, 4th Marine Division, Reno, Nev. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward).

Unlike the pundits who will bray this evening on the cable channels and the activists who will hold vigils in Washington, D.C., I have been to the country where these men died.

I have been to the exact village where 1,998 died.

I have walked the dirt roads of Al Amariyah. I have been in businesses and houses around Amariyah. I have rode in a humvee up and down the bomb littered roads leading into Amariyah.

I may not have known Lance Corporal Butler, but I spent months with Lance Corporals--many in the Corps for less than a year--who patrolled Amariyah.

I lived at Camp Smitty for month, the Forward Base where he likely slept, played cards and listened to his i-pod. I spent days baking in the sun, walking and bouncing around in a humvee on that patch of desert where the fertile canal country ends and the wasteland begins.

If Butler was anything like the other Lance Corporals I filmed for months on end in Iraq he was a smart, strapping, kind and fearless man.

As an grunt in an infantry battalion, Butler could run and hike wearing 60 pounds of gear. He could endure heat and stress that would kill lesser men. And everyday he went out into Amariyah, patrolled the villages and the main roads knowing that any minute could be his last.

And he volunteered to do it.

Butler was willing to stand on a wall that most Americans are scared to look at, let alone get close to.

Numbers 2,000, 1,999 and 1,997 also strapped up every day to stand on a wall many in America are willing let crumble. And to those who would let that wall crumble, they are just numbers.

They are not men of action and conviction, to the anti-war faction, they are merely numbers of sufficient quotient to send a press releases and hold press events.

I asked Marines all across Al Anbar province two questions:
1. If something goes bad and you die here. What would you think of people who used your death to protest the war.
2. After being here, and knowing what you know, would you still join the Marines/volunteer for this deployment?

The answers were invariably the same.

They did not want their death to be used as a prop and they would make the same decision all over again. These young Lance Corporals and Non-Commissioned Officers volunteered to join the Marines, many with the intent of coming to Iraq. And while few would say they like war, they all recognize the necessity of it.

The Marines and soldiers who fight in Iraq are not numbers, but the media and certain groups are treating them as if they were. Number 2,000 was a national treasure, just as number 1,435 was and number 2,038 will be. For what is the value of a man who will fight a war for others who despise him?

But for those who are willing to take action, there would be no wall at all hold back evil and those men and women on the wall deserve more than a number.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
My bad, I thought for sure we had established that killing people is wrong...Are you postulating that it is right in some circumstances?

Are you insane?

Self defense isnt a justified homicide?
 
Hagbard Celine said:
My bad, I thought for sure we had established that killing people is wrong...Are you postulating that it is right in some circumstances?


Did they not die for a purpose? Did they not take the fight to the enemy so that their fellow countrymen would not have to deal with more bombings in their homeland? Everyone of those brave men and women deserves to be honored not used as a prop in a political game BY ANY POLITICIAN. Thats just sick. To feign that your heart goes out for them then spit in the face of their effort in the next breath is so incredible evil its almost unfathomable. Im not saying that you are specifically doing it in this thread but as a general statement to all those that cry for the dead and then disparage their cause with a smiling face all for their own twisted agenda. Frailty thy name is 'liberal.'
 
If we stayed in Iraq for the next couple of centuries, we might reach the body count of WWII. Was that unjustified, poorly planned and underequipped? If we stayed for a little less time, we'd hit the casualty count of the Civil War. Was that unjustified, poorly planned, and underequipped?

This has got to be the best fought war in history to have only 2000 dead in this much time. Now, I mourn the death of any soldier, but I feel like I'm mourning far less than I would in other wars. Unlike the elitist media, I do not revel in every death as yet another reason to bash George W. Bush. To be honest, I think the media just loves seeing the soldiers die, since every death is yeat another way to spin the story to try to turn the public against all forms of armed conflict.

You know, I'd love to live in a world without war. This, however, is not and never will be that world. I'd also like to see a world with bloodless wars. This, however, is not and never will be that world. So I think I'll stick to fighting the good fight and sucking it up when the casualties hit. One day, that fallen soldier may be me, and if somebody was sitting back home trying to make sure that my death meant nothing, I'd haunt him to the grave.
 
Just what I thought. 2000 or two million, it doesn't matter to you guys. The killing is rationalized because it's in the name of the ol' red, white and blue.
 
Hagbard Celine said:
Just what I thought. 2000 or two million, it doesn't matter to you guys. The killing is rationalized because it's in the name of the ol' red, white and blue.

You got a problem with that?
 
insein said:
Did they not die for a purpose? Did they not take the fight to the enemy so that their fellow countrymen would not have to deal with more bombings in their homeland?

How are these men dying so that I don't have to deal with more bombings in my homeland?

How is this taking the fight to the enemy, if 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia?
 
Max Power said:
How are these men dying so that I don't have to deal with more bombings in my homeland?

How is this taking the fight to the enemy, if 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia?

well...where are all the freedom fighters at the moment....iraq

lets bring the boys home....are all the freedom fighters going to suddenly open a falafel shop?

now you want to attack saudi arabia? damn dude i thought you wanted us to stop fighting.
 
Hobbit said:
If we stayed in Iraq for the next couple of centuries, we might reach the body count of WWII. Was that unjustified, poorly planned and underequipped? If we stayed for a little less time, we'd hit the casualty count of the Civil War. Was that unjustified, poorly planned, and underequipped?

This has got to be the best fought war in history to have only 2000 dead in this much time. Now, I mourn the death of any soldier, but I feel like I'm mourning far less than I would in other wars. Unlike the elitist media, I do not revel in every death as yet another reason to bash George W. Bush. To be honest, I think the media just loves seeing the soldiers die, since every death is yeat another way to spin the story to try to turn the public against all forms of armed conflict.

You know, I'd love to live in a world without war. This, however, is not and never will be that world. I'd also like to see a world with bloodless wars. This, however, is not and never will be that world. So I think I'll stick to fighting the good fight and sucking it up when the casualties hit. One day, that fallen soldier may be me, and if somebody was sitting back home trying to make sure that my death meant nothing, I'd haunt him to the grave.

Actually, the casualty count for American soldiers is roughly 10X higher than you think it is, as it includes seriously injured soldiers as well.
Not to mention the possibility of reactions to exposure to depleted uranium, which could affect soldiers in the years after they return.
Gulf War Syndrome?

Part of the reason the bodycount is so low is due to our advancements in medical treatment. If some of these people had taken the same hits in Vietnam or WW2, they would have died shortly after.

But hey, you know. These men and women volunteered for their jobs.
 
Doesn't matter if they're from Iraq. What matters is that they're in Iraq. If they weren't there, they'd be here, and if they were here, we'd have 2000 dead civilians, which, in my mind, is far worse than 2000 dead soldiers. If civilians are dieing from foreign powers, it means the soldiers, by choice or not, aren't doing their jobs.
 
manu1959 said:
well...where are all the freedom fighters at the moment....iraq

lets bring the boys home....are all the freedom fighters going to suddenly open a falafel shop?

now you want to attack saudi arabia? damn dude i thought you wanted us to stop fighting.

Where are all the freedom fighters at the moment? I think to truly answer that question, we would have to invade every country and see who attacks us.
 

Forum List

Back
Top