Today, the United States passed the thousand mark in the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq. While many of us enjoyed a day off from work as the Labor Day holiday marks the winding-down of summer (and a furious rush to Election Day), 16 American soldiers were killed during an upsurge in fighting over the past two days.

Reactions---as one might expect in a politcal year--differed.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was quoted on MSNBC.com In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld noted earlier in the day that U.S. forces were soon “likely to suffer the 1,000th casualty at the hands of terrorists and extremists in Iraq.”

He tried to put that in context. “Combined with U.S. losses in other theaters in the global war on terror, we have lost well more than 1,000 already,” he said, adding that the “civilized world” passed that mark long ago, pointing to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and attacks elsewhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5911852/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5932640/

Democratic candidate John Kerry said, “Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq.”

At the time of this posting President Bush has not commented on this "tragic milestone."

I think many of us had forgotten about the troops in Iraq. When the transfer of power occurred it seems the interest of the media, the politicians and most Americans went with it. We focused instead on the political conventions, the Olympics, the Swift Boat controversy, the polls, sports, summer movies, Paris Hilton and high profile legal cases. What we didn't focus on was that our soldiers did not stop being killed, wounded and maimed in Iraq just because it fell off the front page.

On MSNBC they asked a simple question and I'm going to do the same here:

What does it mean now that 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq?

What does it mean now that 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq?

The difference between 999 dead and 1000 makes this a more emotional issue. I don't mean this analogy in a flippant way, but it's much like the emotion of having a 30th or 50th birthday as compared to a 29th or 49th.

I think this is probably bad news for the Bush campaign. If oil goes to $50.00 per barrel it will be another emotional milestone.

I don't anticipate a change in policy, but I do hope we vacate Iraq before 1000 becomes 2000. The tragedy of death is that it's irreversible. Not only have we lost 1000 men and women, but the potential contributions these people (most of them young) might have made to American life. Tragic!

I wish this board had an emoticon that expresses tears.

Since my wife departs tomorrow back to Iraq for another 5 months, I'd certainly like to see option 1. But it's simply not feasible to cut and run. We made a commitment and are currently entrenched in seeing this through. I foresee a gradual withdrawl over the next year to 18 months, with the last troops rotating over around two years from now. But that's just my prediction.

I don't understand what significance the 1000th casualty has. One casualty is a milestone. As is every one after.........

The sad fact of the matter DT is that the Dems and Liberals are using our soldiers deaths as political ammunition. Could you imagine if the same practice was used during WWII.

The sad truth of the matter is that both sides are using the Iraq War as political ammunition. Staying the course is basically the Republican campaign.

The 1,000 death mark should not have an impact on our policy.
If the mission was to get the threat of Saddam Hussein out of Iraq, then we are done.
If the mission was to get WMDs out of Iraq, that seems to have been accomplished ahead of time.
If the mission was to create help provide for a stable government in Iraq on our way out, then we still have some work to do.
If the mission was to create a model of democracy for the middle east. I have to ask why? Why Iraq? Why a model of democracy? And how does this connect to the war on terror?

I am favor for getting out of Iraq. We already accomplished goals one and two. We need to do our best to secure number three. But remaking Iraq into a model for other nations, that was a goal that overestimated United States abilities and resolve. It needs to be revised downward and spun to show that we accomplished our missions as we depart and offer incentives and threats (carrots and sticks) to Iraq to run down the road of stable government free of hostile takeovers.

And the Republicans are using them as pawns to get re-elected. Just imagine if the same practice had been used in Vietnam... oh, wait, they were.

The only significance of "1000" is that it's an "odometer" number. The odometer changing over to a whole new set of numbers is a big thing for some folks. I agree with DTOM: every casualty is a milestone... and a reason to dislike the pathetic rich old white men who sent them off to war.

What does it mean now that 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq?

CAN WE GET OFF THE NUMBERS.

I mean come on. It should be ONLY 1,000 have died in Iraq.

Did you know that every year 1,000 college students commit suicide? Does that mean we should pull out of the Universities? The Universities are misleading our students into believing they are going to get a 'quality education' and then force these students to commit suicide. We have a serious issue on our hands, all these young students have know one speaking form them.

Get Moore on the phone let's make a movie.

Source

First, let me say Dontreadonme that I pray that your wife has a quiet and uneventful five month stay in Iraq and she comes home safely.

Secondly, Sleeper, you have an extremely selective memory if you think it's JUST the "Dems and Liberals" who are "using" the troops for "political ammunition." If you don't think the "Repubs" and "Conserves" haven't pimped our soldiers for political gain as well, you are blinded by your partisan distaste.

What's so magical about passing 1000 dead in Iraq? Nothing really--not unless it's your father/mother/sister/brother/wife/husband/friend/lover who is coming back in a flag-draped box. There have been far, far more than a thousand Iraqis killed and nobody's squirting any tears for them.

But it creeps me out when people like Rumsfeld act like American soldiers are like so many Doritos (Kill all you want--we'll send more.). It disturbs me when the President of the United States taunts insurgents and terrorists to "Bring it on" and when they DO, has nothing to say about it except how "tragic" it all is.

It really gnaws at me when what Josef Stalin's quote that A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic seems to become the de factopolicy of the Bush Administration as long they acknowledge the slaughtering and maiming of our soldiers. Let's take the tortured logic of yehoshua and agree that 1000 dead Americans in Iraq ain't no big thing.

Neither was six million Jews in the Holocaust. Neither was 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. You say 335 Russians, over half of them children, got skragged in a terrorist attack last week? Hey--they're only Russians! How many thousands have been slaughtered in the Sudan? Bor-ring! How many people die falling in their bathtubs? I'll see your apple and raise you a orange.

