Long wait at an end

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on July 27th, 2017 at 05:02 am

Little Green Footballs has been monitoring the peace movement’s ghoulish anticipation of America’s 2,000th death in Iraq. That grim milestone has just been reached. Party on, peaceniks.

Posted by Tim B. on 10/25/2005 at 10:50 AM
    1. It will be ages now until the left have something new to look forward to.

      Posted by Rob Read on 10/25 at 11:10 AM • permalink


    1. Rob: No, I’m sure they’ll find more death, pain and destruction to use/feed on. 😛

      Posted by Patrick Chester on 10/25 at 11:12 AM • permalink


    1. The numbers game is the liberal’s gambit. So OK, let’s have a look at this:

      51,000 casualties.

      From ONE THREE-DAY BATTLE in the Civil War. The Battle of Gettysburg killed over 5,000 HORSES.

      I’m sorry, but the Iraq war has been brilliant and relatively bloodless. But for the record, I would indeed give my life to bring one of our brave men back. (Why won’t the Army take a fat 41-year-old, I ask you?)

      Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 10/25 at 02:10 PM • permalink


    1. This is what they do, and it’s all they have, really.  Iraq failed to ignite in an all-out civil war.  The Arab Street failed to rise.  The pressure for self-determination is building throughout the Middle East.  And coalition forces have beaten the living shite out of the Baathists and the terrorists.  Counting bodies is the only way peaceniks have to justify their continued “movement”.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 10/25 at 02:43 PM • permalink


    1. Each death of a soldier or a civilian is terrible of course, but didn’t I read somewhere that the soldiers were, stastically, rather safer in Iraq than in a large American city (because of the absence of alcohol and the enforced clean living of army life)?

      Posted by PJ on 10/25 at 04:02 PM • permalink


    1. And now Cindy Sheehan says she won’t vote for Hillary unless she oposes the war.  I’m kind of with her on that one, I’m not voting for Hillary either…

      Posted by Texas Bob on 10/25 at 04:15 PM • permalink


    1. Ah, Texas, if only my fellow New Yorkers thought like you.

      (On the other hand, I’ve discovered that Sen. Chuck Schumer’s purpose in life is to make Hillary look good by comparison….)

      Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 10/25 at 05:18 PM • permalink


    1. Handy comparison: In a statistically average U.S. town of 100,000, over 2.5 years you’d expect more than 3,000 deaths.

      Comparisons with single battles of the American Civil War (thanks MD) or in one morning of a battle in World War I are instructive too.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 10/25 at 06:28 PM • permalink


    1. In a statistically average U.S. town of 100,000, over 2.5 years you’d expect more than 3,000 deaths.

      Certainly not among the age brackets that generally comprise US military units, though.

      Posted by PW on 10/25 at 07:46 PM • permalink


    1. Funny if the original invasion planners had been given a forecast of 2,000 casualites they would have been told to let someone else on the bong for a while.
      Mind you body armor and medical treatment is probably making straight foreward comparisins a bit deceptive. Apparently (SBS) ran a story on how a lot more severely disabled vets are surviving as cripples and vegetables.
      Could just be SBS indulging themselves though.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 10/25 at 07:58 PM • permalink


    1. My yes! There’ll be a lot of car door slamming in Kensington tonight!

      Posted by rinardman on 10/25 at 08:22 PM • permalink


    1. Damn, KKK’er David Duke endorses Cindy on the war and I’m going to vote against Hillary too.  Who said that woman was a divider?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 10/25 at 08:58 PM • permalink


    1. It’s long been forgotten (perhaps overlooked is a better choice of words) by our lefty friends that their predictions two+ years ago claimed the US would experience 10,000 combat deaths within the first year of involvement in Iraq. To an extent, they were correct (although they underestimated the number of casualties). The terrorists, excuse me, the Minutemen fighting against Coalition Forces have suffered significantly more than 10,000 casualties since hostilities began.

      BTW, I believe active duty casualties during peacetime, from training accidents and normal calamaties of everyday life (i.e., auto accidents on military bases, etc.) cause a substantial number of deaths each year. I’ve seen the number but can’t recall it with enough specificity to suggest here, with any assurance of accuracy, what it might be. But, it was surprisingly large.

