home

Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in Iraq

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 10:42:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Trying to get ahead of the headlines that will remind us of the 2,000 American soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq -- a milestone that will likely be was reached today, if it hasn't been already -- the military is cautioning reporters "not to look at the event as a milestone." Lt. Col. Steve Boylan argues that the number is "an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."

Nonsense. The number is real, representing 2,000 men and women who are no longer alive, thanks to the Bush administration. There is nothing "artificial" about those deaths. While it may be thought arbitrary to report that the number of dead has reached 2,000 (as opposed to 1,999 or 2,001), reporting the fact that the Bush administration has sacrificed the lives of a growing number of American soldiers has nothing to do with agendas or motives. It is the tangible result of this administration's decision to rush to war.

Boylan also wants reporters "to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq." His suggestion seems to be that the facts should be suppressed to ease the suffering of family members or to boost morale. Again, nonsense. Friends and family of the fallen have a right to understand the broader consequences of this war, as do the soldiers who continue to serve in Iraq. They understand the immediate consequences -- the deaths of their friends and family -- and their grief cannot be lessened by ignoring the reality that 1,999 other soldiers have also given their lives to serve this administration's ends.

< Miers on Owens and Bush | Kristof's Column Angers Liberals >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in Iraq | 71 comments (71 topical)
    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    The number is real and tragic and never should have happened. The Bush administration went to war on a platform based on manipulation, politics and lies. If you haven't figured this out, yet, Charley, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#2)
    by Beck on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Charley, if Bush pushes you in front of a moving bus should we announce that the bus driver killed you?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    char- it is really for you to get your butt over to Iraq. You are wasting valuable hate here, your understanding about war dead is a mile off. They died for and because of Bush who represents America's will. Sign up now as our troops desperately need some fresh bodies to relieve their double and triple shifts. You seem like one who is willing to fight for your beliefs, or are you just a run of the mill self- entitled wingnut chickenhawk?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Beck.... if Bush pushes you in front of a moving bus should we announce that the bus driver killed you? Nice try but not quite the same thing... If you are going to put that spin on it...why not go to the beginning and claim that these people joining the military in the first place is what got them killed? Bottom line is....if another 9/11 happened ....( and I know most of you blame GW for the first one) the left would be screaming that Bush killed 3000 people due to his inaction! It's the classic NO WIN situation! Our military was called on to do a mission...it's their "job" to protect the American people from adversaries... That's exactly what they are doing. If you don't want to do it...don't join.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    bb-Nice try. This is Bush's private war. A small group of Americans and Israelies conspired to defraud Congress and the UN in order to prosecute the Iraq war. All the blood is on Bush's hands. People who sign up for the military trust that the US President (Commander and Chief) will only risk their lives in order to defend of America. Iraq was clearly not a threat to America. Now because of Bush a large part of the civilized world would like to see America punished for their arrogant and irresponsible acts of war.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#6)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Sure, FDR killed them. He knowingly put them in harm's way. Of course, that has very little to do with the question of whether or not it was worth it. But then you knew that.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#7)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Charley, What branch did YOU serve in? I didnt think so!

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    charley, do you always post on here when you are drunk?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#9)
    by Punchy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Artificial? Wow, is that crass. As if it's a made-up number. As if we shouldn't pay attention or care how high it is... Damn, this leadership has hit new lows trying to defend this diaster. Now they're asking us to IGNORE the number of dead? Not report it? "Just another GI Joe/Jane", they say. Crass and sickening beyond words...

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Why don't you ask the dead among the 40,000 soldiers who didn't receive Kevlar body armor from the Pentagon if Bush killed them? Why don't you ask the dead that weren't among the TWO PERCENT who received armored vehicles to ride in? TL: "It is the tangible result of this administration's decision to rush to war." It's the tangible result of TREASON to take the country to a preconceived, extensively planned, genocidal invasion-for-profit. Gee, I wonder why they are attacking Syria? PNAC: "(Iraq), Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Somalia" and "partition Saudi Arabia." Most people will tell you that Syria is the main stabilizing force in the region. Syria is SIXTY-THREE PERCENT CHRISTIAN. Bush is killing Christians because God told him to.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Charley wrote: "the left hates the military" I never understand this comment. I am solidly on the left, and I am also a proud veteran of the United States Marine Corps. With several friends currently serving in Iraq, I assure you that 2000 lost souls is indeed a sad milestone, not an "artifical mark on a wall."