I have the sick feeling that there are people in the Bush Administration that flatly do not care how many American soldiers die as long as their policy objectives are achieved.

And that angers and disgusts me. It really does.

Has President Bush acted in any way different than any other president in any past war? I do not understand where your assumptions are coming from.

You paint the picture that the Bush administration are a bunch of evil-doers who care nothing for our soliders and do not care if they die. That is incomprehensible to me. From television and internet stories from soldiers i have seen evidence to support the exact opposite of what you believe the intentions of the Bush administration are. When Bush went to visit Ground Zero on 9/11, when he goes to visit soldiers in hospitals, and just recently when he visited fire fighters in Queens. He shows a very human and emotional side of him that is rarely seen in the media.

The death of the soldiers are very tragic, yes. I do not understand what words Bush or Rumsfeld can give to make the situation any better. It is a shame that soldiers died, but this is war...And in war, soldiers die. The only thing that a leader can do is to remember the loss and to make sure that those good soldiers did not die in vain. Make sure that their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their families means freedom and a life without terror for 25 million people. And that is what the Bush administration is doing in my eyes.

I have the sick feeling that there are people in the Bush Administration that flatly do not care how many American soldiers die as long as their policy objectives are achieved. And that angers and disgusts me. It really does.

Do you know how many people die in automobile accidents a year?

41,611 people. So we should outlaw car dealerships. Those fight cats in the Ford company sit around and don't care how many people die in cars. That should make anyone angry too.

If one is angry over 1,000 Volunteer troops dying in Iraq during their call to duty, then that same person would be upset over the 41,611 people in automobiles.

I'll grant you each and every one of your points about Bush's "human and emotional" side lederuvdapac if you'll grant me just one: If Dubya is so "human and emotional" why hasn't he as the Commander-In-Chief shown up for ONE funeral of a fallen soldier in Iraq.

Clinton did. Bush41 did. Reagan did. Carter did. Ford did. Why can't Bush43? Show up at Dover and salute one casket. Why is that so difficult to arrange?

yehoshua, I can't argue the logic of your example. I wouldn't even presume to try. I would ask though, What in the world do people dying in automobile "accidents" have to do with deliberate acts of WAR?

Please check again on what the subject of this thread is. It's not about how many people die in auto accidents, smoking cigarettes, falling in bathtubs, choking on a ham sandwich or heart attacks brought on by high-risk sex acts. It's about American soldiers dying in war and I would appreciate it if you don't trivialize their deaths with spurious comparisons.

Please give this topic the same serious intent and respect you would want for one of your creation.

yehoshua, I can't argue the logic of your example. I wouldn't even presume to try. I would ask though, What in the world do people dying in automobile "accidents" have to do with deliberate acts of WAR?

Your question to the thread is: What does it mean now that 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq? I say it means nothing, 1,000 Americans die all the time. This is not "trivializing" the deaths of soldiers, it is putting it into perspective in the grand scheme of life. People die in war, "auto accidents, smoking cigarettes, falling in bathtubs, choking on a ham sandwich or heart attacks brought on by high-risk sex acts" all the time, all for different reasons.

It is trivializing the deaths of the soldiers in Iraq by putting their names on display and saying 'how many more need to die before Bush cares?' It is trivializing when one makes a movie and does voice overs for the thoughts of dead Iraq Soldiers. It is trivialized when people parade the 1,000 number around like a banner covered in blood and say, 'see, see, see what Bush has done, he needs to be out of office.'

The soldiers volunteered to die in Iraq, and most, given the opportunity would do it again. These 1,000 Soldiers understand better then anyone what it means to die for the principals freedom.

I would never trivialize their deaths like some threshold number that means freedom isn't worth this. I honor the lives of the men and women overthrew by recognizing the reasons they are dying in Iraq, not by politicizing their deaths as a campaign to stop Bush from another four years in the White House.

What does it mean now that 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq?

It means what it has always meant; young people are dying for a bunch of old men’s rotten decision to invade a country. And I’m sure we’ll see the 2,000...3,000 marks as well. Iraq is the tarbaby of the Bush administration, and we will struggle to free ourselves of that sticky mess for years, regardless of who is occupying the Oval Office. Each and every death is an unnecessary tragedy.

A mother of one of the 20-year old Marines killed in Labor Day’s violence was justifiably outraged at her son’s death. She had the guts to ask why her son died in an unnecessary war. Now, you can discount her as a grieving mom, but there are 999 other grieving moms out there who probably wonder the same thing.

Let’s talk another number: the number of soldiers’ funerals our commander in chief has attended: 0

I don’t think the Bush administration cares about the soldiers as individuals; as long as "the troops" serve the administration’s political needs, then that is all that counts. This administration has proven that by cutting veteran's benefits, so that when they come home with missing limbs or other horrible injuries, they will have to fight as hard or harder than they did in the hellhole called Iraq to get the medical care THEY DESERVE in the country they supposed were FIGHTING FOR. Speaking of numbers, nearly 7,000 soldiers have come home maimed in some way.


Now that’s what I call supporting our troops.

Here are some pictures of the casualties of the Bush administration's lack of planning and poor decision-making: Iraq War Wounded Would you deny them health care?

Regardless of the reasons we were given for getting into this mess, our military men and women deserve better.

As for yehoshua’s belittling of soldiers’ deaths as being no different than any other deaths – even suicides, for gawd’s sake – I’d get my second strike if I said what I really thought about that, and well, it just ain’t worth it.

I don't support the use of soldiers or their deaths by some in the ABB crowd or casual mis-representations about veterans benefits, but neither can this go unanswered:

They most certainly did not volunteer to die in Iraq! And it's ludicrous to believe that those who died would do it again. Not one Iraqi life is worth a mother never seeing her daughters again, or a husband never seeing his wife. Or parents burying their child.....

