2000 and counting...

[Tgace]

People have no clue what "major combat operations" means.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

eu·phe·mism n.

The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive: “Euphemisms such as ‘slumber room’... abound in the funeral business”


de·ni·al n.

Defintion 3 b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.


de·lu·sion n.

The act or process of deluding.

The state of being deluded.

A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.

Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.


hubris n.

Overbearing pride or presumption.




(Now comes the right, with back to back double and triple posts in an attempt to overwhelm with mass...perhaps cutting and pasting definitions from dictionaries in order to mirror this post...perhaps not, given that I've anticipated it.)


Ah, I wish I had more time to play...this is such fun. Such a busy summer, though.



Regards,



Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Well, August has been the deadliest month for American soldiers since the elections in January. 24 hours to go, and 81 soldiers have died. Four Retired Generals did not offer any hope for the next year on Sunday's Meet the Press.

It's been almost a year since Nick started this thread.

Eight Hundred and Eighty United States service people have died in Iraq during that time. Thousands wounded.

 

[michaeledward]

Hey, in the 365 days, and oh, 15 hours since bignick started this thread, 893 American Soldiers have died in Iraq. The total today is 1,893.

 

[michaeledward]

For Service members, September has been a relatively quiet month in Iraq. For the indiginous Iraqi's, it has been a very deadly month.

This morning, the confirmed deaths in Iraq for United States service members reach 1,900.

 

[michaeledward]

CNN is reporting the United States military has lost its 2,000 member to the Iraq Invasion.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.main/index.html

 

[arnisador]

I saw that. As the president's support drops and drops and more info. comes out about pre-war intelligence, this number seems larger all the time.

 

[michaeledward]

Part of the issue is that the number is larger all the time.



The U.S. Military is asking the media to not report the 2,000th fatality as a milestone. Instead, they ask to count other events as milestones. While not enumerating these other milestones, one would assume the reference is to:

A - End of Major Combat Operations - May 1, 2003 - 140 US Dead
B - Turnover of Sovereignty - June 28, 2004 - 858 US Dead
C - Iraqi Elections - January 30, 2005 - 1,437 US Dead
D - Adoption of current draft of Constitution - October 15, 2005 Vote - 1,978 (approx) US Dead


​

Of course, none of these 'milestones' has meant anything for the United States Service men and women, or the United States taxpayer.

The Constitution that was ratified was ratified in an 80 / 20 split. These election results could very easily be predicted based on the tribal breakdown of the Iraqi populace (20 Kurdish, 60 Shi'ite, 20 Sunni). The 20 percent of the population that is fueling the insurgency (revolution - civil war) voted overwhelmingly against the constitution. This 'milestone' will be as meaningless as all the other milestones.

"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. 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."
"The 2,000th Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that is killed in action 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."
"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,"

He (Boylan)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. It also includes, he added, 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.



​

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Can we get the thread title changed to 2,000 and counting?


According to a recent Harris poll, 53% of Americans now think the war was a mistake...and this from the Wall Street Journal, that rampant hotbed of pinko liberalism:

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...iXuh4y3XrvAf9qXXtbheI_20061025.html?mod=blogs


Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

Can we get the thread title changed to 2,000 and counting?

Consider it done.

 

[Tgace]

New trends in military planning: We set a casualty limit and pull out once the limit is reached........hope the next war doesnt open with a D-Day style assault.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

New trends in military planning: We set a casualty limit and pull out once the limit is reached........hope the next war doesnt open with a D-Day style assault.

I'm trying to think when the casualty limit was set by Bush.

So we contrast "D-Day," where we invaded France in the 2nd year of the war to prosecute a war against a nation that had initially declared war against us, who had invaded and occupied nearly all of Europe...and then "Operation Iraqi Freedom," where we invade a ruined and impoverished nation with a skeleton Army--under false pretenses--to satisfy the ego of a dysfunctional President and his kleptocratic cronies. The Secretary of State now says we'll be there as long as ten years. Extrapolate the current casualty rate for another decade.

If you use the WWII reference, can I use "Viet Nam?" The latter might fit better, and be a tad more along the lines of what we're facing. I'm straining to remember when the Iraqi's attacked U.S. territory.

Had we not invaded, Iraq would still be sitting there impotent...still lacking WMD's...and 2,000 American families would have their sons and daughters home with them this Christmas.



Regards,


Steve

 

[Xequat]

If you use the WWII reference, can I use "Viet Nam?" The latter might fit better, and be a tad more along the lines of what we're facing.

Except that we lost over 58000 in Viet Nam.

 

[michaeledward]

Except that we lost over 58000 in Viet Nam.

How many in the first three years?

 

[Xequat]

This link looks pretty good.

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

 

[heretic888]

Except that we lost over 58000 in Viet Nam.

I don't think Steve was just talking about the casualty count in that particular context, Xequat.

Laterz.

 

[Xequat]

Oh, OK then, my mistake. I thought he was.

 

[michaeledward]

How many in the first three years?

1,864 United States fatalities in Vietnam from 1961 to 1965. Four Years. Got it.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I was trying to point out that WWII was fought for a clearly defined reason with a clearly defined plan. There were no post-invasion insurrections in Germany, Japan, or Italy. Those occupations and reconstructions were unresisted. There was uniform international support from our allies. We were unified as a people in our response. The complicating factors of ethnic and religious rivalries didn't exist in the countries we occupied.

People who bemoan the fact that we are NOT unified in our attitude towards this war have...on this forum and elsewhere...taken the stance that we have become a weak nation of sheep not worthy of the sacrifices of our fathers. This is much easier than admitting they elected a deceitful incompetent to the White House whose foreign policies are disasterous.

Pearl Harbor contrasted with non-existant WMD's...seems pretty clear to me that the casualties of 1941-45 were justified. The casualties of 2002-2005 have not been.

I'm waiting for an answer to why we should stay the course. Then too I haven't been given a good reason for why we are on this course at all.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

John Kerry made a speech earlier this week calling for the withdrawl of 20,000 troops from Iraq after the December elections. What he didn't say, is that even with 20,000 troops rotated out of the theater, troop levels will not have moved from last Spring. It is a meaningless numbers trick.

Currently, there are 161,000 Soldiers serving in country. The 'Base Level', before the recent increase for the Constitutional referendum, is 138,000 soldiers.

October 27th, 2005 11:02 pm
US forces in Iraq reach 161,000, highest level of the war

WASHINGTON (AFP) -- US forces in Iraq have swelled to 161,000, their highest level since the US invasion in March 2003, a Pentagon spokesman said.
The increase was due to overlapping troop rotations, said Lawrence DiRita, the chief Pentagon spokesman.
The previous high in US force levels was reached in January, when the number of US troops in the country rose to 159,000 during national elections.
"The last number I saw was 161,000, but you're going to start to see that come down pretty dramatically because that was in-place relief and holdovers," said DiRita.
Lieutenant General John Vines, the number two commander in Iraq, said in September that the numbers would rise for the October 15 constitutional referendum by only some 2,000 troops from a base level of 138,000.
He said at the time that the growth in the number of trained Iraqi security forces meant there was less need for a larger US troop buildup for the referendum, or for the upcoming December 15 national elections.
In the past the US military has built up force levels during key political milestones in anticipation of rising insurgent violence.
"For the next election, I wouldn't be surprised to see it go right back up to 160,000 based on puts and takes and in-place rotations and relief, and everything else," DiRita said.