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Charley or BB--Since you two tough guys obviously have a great deal of combat experience perhaps one of you can rush over to Iraq and volunteer to be the 2,000th American serviceman to be killed there. Since your death will only be an "artificial mark on the wall" it probably won't even hurt and I can assure you that nobody at TL will miss you at all. Semper Fi, Sgt. Kindlon

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    charley and bb, why do you hate america so? interestingly, this is more than for the first 8 years (1957-1965) of our involvement in vietnam (1863), against a decidedly more organized enemy. this doesn't bode well for the next 7 years. speaking of "no win" situations, kind of reminds me of the 2000 election bb.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#14)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    If we accept the logic that Bush killed these 2000 soldiers by sending them to war, do we also accept that JFK and LBJ were responsible for the more than 55,000 soldiers killed in Vietnam? If we accept that idea that because some of the soldiers sent to Iraq did not have the proper Kevlar vests (ignoring for the moment whether this might be due to the massive defense spending cuts enacted under President Clinton) and that their deaths are therefore Bush's fault, do we also accept the idea that LBJ's unwillingness to use the atomic bomb in Vietnam makes him directly responsible for the death of every soldier who died there? How about Korea? How many men Harry Truman did Harry Truman kill by sending our soldiers over there and then not giving them every possible resource at his disposal? Or maybe Somalia? How many of those marines that died in Mogadishu should be layed at Clinton's feet, since he sent them there and didn't give each one a personal M1A1 Abrahms tank to use? Or does this kind of thing only matter when the war, or the president, is one you personally oppose? Just wondering. Instead of trying to score another political scalp over this, we should mourn the loss of another life, period.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#15)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    The commander in chief is responsible for those who he sends to die. Clinton was responsible for those who died under his watch. Bush seems to want to avoid responsibility (hide the coffins, hide the numbers, etc., etc.). If I was commander in chief, I would feel responsible for every serviceman's death and therefore I would weigh very carefully the cost in lives before committing forces. I would be sure of the WMDs. I would be sure that there were no other options that would work without sacrificing American lives. I would have a plan that goes beyond the first few days. And I would go out and make sure I had lots of other countries at my side and my back so our soldiers weren't assuming all the risk. And I am pissed off when people say that we have to sacrifice those soldiers lives to avoid some unknown future terrorist act that might kill us. Maybe you're afraid of terrorists, but I'm not, and I'm not willing to throw our soldiers' lives away out there because you're too frightened at home.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    justpaul, do you have a stack o' strawmen in waiting, or do you just build one as needed? our involvement in both korea & vietnam, unlike iraq, was the result of treaties, and u.n. participation. both s. korea & s. vietnam were attacked by their respective norths. unless you have secret evidence that iraq attacked the u.s., or one of its allies, in 2003, your comparison has no legs. if you do, please share it with the rest of the class. thanks for interest, please come again.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Justpaul wants to go back to Atilla the Hun to divert blame from a Pentagon which WAS CAUGHT underarmoring the vehicles. Don't you remember Rumsfeld saying that there wasn't enough manufacturing capacity? And then the manufacturer said that they were incurring economic losses because they up-hired expecting orders which never came, and that their capacity was no where near reached? Justpaul would rather suggest that LBJ, who was indeed a war criminal, should have nuked Vietnam to save American soldiers who NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Posted by cpinva: "this doesn't bode well for the next 7 years." Especially as NEGLIGENCE by Bush allowed the release to unknown hostiles of: • 400 shoulder-fired missiles. • 280 TONS of high-explosives. • 650,000 pounds of ammunition. • Unknown amounts of cesium and strontium from Tuwaitha and other nuke repositories which were left UNGUARDED for a full month, doors wide open. Yeah, that's really turning the odds in our soldiers' favor, eh, Justpaul? Why didn't he just nuke our own troops, to spare them the insult of his 350+ days of vacation while they have sweated, screamed, and bled in a racist Vanity War for a would-be dictator?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#18)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    You're doin' a heckuva job, Bushie. It's all the fault of the locals; and the governor of Louisiana.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#19)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    “our involvement in both korea & vietnam, unlike iraq, was the result of treaties, and u.n. participation. both s. korea & s. vietnam were attacked by their respective norths.”
    Dragging young men under compulsion by federal prosecution to a foreign land to interfere in a civil war is your gold standard? However you feel about the justification for the invasion of Iraq, these 2000 soldiers willingly signed up for the job. Good grief. And the UN; look, when the Chinese representation on the Security Council is appointed by a democratically elected representative of the Chinese people then you can speak of legitimacy and the UN without looking like a d^mn fool.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#20)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Charley, What branch did you serve in? We are still waiting. Are you a chicken hawk? I suspect so