Those who died in Iraq, did so in the service of their brothers, not 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. They died because they were there for the guy to their right or left, not Bush, not Kerry.
The politization of their memory by either side is disgusting.

What does it mean now that 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq?

To me, it means the same as one American dying in Iraq: it is tragic and senseless. I'm not sure if there are many, nighttimer, who had "forgotten" about our men and women in Iraq, but I am certainly not one of them. Not a day goes by that they are not in my thoughts and prayers. Like DTOM, I don't feel that the deaths should be politicized, but I also believe that, as nighttimer said, there are people in the Bush Administration that flatly do not care how many American soldiers die as long as their policy objectives are achieved (though I suspect Bush himself is not one of them).

That said, there are doubtless those in the Kerry campaign who would just as soon send 1000 men and women to their deaths if it served their political ends. That said, I don't see death serving the ends of the Democrats at the moment - and I feel certain that John Kerry as an individual has much more respect for what can happen in battle than those who have never seen combat - and has personal, visceral reasons to oppose sending people into harm's way for no reason apart from "policy objectives".

Regardless of our feelings here, though, "the 1000" will be used as a political football - an act of sheer ignorance.

yehoshua, your point about deaths statistics is interesting and well taken. How then do you feel about the upcoming 3 year anniversary of 3000+ deaths? Do you think that these deaths in reference to the "grand scheme of life" were not properly put into perspective?

Anyway, as to the number 1000 itself, it is indeed a psychological crutch but it is still significant. I believe that the number of deaths in Iraq has tripled since "Mission Accomplished" (someone can correct me if I'm wrong). Eyeore sums up my thoughts on Iraq nicely. What were the goals for the Iraqi invasion? Have they remained unchanged? And have we achieved them?

Saddam Hussien is out of power. No WMD are to be found in Iraq. No WMD-related programs are currently ongoing in Iraq. An interim government has been installed.

The above are reasonable and achievable goals: mission accomplished. So, why are we still there? Apparently, there are some unfinished goals:

1. Democratic elections
2. Interrogations
3. "Rule of Law"
4. Becoming "safer"
5. Supressing terrorists
6. Delaying the inevitable civil war

Any I missed? Note that only point 1 is concrete. The rest are nebulous, ill-defined things. This basically means to me that Iraq War doesn't have a "victory"; it'll just be over whenever we pull the US troops out.

I would say it means the same thing as it did back in the 60's and early 70's in Vietnam.

A. Both wars were started under false assumptions.

B. Both wars were started for the same purpose--to make money for corporations.

C. Countless lives lost because people at the top wanted to start a war.

D. In both cases the American public was kept in the dark.

Nothing disgust me more than the powerful elite getting us involved in warfare because of their selfish motives.

What recourse does the American publice have? There seems to be no hope because ever so often our elected leaders (with our welfare in mind) lead us into war.

As the death toll of soldiers who have died in Iraq nears 1000, and slide show photographs from funeral processions are plastered accross the internet, one can't help but fell a deep wrenching in the bottom of their heart. But as the 3 years aniversary of September 11th is coming up, something struck me that seemed almost more disturbing. In the 3 years after September 11th, why have their been no photographs of 9/11 victims in their caskets? Why don't 9/11 mourners get the same publicity that killed soldiers in Iraq recieve? Are these tragides not equal in their entirety? Are the deaths of the helpless who were killed in the fire hells of 9/11 not worth avenging to these media sources, who continously pour the worst news they can find? Are the deaths of the helpless children, and grandchildren of mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters who were lost in 9/11 not worth protecting? As the death toll rises near 1000, and critics say we shouldn't be there, the question arises, do we need to leave? Does the US need to leave? Our brothers in arms are being cowardly assalted, how can one say there deaths are not deservable of avenging? When a police officer is involved in a shootout and his partner is mortally wounder, does the officer back down? Does the officer leave? The problem with deaths in Iraq is not our presence of our military being there, it lies in the way our military presence is conducted there. One needs to ask themselves why suicide bombers are allowed to run close enough to a convoy and kill themselves and 7 marines. One needs to ask themselves why a car driver is allowed to stay in their vehicle so that when 2 marines come to inspect it, the driver can detonate his explosives. Our freedom was not gained by backing down, nor will it remain if we do. Yes the death toll in Iraq is a problem. Yes the death toll in Iraq is a tragedy, yes the situation needs to be better handled. But how dare people disrespect the fallen heroes who died defending the freedom of every American in the US. How dare people say "we need to leave" Maybe the US was wrong in going to Iraq, but after the bloodshed of US soldiers that has taken place, how dare people demand that the US puts it tail inbetween its legs and runs home. Never before in this conflict has our military presence been more important. These terrorists need to be obliterated, so that we will never have to worry, and wonder if Americans are safe. We owe that to those soldiers, and we owe that to the victims of 9/11. And sadly we owed it to victims of terrorists before 9/11. The same terrorists who planned 9/11, and the same terrorists who struck more than 5 times against Americans, and were never put down. We owe that to our fellow Americans.

so lets just quit, that'll make a great tribute to the cause the 1000 soldiers in Iraq died for. lets just leave, that will show terrorists what kind of people americans are. just quit. I'm glad that's not the attitude our countrys founding fathers had when fighting the redcoats.