      While any one of those deaths is tragic and should be respectfully mourned, no one of them is worth any more than any other. The same is true of the 2000 unfortunate souls who died from injuries suffered in Iraq. The 2000th death was as tragic as the 200th – both people were equally noble and heroic, both deserve our profound gratitude and respect. Neither deserves to be made a spectacle of so that some nitwit can have something particular to cry about. I mourn them all. And, tragically, all those to come. God Bless them all.

      Posted by ctchrmkr on 10/25 at 11:05 PM • permalink


    1. After a bit of Googliging the topic, I came across an article from September, 2004 in National Review Online found at http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200409081229.asp which recited that Pentagon records show that from 1996 to 1999 between 774 and 974 deaths of military personell from non-hostile causes were suffered each year.

      I don’t offer this statistic to make light of the number of casualties suffered from operations in Iraq. I merely offer it by way of comparison to average peacetime losses – losses which are still occuring to some degree even as US troops are engaged in Iraq. The military is a dangerous occupation regardless of your activity.

      Posted by ctchrmkr on 10/25 at 11:28 PM • permalink


    1. #9

      I think that you need to consider deaths by violent means (though a percentage of US soldiers killed were killed in accidents). If we take that age bracket and use violent death as the cause, then we would expect rather more of them than any other group under those parameters. Most violent deaths in America occur among 15-34 year-old males.

      Posted by ekw on 10/26 at 01:08 AM • permalink


    1. Soldiers are soldiers – unless you prefer to believe they are really gullible ‘kids’.

      They get in harm’s way on our behalf.  Not many more honourable and courageous ways to earn a crust.

      To use a soldier’s death to propangandise against the cause for which he fights is ignoble.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 10/26 at 01:19 AM • permalink


    1. #9 PW

      True.  It was offered as a comparison, no more.

      2000 deaths among a population of 100,000+ when the enemy is actively trying to kill them is not that much.

      Still too much.  Just not that much by comparison with anything else.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 10/26 at 01:23 AM • permalink


    1. 2000 deaths among a population of 100,000+ when the enemy is actively trying to kill them over a period of 2.5 years is not that much.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 10/26 at 01:27 AM • permalink


    1. Where were these folks when the 200,000th Iraqi died at the hands of Saddam’s torturers? Oh, yes, soiling their nappies, I should imagine.

      Posted by ekw on 10/26 at 01:38 AM • permalink


    1. Every death is to be mourned, but honored as well.  But, statistically speaking, the deaths in Iraq (combat and accidental) have been minor when compared to earlier wars.

      In the meantime:

      Eff you, peaceniks!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 10/26 at 01:46 AM • permalink


    1. Thanks, that was what I was trying to say. 🙂

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 10/26 at 02:11 AM • permalink


    1. “Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead.  The US forces lost 6603 men.” But of course, the left says THAT was a noble cause. Ridding the world of an evil dictator who slaughter 100s of thousands.  Bringing democracy to a oppresed nation…

      Posted by Texas Bob on 10/26 at 02:56 AM • permalink


    1. #19. Thank you ekw. Quite Eloquent.

      …soiling their nappies…

      I like it!

      Posted by ctchrmkr on 10/26 at 07:41 AM • permalink


    1. Here are some stats I took down while watching the PBS Newshour program; out of the 2000 U.S. dead:
      – 46 victims were female.

      So much for the Lefties who did their best to suggest that exploited minorities were fighting this war!!!

      Posted by Brian on 10/26 at 07:41 AM • permalink


    1. So much for the Lefties who did their best to suggest that exploited minorities were fighting this war!!!

      It’s often said that an army is always best prepared for the war it last fought.  Well, the anti-war protesters are even worse off:  They are still fighting Vietnam!

      Posted by jic on 10/26 at 10:30 AM • permalink


  1. Lefties can never make up their minds.  Exploited minorities?  I thought it was gullible kids.  Or…wait… mindless killbots.  Or… no, wait…

    Posted by RebeccaH on 10/26 at 10:49 AM • permalink