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Charley: "folks who, like PIL, celebrate the deaths of their fellow citizens." Ah, slander. How have I EVER celebrated the death of a fellow citizen? For the record, I think Bush and Cheney should be stripped of their citizenship BEFORE they are hanged.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Had TChris been around then, he would have sued for peace after the invasion of Iwo Jima. Or going back further, he would have been one of the Democrats calling the Civil War a failure from 1862 until the fall of Atlanta.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    pigwiggle, massive liar: "these 2000 soldiers willingly signed up for the job. Good grief." The National Guard, which is taking 60% of the casualties, never signed up for 'the job.' They are on their third and fourth tours, while Bush vacations. Their families are falling apart; their jobs are gone. Pigwiggle says suck it up.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    no response from chumpley. Shocking to think he doesn't want to answer about being a chickenhawk or not. I know for certain that the left doesn't hate the military. That is a lie perpetrated by those who don't have a foot to stand on in regards to this war in Iraq. I support the troops by not wanting them to waste their lives in a war based on LIES. I know they signed up to protect this country and it's constitution, but not to die just because some wannabe Cowboy can show the world how much more of a man he is than his wimpy daddy. I mourn the death of every single American and innocent Iraqi citizen in this stupid, stupid war.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#25)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    “What branch did you serve in? We are still waiting. Are you a chicken hawk? I suspect so”
    Are you or have you ever been a cop, a fireman, search and rescue, coast guard, how about swat or bomb squad? No matter; these folks are hired and paid to do a very specific job. Cops don’t get to second guess the laws passed by the people, the coast guard doesn’t get to ponder the worthiness of the folks they are risking their lives for, and likewise soldiers don’t get to question the validity or usefulness of the wars they fight. It’s a wonder so many folks are cops and soldiers; but for certain, they all enter their respective service with a clear understanding of the job. And although I loath responding to PinLA; he raises a point I think most might sympathize with … “The National Guard, which is taking 60% of the casualties, never signed up for 'the job.'” As a matter of fact they did. They signed a contract that provides for exactly the kind of duty they are doing now. They shouldn’t have signed it.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Squeaky.... A small group of Americans and Israelies conspired to defraud Congress and the UN in order to prosecute the Iraq war LMAO.... yeah...it's all huge conspiracy. I have some land in Fla. to sell you! LOL Iraq was clearly not a threat to America Not so clear... & not true.... cpinva... charley and bb, why do you hate america so? LOL... boy you guys are funny today. Hello....We are not the ones that have nothing but bad things to say about our country & our Government... You all are the ones that do that... so logic tell us that you all obviously hate America since you never have anything good to say about it!