these colors dont run

What does it mean now that 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq?
-----------------------------------------
It means that even a technological superpower like US, which currently leads all the military powers in the world in substituting equipment for people, has a price to pay for it's ambitions and "policy objectives". Human price, and whatever your opinion on the war might be, this price is the most precious to this nation, however small, be it 100 soldiers or 1000.
This also underscores the important fatc that in modern world, the toughest wars fought are informational ones, i.e. the media of the countries having stronger iarmies is the major adversary of these armies. "Omniscient" and "morally-righteous", these media can break the country's will and desire to victory long before a weakling enemy even starts to shake our faith in troops. This paragraph can probably open doors into a whole new topic, but to make the pont clear, we "lost " Tet offensive not to VK and NVA, but to our own media.
Terrorists know that, they know that our weakness is in lack of willpower to win, and they use it against us, more and more so around the world, which is testified by recent outbust of bold acts of teror in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia and others.
Terrorists know that squemish democaratic governments, lkie those of Italy, Japan, Bulgaria and Phillippines, however mighty they are, are easily broken down by a rag-tag bunch of cut-throats, once media joins in on their sides.
TO summarize, I strongly concur with leverdupac and stehenallein, to quit know is to show flaw of character and to prove terrorists that thier despicable tactics work and thus invite more and bolder acts of terror, while our own media will smear our armed forces in $#%@, designate terrorists as "liberation fighters" and "civil rights fighters" (although most fail to mention that for ever American killed in car bombiing or other popular type of attacks, about 5-6 innocent Iraqis die.) and encourage us to run from Iraq and leave it to anarchy, mob rule and feudal regime ruled by clerics, Islamic extremists and other anti-American/ati-western elements.

yehoshua, your point about deaths statistics is interesting and well taken. How then do you feel about the upcoming 3 year anniversary of 3000+ deaths? Do you think that these deaths in reference to the "grand scheme of life" were not properly put into perspective?

Very true. These 3000 deaths are nothing compared to the 6 million Jews who died at the hand of Hitler. But Hitler started by killing off the mentally ill, around 3,000 people. If Osama was allowed, he would kill 6 million Jews

How's that for death perspective?

As for yehoshua’s belittling of soldiers’ deaths as being no different than any other deaths – even suicides, for gawd’s sake – I’d get my second strike if I said what I really thought about that, and well, it just ain’t worth it.

Yes. Because if you look at my argument, it is the same as many arguments for why troops don't need to be in Iraq. So if they don't need to be in Iraq, then they don't need to be in the University. Right?

It means that 1000 American soldiers died fighting an enemy. Plain and simple. They died for their country, like the millions before them.

I think we need to stay as long as needed. There are some evil people lurking in Iraq (some being funded by Iran) and need to be put down. If we leave, then these buzzards will collapse the new Iraqi government and those 1000 would have died for NOTHING

Sleeper:

That is a sad fact. Using the deaths of American soldiers, who are fighting for their country, as a factoid for one's political ad giving a reason why Bush should go is heartless

And not to sound heartless myself, i have to say this: 1000 now is better then 1000 during the first 3 months. The military experts, aka: tv talking heads, said that it would cost at least 1000 to take Baghdad and 3 months alone during the start. That never came, thankfully.

What does it mean now that 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq?

Take that number. Add the number of Iraqis killed so far per American. Subtract dead civilians who weren't assisting the insurgents. That number is the number of Iraqis who want us out badly enough to go up against well-equipped, well-trained soldiers with whatever weapons they can find.

They, and not our soldiers, are the primary reason we should get out of Iraq, in my opinion because the ones who want us gone are determined, and they are many.


Check out this poll:

This in itself sounds a little cold or heartless.

Another way of phrasing it is that 1000 soldiers have died in a war in which we invaded a country that had not invaded us. It may be a bit more accurate to say they died fighting what George W. Bush saw as an enemy.

If Vietnam taught us anything, it might be that presidents will no longer be able to send troops into harms way without having his, or perhaps someday her, judgment questioned.

In 1966 President Lyndon Johnson made his case for Vietnam in Washington and Chicago speeches. According to Robert Dallek's Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and his Times 1961-1973, "he urged his audiences to understand that Americas presence in Vietnam served no selfish gain. To the contrary, it involved the sacrifice of American lives to aid the cause of democracy and freedom. America's struggle in Vietnam was not an act of arrogance but an agony to deter aggression." pages 365-366

In addition to war protestors, Johnson faced opposition from his longtime Friend Sen. William Fulbright. who said, "we are alien to their culture, and where the French failed, we will fail." Dallek page 369

It seems there are parallels between the arguments about Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq.

The one thing that I don't think has been highlighted here very much is the fact that these deaths were completely unecessary. As the vast majority of the "dems and libs" have maintained throughout the past year or so the war in Iraq was completely unecessary, unjustified, illegal and counter-productive to the war on terror as a whole. We have numerous threads devoted to that subject and it seems like us "dems and libs" are just banging out heads against a partisan wall as we try to bring some common sense to the debate, but I'm sure history will judge us correct.

That in my mind is what makes the 1000 deaths marker so significant. The fact that we have basically thrown away 1000 lives for nothing says a lot. Have there been fewer acts of terrorism because these 1000 soldiers died? No, there were more acts of terror in 2004 than in 2003. Has the price of oil gone down because of our actions? No, it is quickly approaching record levels. Is the region more stable because of our actions? Right now the answer would clearly be no, who knows what the future holds. Are we closer to catching Bin Laden and breaking up Al Qaeda because of Iraq? No, in fact Bush has stated that catching Bin Laden isn't even a priority anymore.

The comparison that sleeper made to WWII is completely irrelevant, because I think everyone on both sides of the political spectrum would agree that our actions there were for the greater good and were justified. I'm sure that during that time, both sides of the political spectrum felt that way as well.

Let me start by venting some things out.

I swear to God, if I hear the word "milestone" used in this context one more time, I'm gonna have a stroke.