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#27)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    CP, Back to the "strawman" argument again I see. I didn't realize the list of talking points at MoveOn.org was that short. If a treaty is all it takes to make a war justifiable in your eyes, I look forward to your rousing cheers when american soldiers are dying to defend Taiwan. And speaking of treaties: I believe we have treaty with Israel. Should we be bombing the palestinians who are attacking them? Is this the liberal position? If U.N. involvement is all it takes to defend american deaths, I look forward to your support of every future president who sends soldiers off to die for the next Secretary General's "peace keeping" operations. Thank you for making clear your own position on when the use of military force is obligated. I'm sure it will make those soldiers who die for your beliefs feel warm in their graves knowing that you approve of the specific hopeless cause they died for. Sideshow Paul, Get a grip. You make CP look like conherent by comparison.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    iraq has LESS oil production today. iraq has LESS electrical production today. iraq has LESS potable water today. iraqis are LESS safe today. iraq has FEWER schools open today. iraqi has FEWER troops ready today. iraq has AQ in it today. Exactly what progress is this stupid git talking about!? Soldiers signed up to defend the constitution of the US, not boy george and the neocons' war. 2000 dead american's can't be spun by this regime regardless of how many wrongwingers spew the rnc talking points.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#29)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    jp writes: "do we also accept that JFK and LBJ were responsible for the more than 55,000 soldiers killed in Vietnam?" Uh, yeah. Though the two politicians are not quite equally complicit in the murders: at least for me, it's not entirely clear that JFK would have escalated beyond some small, ambiguous "presence." But then, I could be wrong. As for jp's "point," not to mention his other examples, see scar's comment at 12:55.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#30)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    “Exactly what progress is this stupid git talking about!?”
    They rebuilt some of the $hit they blew up.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    I guess Fitzgerald is buying property these days, I guess you've been busy are selling your property to the wrong customers and haven't noticed who is buying. Time to wake up.
    LMAO.... yeah...it's all huge conspiracy. I have some land in Fla. to sell you! LOL
    conspiracy theory, no, it is a fact.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, director of the force's combined press center
    Speaking as a former enlisted grunt may I just say that this guy is another f-ing weasel. This is the kind of creep that would sell his momma to get promotion to full bird colonel. The officer corps is riddled with this kind of spineless suck-up. They are just as bad as any "insurgents" when it comes to threats posed to the hapless victims out on the front lines of W's shoot-em up fantasies. They are almost in the same group as the 101st Fighting Keyboardist Klowns that post here...almost I said. Quote the weasel:
    "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.
    OK some questions to Lt. Col. Mouthpiece... When is that day? Ten years? Twenty years? If there is a free and democratic Iraq then why can't there be a referendum on whether they want YOU in THEIR free and democratic country?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#33)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Soldiers signed up to defend the constitution of the US, not boy george and the neocons' war.
    Always the "Why are you fighting someone else's war" argument. Whether you agree with war or not, Sailor, the men who stand on that wall took an oath to defend the constitution AND to "well and faithfully discharge the office on which I am about to enter", which means faithfully follow the orders of your superiors to the best of your abilities. So in your argument for or against the war, please do not bring up what the soldiers signed up to do or did not sign up to do. I do not believe this war was right given the reasons that we were told. But I respect the men/women in uniform over there carrying out the orders that they were given by their superiors (directly and indirectly from the president) and trying to stay alive to live to fight one more day for the seemingly unappreciative American public. My point is...if they didnt volunteer to follow these orders...who would? maybe you would be drafted...or your kids...or your spouse.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#34)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Charley, Still waiting to hear which unit/branch that you served in. Fraud

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    char-so what is your problem, got late stage syphillis or something. Or are you just too important to put your beliefs where they would count. It is long been time for you, Charlie the biggest chickenhawk ever, to enlist and fight the real war not your impotent 101 fighting keyboardists fantasy war.
    ...to those actually killing US soldiers(and children, and teachers, and UN aide workers and just about everything else they are able to)...
    Go for it. Listen to Sgt. Terry Kindlon:
    Charley or BB--Since you two tough guys obviously have a great deal of combat experience perhaps one of you can rush over to Iraq and volunteer to be the 2,000th American serviceman to be killed there.
    Be gone!!