I'm a sports guy. When I think of of the word 'milestone', I think of goals being reached, objectives completed, and the ongoing quest for a new plateau to top. I think of Ted Williams batting .400. I think of Gretzky surpassing Howe for all time leading scorer or Roy surpassing Sawchuck career wins for a goaltender. I think of Lance Armstromng winning five straight Tours de France.

By God, this is not a goal that needs praise or surpassing. People need to crack open the dictionary and find another word to better describe the situation. How about using the word "toll"? It gives it all the seriousness that this subject deserves without giving it the impression of a major league scoring record or beating a friend's score playing Duck Hunt on Nintendo. This isn't a high score in a video game. There is no reset button. These are lives we're talking about. Let's use vernacular fitting for the situation.

Let me show you, in my opinion, of how this number is being agendized and politicized.

Nothing personal, Nighttimer....

Nighttimer's signature has for some time now carried the number of soldiers who have been killed and wounded in the Iraq conflict. Shown in a manner of respectful dissent, if you would, the toll stood quietly, but not hidden at the bottom of his sig. Now, the number 1,000 is is large, bold type screaming at you the numerical value of lives lost. No emphasis on their sacrifice, only a numeric value assigned to a subject: Casualties. Sure, I was taught how to calculate BDA in respect to combat effectiveness, but when you're asking a question based on a premise outside of that aspect, when the answer will not involve a summation on combat efficiency, it's out of line. It's then one can liken it to the Bush administration to being guilty of 1,000 counts of manslaughter. You can show how heartless and uncaring and unthoughtful this president is because he hasn't shown up to one, let alone one thousand, funerals of fallen servicemen or women. Not to mention, is awfully convenient to put a family behind a casket to slam somebody, and to just as easily remove them to slam policy/actions.

Like the Dover casket photos, if you can manipulate something solemn into a statistic, you can use it for political gain.

This is all said with all due respect to NIghttimer. This is only one opinion out of all the "armchair pundits" here in this forum.

Now, to answer the question.

What does it mean now that 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq?

I'm surprised this got past the mods for being "too vague of a question".

It means exactly what it says. 1,000 soldiers have died.

That is, unless you're trying to provoke a deeper answer based on whether or not I believe that 1,000 dead is a casualty number I'm comfortable with accepting...

Then I'll tell you I think it means 1,000 of my fellow Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice for a nation who's policies they may or may not have agreed with, but were willing to step up to the plate anyway for a cause I happen to agree with.

And that's what I think you're really asking. That's the question behind the question.

"Is 1,000 dead an acceptable casualty number for you to this point?" I won't dare speculate what I think the reaction would be to any answer but "no". But I do get a feeling that one is looking for a "My goodness, 1,000? How horribly wrong I was for supporting this war of unilateralist aggression and greed. I finally see the light now."

I'm not like that. And I think many others aren't appalled by 1,000 because of the knowledge that war equals casualties. We've tried to collectively as a nation believe our technology is a security blanket from the reality that people are on the ground, firing rifles, and dying. And when you accept the reality that wars aren't won by push buttons but by soldiers, reaching 1,000 isn't going to be any different from when it was 1, 10, and 100.

Hell, I'd think everyone would be glad it's only one thousand, seeing as how military analysts and brass were speculating that we'd need a force of anywhere from 250 to 500 thousand just to invade, defeat the regime, and secure Iraq. Imagine how worse it could have been.

The war should debated on many factors, but not on a "...have you seen enough, yet?" argument where the response is banking on a collective squeamishness over action that goes beyond a serious concern for the consequences of war. It seems that the question no longer willingly asked by ourselves is "what do we need to efficiently achieve the objective" to "how dirty do our hands have to get". It's foolish and dangerous to act that way because we need our hands to get dirty. We need to stop pussyfooting around the giant elephants in the room and make serious decisions on complicated issues.

Now by no means am I trying to play down the numbers. I just want them to be sanitized from agenda and politics. 1,000 are dead. Let's pray for them and their loved ones, for the ones who are there now, and the ones like Dottreadonme's wife, who are leaving for there now. (DTOM, she, along with all the fine members of the military and civilian DoD, etc will be in our thoughts. Here's to a safe return.)

Long story short people, "milestone" equals "goal", and our goal is not to surpass the number of dead and wounded. Our goal is to leave Iraq as secure as possible and with the ability for self-determination. After that, what they do is their business.

Don't focus on the number one thousand, focus on the word(s) soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines... Americans . Leave the word "milestone" for achievements, not to label solemn reminders of what it takes to win freedom for an oppressed people.

First of all remember the number 1000 includes all deaths some of which were accidental. That said it is a tragedy when we lose a soldier but IMO the cause is just in Iraq. 29 unfulfilled UN resolutions, missing WMD and the threat of a lunatic amid ½ the worlds oil did not leave us a lot of choices especially since the corrupt UN was never going to ever enforce their resolutions.

The timing is all that is in question. Iraq had to be dealt with.

1,000 dead is a tragedy but it is far less a tragedy in Iraq as opposed to Vietnam where we lost the war and had losses that were at times 1,000 dead a MONTH.


We must stay the course.

Just would like to point out that Israel is in violation of numerous Security Council and UN resolutions and we don't do squat about it. Do I sense a double standard when it comes to enforcing UN resolutions?
By the way, "missing WMD" is now Iraq's fault? First we blamed them for having WMDs, now "missing WMD" is listed among the Iraqi government's offenses.

Just would like to point out that Israel is in violation of numerous Security Council and UN resolutions and we don't do squat about it. Do I sense a double standard when it comes to enforcing UN resolutions?

The UN Security Council resolutions were created and inspired by dicators in the middle east to smite the Israelites. The US has voted against ever action towards Israel and voted for every action towards Iraq. Meaning we agree with the issue of Iraq and disagree with every issue of Israel. There is no double standard if we state we disagree with the resolution.

Besides the UN has death camps in the Gaza Strip were 50 % of the people are unemployment rate that breeds hateful people that deal with their current situation by strapping bombs on and go for a bus ride. The UN is a joke and deserves to be dealt with on another thread.

By the way, "missing WMD" is now Iraq's fault? First we blamed them for having WMDs, now "missing WMD" is listed among the Iraqi government's offenses.

If one is in control of the WMD, then when they go missing, it is the fault of the people in control. This is childish. It works as follows:
I give you a ball.
I tell you to destroy the ball.
You take the ball.
You tell me you destroyed the ball
You have no proof you destroyed the ball.
I then call you a lair that didn't destroy the ball.
Without proof, the ball has gone missing.
Since I gave you the ball, you lost the ball it is your fault.

But then again, this is for another thread and has nothing to do with the 1,000 who have died and the means people exploit their death by trivializing their life as making the number a 'milestone.'

That's fine with me as long as we say "Iraq is in violation of our will" and not "Iraq is in violation of Security Council resolutions". Because you can not have it both ways. Either you respect the UN and the Security Council and you abide by those resolutions and you follow them all (which means that at least we have to frown at Israel for violating them), or we disregard UN completely, but don't mention UN resolutions when we try to justify our occupation of Iraq.
You can not respect and abide by only certain parts of the law that suit your fancy, just like you can not pick and choose which UN resolutions have to be enforced and which are not.

Just for the record, I belive the Iraq/Vietnam casualty comparisons are misleading.

Thousands and thousands have been wounded in Iraq. If we had the same medical skills/knowledge, transportation equipment, and ground intel capabilities (night vision, satellite, etc) in Iraq today as we had in Vietnam, many, many more soldiers would have died. Instead, they are being saved - minus arms, legs, and motor skills - but nonetheless, saved.

We haven't had a domestic terror attack in the three years post 9/11. We hadn't had a domestic terror attack in the 3 years before 9/11. So, what have these 1000 lives gained us?

If you re-read my post, you will see that I make no statement that we should "just quit". I am saying that there is no condition with which we can unequivocally claim victory in Iraq, that is, there is no milestone where we can claim we are "done". Thus, like Vietnam it simply comes to down to a somewhat arbitrary decision point. Since you're bringing up the Revolutionary War, you ought to understand that there were clearly defined goals which were met. This is not true in Iraq, or, rather, all the clearly defined goals have been achieved and yet we are still there.

What does it mean to establish a democracy? When elections are held are we done? When all insurgency is suppressed are we done? When rule of law is fully established are we done? When terrorism is gone are we done? When infrastructure is rebuilt are we done? When oil is flowing again are we done? When are we done? It's all very nebulous and ill-defined.

At this point, I see no clearly defined goals.

Good.

Why?
Because it means that US policymakers are finally using their heads.

Life is rarely cut-and dry, it makes for good politics but not good policy.

Whether or not we should have gone in, a pragmatic approach to the exit strategy is for the best. If you want my prediction, we will leave when the Iraqi government tells the US they are confident that free and fair elections could be held without outside security support.

So the deaths of the soldiers are not meaningless simply because the goal isn't obviously defined.

I'll add that even the press, or at least the LA times is referring to this as a "milestone"
I have nothing nice to say.

Correct, I think most are suggesting they are meaningless because we shouldn't have been there in the first place. That inevitably gets everyone back into the debate of was the war right or not.

I don't think you'll get too many arguments that things need to be wrapped up in a responsible manner, but I think there would be some debate on the timetable and the methods.

I agree that things are rarely cut and dry, that "good" and "evil" are not as unambiguous as people would like them to be. And I basically agree with your prediction, turnea. Is that the current definition of "done"? If we're asked to leave, are we turnin' tail and runnin' as suggested by a couple of posters? What does it mean to "stay the course"? What is the "course" we're following? All I want is a clear policy and not the current administration's flip-flops.


Eh? Are you implying that I believe that the soldier's deaths are meaningless? Did I state this anywhere? This is just blatantly inflammatory.

We will stay in Iraq until a stable, more or less democratic regime has been put into place. Focus on stability. Last year, on this board, I said that we would be in Iraq for 5 years. I still feel that is pretty close to the mark.

As you will doubtlessly notice my signature has been reduced in size, updated in numbers and still blood-red in emphasis.

When I altered the signature yesterday it was born out of anger and frustration at what I perceived as the blissful ignorance of many Americans as our troops die out of sight and out of mind. It was a primal scream to the collective consciousness of the American people to WAKE UP to the reality that there's still a war going on.

Our corporate-controlled news media has learned their lessons well. Don't show images of troops taking fire and casualties in Iraq. Put a flag in your lapel and join the fun as an "embedded" reporter bringing home the images approved by the Pentagon and the Administration. The tacit complicity of journalists and their "happy face" depictions of life in Iraq doesn't square with the reality most of the soldiers face.

People may assign political motivations to me as they wish. I don't care. However, if for a few minutes I revived a discussion we haven't had in a while, then the purpose of this thread has been met.

The war isn't over in Iraq. Neither is the dying.

The saddest fact - as in fact - is that the White House is using our soldiers lives as political ammunition.


It was. The Socialist Workers Party was unequivocally against WWII - and frequently used the death toll as an ongoing argument against the war. Many of its members were consequently imprisoned under the Smith Act. And they weren't the only ones using war casualties to support their dissent: the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom was staunchly against the war, as was The Catholic Worker. There were numerous other socilaist, pacifist, religious, and anarchist organizations who also opposed the war - and "exploited" the body count.