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#36)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Its amazing how few Republicans and neocons are now willing to own up to their war. And I know that there will be some comments about how this Democrat or that Democrat voted for the war, but, lets be honest, this was your war. Don't you remember, you were going to show how a war should be fought. No more compromise, no more defeat. If it had come out like you imagined, you wouldn't hesitate to sing the praises of George Bush. Your problem is that you can't take responsibility for your actions. The 2,000 American deaths in Iraq are because of the action of your President and your representatives. If you cant demonstrate that the benefits of our invasion and occupation justify the costs, then what is the point of continuing this march of folly?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Interesting to me how silly those who have never served in the military can be. While I agree that military service is not a requirement to have an opinion on military issues, it does provide insight that non-military types do not have. Yes, our servicemembers signed up as volunteers. Yes, they are obligated to serve as ordered. And yes, they knew that war was a possibility. But to equate that knowledge with an assumption that they would be deployed to a combat zone for multiple tours, with no end in sight, is just dumb. I know that my own job might mean a few overtime hours, but that hardly means I should sit quietly by and take it if my boss tells me I need to work 20+ hours a day, seven days a week, with no additional pay or say-so in the matter. Joining the military should not be equivalent to becoming an indentured servant.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#38)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Instead of engaging in name calling, lets try to take an objective look at our occupation of Iraq. Lets look at Iraq in terms of the Powell Doctrine. According to the Powell Doctrine, in order for the use of military force to be justified it must meet the following criteria: 1. As a last resort, 2. With strong public support 3. only if there is a well-defined national interest at stake. 4. It should be executed with overwhelming force and a clear exit strategy. Which one of these criteria does Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq meet?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    charley the chickenhawk-no it is just you and your fellow cheerleaders.
    I guess we are both frauds
    This is your war go fight it otherwise shut your lying trap. You have no integrity as has been noted above by those who have served.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    JH, nice job of elevating the discourse, thanks. Squeaky, it's obvious to all that mr charley comments from under a bridge. Addressing him directly just means we climb into the muck with him. See JH post above for methods to avoid this. In addition, one can comment on another's posts without engaging them personally. (BTW, I'm still trying to follow my own advice;-) Regardless of spin by bushco, 2000 Americans have died for a war that had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Pig: "They signed a contract that provides for exactly the kind of duty they are doing now. They shouldn’t have signed it." When the Guard signed their contracts, they expected to be deployed ONLY in a bona fide case of WAR. Your suggestion is that since the civilian command is totally out of control, no one should ever sign up at National Guard? Wow, that's honesty. Third and fourth tours -- no WMD, no link to 911, no link to Al Qaeda. No Bin Laden. And so, consequent to a (on their part) good faith/honorable Nat'l Guard service contract, they get to lose their marriages, their jobs, their houses, their cars, and their limbs. Wow, that's some swell enlistment advertizement. Among line soldiers killed for Bush's Folly, add 7,000+ so injured they no longer can serve. It's lovely to see who exactly supports the troops and the Guard. It ain't you pseudo-patriots who carte blanche a traitor, that's for sure.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    So war is only to be fought when: 1. As a last resort, 2. With strong public support 3. only if there is a well-defined national interest at stake. 4. It should be executed with overwhelming force and a clear exit strategy. That means that every war the US has fought, other than small "gunboat dimplomacy" affairs, were mistakes. One could even argue, on the grounds you raise above, that WWII was fought wrong - we should have fought in the Pacific first, and entered Europe only later. Not to mention the fact that US troops are still in Germany and Japan. Here's an exercise - justify the Revolution (as of 1776) and the Civil War (as of 1861) with those thoughts. I think both fail (1) right off the bat, at least from your POV.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    James, Neither the revolution nor the civil war were foreign military interventions, which is what we're really talking about, which is exactly what the founders warned against, and which we seem to be cyclically engaged in. And your four points are filled with ambiguity and contradictions. How do you start, for example, slaughtering as a first resort and still retain sanity, credibility, morality? Give me a better example than your first two, which are not at all analogous to the foreign military interventions that are the subject at hand. Peace, bro.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#44)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    James, Perhaps you can clarify your position. Are you saying that we should intervene militarily 1. not as a last resort 2. Without strong public support 3. without a well-defined national interest at stake. 4. and military action should be executed without overwhelming force and a clear exit strategy. If that is what you are saying then I commend you for your honesty and condemn you for getting us into the Iraqi quagmire.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#45)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    James, Germany declared war on us. Charley- Dont ask a vet "why do you hate the troops" it p*sses us off

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#46)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    “Your suggestion is that since the civilian command is totally out of control, no one should ever sign up at National Guard? Wow, that's honesty.”
    Yes; there is a certain economy of war. When a war or cause is popular folks will join up to be part of what they consider a worthwhile enterprise. When its not, well, look at the recruiting numbers.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Those weren't my four points, they were posted by John Horse. As to when you should go to war "not as a last resort" - well, you might ask the dead of Europe from WWII, who may well have done better had the French and Brits gone to war as a first response in 1936, when the Rhineland was re-occupied (in violation of Versailles Treaty terms).

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#48)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    James, So what you are saying is that you don't agree with the Powell Doctrine. On the other hand, you aren't saying that you disagree with the Powell Doctrine either. How wishy-washy can you get. I maintain that the Powell Doctrine is a good rule of thumb for when the US should intervene militarily. I also maintain that if we apply the Powell Doctrine to Iraq, we are now in a no-win situation because Iraq comes on the short end of almost every criteria. Instead of talking about World War II, lets stick to the subject, Iraq. Those of you who support the war need to demonstrate why you think we can win and why the benefits of this war outweight the costs. The 2,000 Americans who have been killed in Iraq deserve nothing less.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    PW writes...
    "They signed a contract that provides for exactly the kind of duty they are doing now. They shouldn’t have signed it."
    That's exactly what I tell anyone who knows anyone considering military service right now. They shouldn't consider it. Right now, our military is a tool for corrupt interests - not any protector of peace or defender of American freedom. And to that fascist mental midget writing here about "leftists" loving the enemy: who exactly is the enemy? All brown people? The Iraqis? Al Qaeda? It's a shame we can't make them all sew patches on their shirts so we can easily identify who the enemy is and who isn't, because this war - er - propaganda campaign isn't a formal military action against any standing army - it's a worldwide search for a scapegoat to provide an excuse to wrap War Corporatist Imperialism in the flag and call it Apple Pie. You want to sacrifice your children for that garbage, I say to you go directly to the front lines and pass your kevlar vest to a soldier that is there against their better judgement. And not to some comfortable job - go directly to the infantry where the poorest most uneducated enlisted 20 year olds are throwing away their lives so some lard as* on K-Street can draw a six figure salary sitting behind a desk having a Neoliberal wet dream of Plutocrats on their knees in front of a Saudi Oil Spigot. Some of you are way overdue for a visit from the Karma Police.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#50)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Charley, Find a single incident where I "lionize the freedom fighters". Your term. I usually call them insurgents. Some of them are terrorists. You have shown your chicken hawk, cowardly, meanspirited stripes, and you dont even have the decency to slink away. Pathetic little man

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#51)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    I'll even give you the last word. I am done with you.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    why hasn't the recent election, done in spite of the best efforts of the freedom fighters and a good example of one of the actual milestones mentioned in the article, received any coverage or praise here. Let me guess-it's positive news.
    It's the next step towards a Shi'ite theocracy. Sure, let's all go hoop and holler over that, shall we? Meanwhile, can you answer why the Iraqis can't vote on whether they want U.S. and Brit soldiers in their country? It's the Free And Democratic Iraq...the result of "Operation Iraqi Freedom"...a Shining Beacon to the A-rab hordes...etc etc. Yet they can't even have a say in whether an occupying army stays or leaves? Why do you hate democracy, charley?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    "So what you are saying is that you don't agree with the Powell Doctrine." That's right - it's a stupid doctrine. Adherence would have prevented our entry into WWII, for instance.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    The main difference between WWII and the Iraq Cockup is that General Dwight D. Eisenhower was not Donald Rumsfeld and his lapdogs at Pentagon. FDR was not making BILLIONS on crony contracts. FDR had polio, and took some time off to be sick. Bush has taken 350+ days off, to golf and count the money he is making on our soldiers BLOOD. Like his grandfather did, btw. FDR didn't offer his rich friends a huge taxcut in order to pay for the war. He didn't encourage people to buy fancy lane-wide personal tanks and charge their credit cards to the ceiling why burning as much oil as possible. Many other obvious differences make James' point complete and utter walrus vomit. Fish heads and bones, half-chewed by an slippery animal with not much IQ. FDR had one other thing which Bush doesn't have, and couldn't get. A DECLARATION OF WAR, supported by all but 49 members of Congress. Bush's jihad is supported only by a violated resolution, coerced by lies and anthrax letters. It has a lot more in common with Vietnam and the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident which prompted a 97-2 resolution in the Senate which shamefully violated the Constitution, as Bush and the Congress did this time as well. And as an action, it has most in common with the Spanish-American war and the Phillipine Genocide by the United States. Purely a war for geopolitical profit -- a mirror to the genocide of the Plains and California indians a few years before.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#55)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    What I haven't heard is any justification for the deaths of 2,000 American servicemen. My guess is that even those of you who support the war no longer buy Bush's bullsh*t.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#56)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    justpaul- unlike you, charley, pigglewiggle, et al, i'm not a republican sheeple. as a consequence, i needn't use someone else's "talking points" to make my own, it's what i do for a living. oh, i can also spell "coherent" correctly, and use it in a sentence. i've only ever been to the moveon.org site once, wasn't impressed. i found it suffers from the same problem that the rabidly right-wing sites suffer from, facts get lost in the din of partisanship. but hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. to clarify: nowhere did i say, infer or imply that i agreed with either vietnam or korea, merely that the justification for entering both those wars was legitimate; we had treaties, with two sovereign nations, as well as obligations under the u.n. charter. whether we should have entered into those treaties is another discussion. you can put up another strawman, the u.n., but that doesn't change the fact that this country freely entered into those treaties, and agreed to abide by them. since when is a war between two different countries defined as a "civil war"? i would agree that those who enlisted, be it as active duty, reserves, or national guard, accept the possibility that they will be sent off to war. to say otherwise is idiotic. that said, it is the commander-in-chief's job to ensure that they are used properly, and given the necessary tools to do the job. in that respect, the bush administration, with regards to both afghanistan & iraq, has failed miserably. none of this is an insult to our military, which you well know. why you should insist otherwise is one of the great mysteries around here. perhaps, it's a cover for your own intellectual inadequacies. i did read the entire statement. it was self-serving, at best "religion and patriotism are the last refuges of the scoundrel." "well, your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore, it's already overcrowded, from your dirty little war."