WHile there was widespread popular support for World War II, it didn't have quite the monolithic support which has since been advertised in "history books". There were three times as many conscientious objectors in WWII than in WWI - of whom, about 6000 went to prison, four times as many as during WWI (and prison populations were not as huge as they have become since - of every six men in federal prison during WWII, one of them was a CO). And the government listed another 350,000 cases of draft evasion.

There was also widespread dissatisfaction among the nation's workers over the freezing of wages while corporate profits sky-rocketed. During the war, there were 14,000 strikes involving nearly seven million workers - more than in any comparable period in US history. In 1944 alone, there were over a million workers on strike, mostly in "war industries": mines, steel mills, and transportation equipment industries.

Could you imagine if those same practices were being used today??


We're talking about Iraq here, stehen, not the war on terror - the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The Iraqi adventure is not "obliterating terrorists", it is not ensuring that "we will never have to worry" (quite the opposite), it is in no way making Americans "safe". What we should owe to the victims of 9/11 is a campaign against those who caused their deaths, not the waste of even more American lives on a pointless, unrelated campaign prosecuted solely and exclusively for pursuit of a political agenda. I agree that we should be going after the terrorists who took those 3000 lives three years ago. In Iraq, we are not doing that - not by any stretch of the imagination.


And using the lives of American soldiers to pursue a political agenda is not?

Every life lost in Iraq is blood on the hands of the Bush administration - and not just the blood of the soldiers who are being killed - the blood of the future victims of the acts of terror which this pointless campaign is inspiring by real terrorists who are elsewhere being ignored while we waste time, money, energy, and lives for the greater glory of the Project for the New American Century.

CubeJockey got it absolutely right:
In terms of the war on terror, the loss of these thousand lives is meaningless. Utterly. And those who promoted this war, as those who support it, should live in shame for the rest of their lives - they, not "the terrorists", are responsible - personally responsible - for these thousand deaths. And if the "exploitation" of this "milestone" drives that point home, then it has accomplished something. If it helps prevent this sort of irresponsible, immoral, and illegal action in the future, then it will have accomplished much. Sadly, I doubt that it will. And, even sadder, I don't get the impression that this is the intention of many who are touting this figure.

But those who keep saying, "well, you know, war means casualties" are forgetting that this war is illegal. This war is immoral. This war is unjust. And this war was unnecessary. What does that say about a thousand wasted lives?

Oh - and for the record: the word "milestone" has nothing whatsoever to do with "goals" or "achievements", whatever people's sporting experience has been. It is a marker, no more, no less - usually a measure of distance (often in round numbers, like, oh... one thousand). In the current context it is being used metaphorically - as a measure of lives lost. There is nothing in its usage which implies anything beyond "significant" - and only significant in this case because another digit has been added to the body count.

Very true. If the soldiers' deaths in Iraq were to be considered "meaningless" because a goal wasn't defined, let alone met, then 58,000 other deaths would have to be considered the same. Regardless of how I feel about my country going into Iraq, those deaths are far from meaningless. Sad, yes, and UNNECESSARY, yes, but meaningless - definitely NOT.

I also don't care much for the term "milestone" to describe the unnecessary waste of human lives. At least most media have prefaced the word with a qualifier (somber, tragic, etc.)

I have noticed that the major networks (not just public television) are starting to show the pictures and names of the soldiers killed each day, along with a short story about them from their families. I think the media is finally shaking off the iron hand of the conservatives...one can hope.

Wertz, thank you for the info about WWI and II. I didn't realize that there was an active, vocal anti-war voice then. I guess that wasn't in the history books, hm?

What does it mean now that 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq?



<snip>



http://mediamatters.org/items/200409080003

To some of us the 1000 lost lives mean grief for families and loss of potential in the young lives lost. For Rush Limbaugh it seem to be an opportunity to blast Democrats and defend Bush. I would guess that it meant the same to those in his audience of 15 to 20 million, who proudly call themselves "ditto heads." This is the same rabid Limbaugh that Bush called a couple of weeks ago.

Hmm, highway and suicide deaths. Great smoke screens.



Ted I have a three questions.

1. How many of the 1000 deaths were accidental as accidental?

2. Do you include those killed by friendly fire as accidental?

3. Is this important or just another smoke screen?

I had an uncle killed in WWII on the Island of Corregidor. My grandmother said he was killed when the U. S. military bombed the island. He was awarded a purple heart.

http://corregidorisland.com/

Sorry a logophage that was simply a very poor choice of words on my part. I do not believe you said the soldiers deaths were "meaningless".

My apologies

Perhaps "purposeless" would have been better to describe what I was getting at. That even though the purpose for their continued is not made 100% clear by the administration, it does exist.

That is exactly what I thought, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth.

I think that it is important to realize that if you think that most people who support the war here at this site are not mindful of those who have died and been injured you may well be mistaken.

Feeling that the deaths are an acceptable loss to continue the stabilization efforts doesn't mean we don't care. We simply have different views on the solution to the problem.

I think that may well have been true during early "major combat operations" if you believe it's true now, I don't think we are watching the same channels .

The media hasn't learned a thing, IMHO.

They are most focused on reporting form relative safety (not that I blame them too much, getting kidnapped wouldn't be on my to-do list either)

and less so on reporting the facts, notice the very few who traveled to the vicinity of Najaf for any length of time, as how far they were from the fighting.

..and the shallowness of the reporting just keeps reaching new depths, in ways more detrimental to Bush's case than helpful. It's become a simple body count with only a few reports here and there (I actually thank the NYTimes a lot) that try and represent other issues. I would have loved in depth coverage of the new Iraqi congress, but it involves no dying so no one prints it...