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    Or going back further, he would have been one of the Democrats calling the Civil War a failure from 1862 until the fall of Atlanta. (James Robertson) I'm a little late here, but just out of curiosity - how do you know the results of the Civil War (emancipation by outside force; compare the Iraq war) wasn't counterproductive in the long run? How do you know secession of the South wouldn't had been a good thing for everyone involved?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    et al.... Did you know???? Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq? Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people? Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq? Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating? Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program? Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?! They have 5- 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment. Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers? Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion? Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers? Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks? Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities. Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations? Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October? Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%? Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations? Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004? Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently? OF COURSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T YOU KNOW? YOUR LEFT WING MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL YOU! Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents, Abu Ghraib and videos of roadside bombings The lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq , .... It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourage American citizens. And also it keeps any credit for doing good from President Bush…. Very sad to live in a world were lies and deceit come so easily... especially by the press! ---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    BB-Ha ha ha ha ha, good one. I needed a laugh. Your sense of irony is astounding for a wingnut.
    ---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.
    Check out who the DOD will hire as their “chief Pentagon spokesman.” link

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    BB, thou dost protest overmuch, methinks... Your pathetic attempts to wring victory out of failure is the greatest indication of your Kool-Aid addiction. What are all of these things if the road to the Baghdad Airport is the most dangerous stretch of pavement in the world? What do all of these things mean to the roughly 25,000 Iraqis who've been killed by insurgent attacks, or as American "collateral damage?" What of the recent poll showing that 45% of Iraqis now support the "terrorists?" How about the fact that 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation? The Sunnis make up less than 25% of Iraq's population, BB...so if 45% of the people support the "terrorists" attacking U.S. Forces, do the math...that's over 10 million people who, before the invasion, didn't even know who Al-Zarqawi was... Great work, BB...at this rate, all of the Middle-East will be lining up behind Bin Ladin before the end of the decade. Any other "Great Ideas?"

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#61)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    BB, Can we declare victory and bring the troops home?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#62)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    BB, i call BS. provide links please. From the Dod "Report to Congress Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" The iraqi 'navy' consists of 500 sailors. The iraqi 'air farce' consists of 100 airmen. 3 operational squadrons with only 100 airmen? Impossible! And none of them are under iraqi 'operational control'. Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations? That's a lie, and the polio vaccines were given by UN and charity agencies, not the US. "You don't see it because good news doesn't make news necessarily," di Mistura said. Di Mistura said that throughout Iraq, 223 schools were partially restored and another 115 completely restored. BB, you just spouted a bunch of lies and thought no one would check.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    Laughing jackass... Any other "Great Ideas?" Yeah dude...let's pull out & say forget it.... I'm sure your boy Osama would love that, as you would...(see a parallel here by any chance?) Oh...yeah... and I really took it in the teeth...LMAO... Sailor... I gave you a way to look it up.... Believe what you want...you will anyway... Just keep beleiving that America sucks...we are liars, killers, racists & rapists... Hummm.... why do you stay in such a nasty country?