Happy face... what network/newspaper are you seeing?

Lets see, I guess not, but 4 years prior to 9/11, yes. 1998 Bombing of USS Cole, a United States warship, and Clinton responded by bombing the h out of a factory full of Sudan Workers, all innocent people. That wouldn't have set the angers of muslim extremists off . More than 450 innocent Americans were killed by Muslim terrorists under Clinton, not one Muslim Terrorist was ever apprehended by US Forces under clinton. But hey our economy was awesome!But to stay on topic you ask what have these 1000 lives gained us? How about saftey, saftey in knowing an evil dictator that hated the US is now longer a threat, and do say he never was, because that would be like saying a loaded gun pointed towards your temple wasn't dangerous, I mean, it hasn't fired yet, so what is there to worry about? Right? Wrong. What these 1,000 lives have gained, is not so much something we will ever see here in America, and its thankfull we will never have to find out what these 1,000 lives, if not unfortunatley, and its with the deepest sympathy for those killed that I express, lost, what the consiquences might have been. What people need to think about is not what moron Bush might be, that doesn't boost troop morale, and nor does it help fight a war. There is a time and place for all of that, and it should be respectfully demonstrated as such. What people should consider is how many fewer lives it may have costed had Clinton taken Saddam out during Desert Fox. Strike 2 was 2 strikes too many. His miliary force was already obliterated, except for SAM and other anti aircraft weaponry, which is easily destroyed. Adolf Hitler never picked a fight with the US, so were we wrong in ousting him ? Saddam had already murdered 300000 of his own people for god sakes, he saw to it personally that these people were murdered. He was the Hitler of the 21st century. This is why we needed to go. Unfortunatley Bush had to use, false pretences, of which he did not know were false Bush didn't gather the intell, and it was apparent to him, as well as everyone else that it was true. So what was a man who swore to defend America do? Especially after 9/11??

Oh, I don't know...whoever led the Rwandan uprising made Hussein look like an amateur - at least 800,000 Tusis slaughtered. Milosevic did his fair share of ethnic cleansing, too. I didn't see the US running into battle in either theatre. Oh, that's right, they didn't have anything we wanted. Why do we get so self-righteous about "freeing Iraq from a horrible dictator", when there are and have been so many horrible dictators around the world that we ignore? Our government has even supported other dictators, as long as it served the US' needs (Haiti, Central America, Chile, Phillipines, among many others)!

And if you really want to talk genocide on a huge scale, how about the systematic killing of 15 million Native Americans?

...whoever led the Rwandan uprising made Hussein look like an amateur - at least 800,000 Tussis slaughtered. Milosevic did his fair share of ethnic cleansing, too. I didn't see the US running into battle in either theatre. Oh, that's right, they didn't have anything we wanted.

And what did Clinton do about Rwanda? I guess Clinton decide there was nothing there we needed.

And if you really want to talk genocide on a huge scale, how about the systematic killing of 15 million Native Americans?

Move the Native Americans to a new thread and I'll debate the way the natives engaged in combat against the US.

It is approximately 1/3 the number of casualties sustained on 9/11/2001, and the American effort was directed against a leader and a country that weren't involved.

The casualties are not meaningless; the lives were wasted on the wrong war. There will obviously be more as American troops continue to try to quash the uprisings and the influx of terrorist groups into Iraq. It is interesting that we attacked an area ostensibly because it was "unstable"--look at it now.

Why has the President not gone to Dover AFB to observe the return of those honorable men and women who ended up dying? Because they can't vote?

The survivors remain to determine what meaning the deaths of their loved ones hold. I hope they will find the comfort they need.

Israel, for all their issues, has not attacked a neighbor as Iraq had and has not used WMD against its citizens or neighbors as Iraq had.

My point on the WMD was that WMD were discovered by the UN in Iraq. Thousands of documents showed that Iraq developed and manufactured these weapons. Iraq ADMITTED they had done so – and then the WMD went missing.

Bill Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998 in a effort to destroy some of the WMD and the production capability in Iraq. But what did the UN do from 1998 to 2000? NOTHING.

The UN did not even have inspectors in Iraq until Bush put 100,000 troops on Saddam’s border. We have lost 1,000 of our best doing what the UN failed to do. Recent revelation about corruption at the UN in the oil for food program illustrate that this organization had no incentive to deal with Iraq with the force required to resolve the issues.

Yes, Iraq used WMD on its neighbors back in the 1980s. Iran used WMD on its neighbors back in the 1980s. An obscure cult in Japan used WMD on commuters back in the 1990s. Bleh...


The WMD went "missing" because they weren't there. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. Official documents under an authoritarian regime are not always accurate. Specifically, in Iraq's case, it seems likely that Hussein believed he had the WMD up to the point he went into hiding. Just because something is written down doesn't make it true.


This seems disingenuous to me, but I'm not willing to do the research on what exactly "nothing" is. Perhaps, you could back up this statement with evidence? You might disagree with UN policies (sometimes I do) and UN techniques for policing those policies (sometimes I do), but claims of "nothing" demand more than just stridency.


Okay, there's corruption in the UN. Surprise, surprise. The US government has never had a corruption problem, correct? However, I will grant you that Dubya building up troops on Iraq's border helped get UN inspectors into Iraq (it was less than 100000 though when that occurred). I think the build up was an effective tool to get real inspections. And guess what...they were working. UN inspectors were able to go anywhere in Iraq (with vociferous complaints but whatever...). The UN inspectors weren't finding any WMD because there weren't any WMD to be found. Apparently, empirical evidence is insufficient for the neo-con agenda. Only one word fits here: hubris.