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#64)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    BB This reminds me of the propaganda put out by the Coalition Provisional Authority 2 years ago. I'm sure you remember it, but in case you don't here is a sample (get your pom poms ready) Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty. (October 2003). That was then. You are probably wondering how many more combat ready Iraqi battallions there are. Well wonder no more According to General Casey and Abazaid, the number of Iraqi battallions that are ready for combat has dropped from three to (drum roll) one. This is progress????

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    John Horse.... If you are going to provide an actual link that you want me to read... try pulling one from someplace where the main headlin isn't "Impeach Bush".... I'm sure they aren't biased in their reporting at all....LOL I get my info from people that are there. And believe me...they paint a waaaay different story than you get on the biased news here! But...as I tell others... believe whatever it is that props up your position...facts be damned.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    The problem with conservatives who want to de-emphasize the amount of dead service men and women, it begs the question as to exactly what number WOULD start raising questions amongst them? If 2,000 isn't "enough", what about 3,000? 5,000? 10,000? The insurgency certainly isn't abating, and the amount of prepared, stand-alone Iraq Batallions are DECREASING, not increasing, so more American deaths are inevitable. http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues35.html And for you older folks wondering about service, don't worry. The Pentagon has no problem shipping you over there. http://www.thecobraslair.com/National%20Issues34.html --Cobra

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#67)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    cpvina-
    “unlike you, charley, pigglewiggle, et al, i'm not a republican sheeple.”
    Dismiss my points, out of hand, ad homonym. I’m not a republican, nor a fan of this administration. In fact I have been critical of them on this very thread. Fine, pat yourself on the back for being ‘talking point’ free, it sounds like the same old crap to me.
    “since when is a war between two different countries defined as a "civil war"?”
    The arbitrary division of the Korean peninsula lasted less than 5 years while the division of Vietnam lasted 3 post-Geneva; and other countries decided the partitioning of both. Don’t be thick, they were most certainly civil wars.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#68)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    Jeez BB, you are a liar, you didn't cite any links. I looked them up, cited the DoD, which BTW, you couldn't provide links to, and THEIR site says you are a liar. But this isn't about you, it is about 2000+ Americans dying in an illegal war. Get over yourself, dead americans are SO MUCH more important that your lies to create more dead Americans!

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    No amount of dead soldiers or civilians would deter the Goon Squad trollers on TL. They want to believe so badly, they believe so badly, that they don't really want there to be human rights or facts in the way. It's the damn facts. And the damn humans. Genocide used to be easier, before they invented the word genocide.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#70)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    Sailor, Actually, I think some of BB's facts are true, but misleading. Lets assume that everything that BB said was true. Now lets compare these benefits to the costs: over a $1 billion a week and 2,000 lives lost (see link for other costs). Ask yourself if the benefits justify the costs.

    Re: Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    Good one, Terry! How are your boys doing? I trust that they are safe. As hardboiled as I may think I am, I broke down in tears today after seeing all those brothers and sisters in arms peering out at me, so damned sure of their sky-is-the-limit futures. God, they looked SO DAMNED YOUNG!!!!! So gung-ho, so full of idealism, so lied to, so very f@%king dead. Today, for the first time - for emotional reasons rather than rational ones - I actually looked into whether I could enlist. However, I'm too old and the knees just aren't what they used to be. And, my wife would probably divorce me. And my 5-year old just wouldn't understand. My time is past. I wasn't a Marine; I was Army, for a short stint. Just a grunt. I actually still miss it. And the thought of dying doesn't bother me. It's the thought of LIVING and seeming not to be able to make much of a difference that does (however, as an attorney, I can see, every day, that I AM making a difference in peoples' lives, one person at a time). Seeing their faces was just too much. NOW I know why Bush will do anything he can to keep this proud nation from grieving for its young. You BASTARD! And just what do you think our military is going to do when they discover, once again, that they have died for the politicians' lies!? Paint a target on Bush because, sooner or later (I hope MUCH sooner), be is DONE.

    Military Tries to Manage News of 2,000 Dead in Iraq | 71 comments (71 topical)