Everybody ready to bust out the champagne for the 2000 mark?

www.washingtonpost.com...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cindy Sheehan, the military mother who made her son's death in Iraq a rallying point for the anti-war movement, plans to tie herself to the White House fence to protest the milestone of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq.

"I'm going to go to Washington, D.C. and I'm going to give a speech at the White House, and after I do, I'm going to tie myself to the fence and refuse to leave until they agree to bring our troops home," Sheehan said in a telephone interview last week as the milestone approached.

"And I'll probably get arrested, and when I get out, I'll go back and do the same thing," she said.

The death toll among U.S. military forces since the March 2003 invasion stood at 1,996 on Sunday.

The milestone's approach prompted plans for hundreds of other demonstrations across the United States, but for Sheehan, each military death in the Iraqi war has been a tragedy.

"To me, every single member since Number One has been tragic and needless and unnecessary," she said. "My son was somewhere around 615, and I've been working so hard for peace since my son was killed and now almost 1,400 more soldiers have been killed since Casey died."

Army Specialist Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004.

Beyond Sheehan's plans, a candlelight vigil is planned at the White House to mourn the 2,000-death milestone. Hundreds of other demonstrations are scheduled for the day after the milestone number is reached.

"I hope that this milestone marks the point when the American people realize the U.S. military is not going to stop the violence in Iraq, and they instead start demanding a political solution to this problem," Sean O'Neill, a U.S. Marine who served in Iraq, said in a statement.

sooooo whos ready to start making a statement like i told u so or tsk tsk? wonder wat is the significance of the 2000 mark. wat happened during the 100 mark or the 500 mark or the 1000 mark of the deaths. the people gonna start making political statements on the soldiers' deaths?

Originally posted by deltaboy
sooooo whos ready to start making a statement like i told u so or tsk tsk? wonder wat is the significance of the 2000 mark. wat happened during the 100 mark or the 500 mark or the 1000 mark of the deaths. the people gonna start making political statements on the soldiers' deaths?

We exponentially passed the number of days since Bush promised to get Osama "dead or alive" so long ago...eh.

But sure, I'll give you another one.

tsk.

Man, this war was a bad idea.

Man, I bet her son is turning over in his grave, tsk, tsk. Anyway, if we have come to the point were use American soldiers deaths to pass our agenda it has really become a sad day indeed.

I agree Westpoint, we shouldn't view the deaths of our soldiers as marks but rather to see how much damage some people can do. But, Sheehan shouldn't be doing this. She keeps using her son to get people realize what she feels about the war but how about using it to show what her son felt. I doubt that her son would have wanted this, heck he might have agreed with this war but she keeps using him to push her views and she shouldn't be doing that.

Using soldiers to make a political point is hardly the most shocking or reprehensible way to use soldiers. Not that I am a fan of Cindy Sheehan, but spare me the "using the dead for politics" sanctimony. I think just about everyone since day 1 in this war has been doing that one way or another.

-koji K.

[edit on 24-10-2005 by koji_K]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Anyway, if we have come to the point were use American soldiers deaths to pass our agenda it has really become a sad day indeed.

Isn't that exactly what the present administration is doing?

In fact using them dead and alive. And I was one of those troops, in the first Gulf War. One of the ones used as a guinea pig. Still suffering like thousands of others 15 years after the fact. I and thousands of other troops will be suffering our disabilities for the rest of our lives.

Yes it is a sad day indeed. If I could I would join Cindy!!

We need more people like her, then maybe we wouldn’t lose anymore troops.

It's easy for you armchair worriers to yell "support the troops" and anyone who doesn't agree with the war is not supporting the troops.

Well guess what? From a trooper who was there, Cindy is supporting the troops far more than any of you are!!

Bring them home! Quite using them as guinea pigs for untested vaccines and to further political and financial agendas!

Cindy is not the one using the troops, the government is.

1996 dead (not including those that have died after their service from military related stuff), many many more disabled for life.

It doesn't end for us after our "service" is over, but it seems the support does.


[edit on 24/10/2005 by ANOK]

As of 06:00 A.M. this morning, the number of dead U.S. troops stood at 1,999. I will go on to say that the number will hit or surpass 2,000 before this day is out.

www.waynemadsenreport.com... says it already has.

Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 25/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Also here.

The US network CNN, quoting Pentagon sources, reported Tuesday that the number of soldiers killed since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq had reached 2,000 with the deaths of two more soldiers, a toll likely to add pressure on the US administration over its role in the violence-wracked country.

When will this insanity end? :shk: I assure you I won't be drinking Champagne.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Man, I bet her son is turning over in his grave, tsk, tsk.

Or maybe he's turning over in his grave over people who never met him nor who know anything about him trying to use him to say that his mother's a jerky-pinko?

We lost more than 2,000 soldiers storming the beaches at Normandy. In this day in age, ever since Vietnam, the American public can't stomach any level of casualties. We're no longer losing wars on the battlefield alone- but we're losing wars on the homefront. Osama bin Laden realised this, especially after Somalia, the America can be defeated quite easily as a result. The invasion of Iraq should be right or wrong regardless of the number of troops lost. If 2,000 deaths is too many for this cause, then why isn't 1 death too many for it? How many soldiers must die before liberating 25 million people "isn't worth it"?

Yes, its a shame that 2,000 soldiers have lost their lives doing a job that they signed up for. I wish none of them had died. But dying is part of war. It's the risk they took when they signed up. I take a risk by driving everyday- I could get in a car accident and be killed. I think I'm more likely to be killed in a car accident than I am to be killed in Iraq anyway. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have cars.

God bless all those who gave their lives. But them giving their lives doesn't make this mission less noble, or this cause less worthy.

How DARE she stand up for what she believes in? What does she think, that she lives in a free country?

None of this is going to bring her son back, she knows it. She is trying to BRING MEDIA ATTENTION to something that most Americans I guess don't give a crap about.

So let's re-discuss this when the US dead mark hits, what, 10,000? Is that the number when you start saying "Wow, what did all those people die for again?"


Because they have died for nothing. Don't give me the "died for freedom" BS either. Iraqis are maybe more free than they were under Saddam, but they're too busy getting blown to bloody shreds to give a rat's arse about voting.


Supreme arrogance is what I call it. Sheehan is more of a patriot than any of the RAH RAH KILL MORE pro-war activists, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Unless I'm looking at this all wrong, and those 2000 dead are just actually numbers, and each of them wasn't a living breathing person with family and hopes and dreams.

Oh, and the 25,000 Iraqi dead too, almost forgot that.

I don't think anyone on either side of the Iraq War debate is celebrating.

IMHO 2000 US soldiers and at least ten times that number of Iraqi's have died for no clear gain. Sure we got Saddam out of power, and I don't dispute that he was a murderous tyrant.

Unfortunately what's taken his place is chaos and a barely disguised civil war.
Not to mention the political windfall we've given Al Quaeda & co...

Originally posted by Rasputin13
We lost more than 2,000 soldiers storming the beaches at Normandy. In this day in age, ever since Vietnam, the American public can't stomach any level of casualties.

Are you kidding me? How dare you compare Normandy with the war in Iraq!

And yes some of us were complaining from dead soldier 1. Where were you then?

You think this is a noble worthy mission? Please explain to me without spouting administration BS. Give me a break! Do you really think the U.S. government cares about the "freedom" of the Iraqis? Do you really believe we are under iminent threat of terrorism?
Like you said there's more chance of getting killed in your car than getting killed by terrorism. I don't see soldiers dieing to liberate us from our cars, do you!!

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Yes, its a shame that 2,000 soldiers have lost their lives doing a job that they signed up for.

How calouse! Those 2000 soldiers signed up to protect their country, they DID NOT sign up to die for this governments agenda, and neither did I.
If you think it's such a worthy cause go put YOUR life on the line. Jeez!
If I could vote WAY BELLOW SECRET I would!

[edit on 25/10/2005 by ANOK]

Sorry Mr. and Mrs America. The Defense Department regrets to inform you that your son/daughter's death is just a mark on the wall.

Military: 2,000 Dead an Artificial Mark

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - As U.S. military deaths in Iraq approached 2,000 on Tuesday, the chief spokesman for the American-led multinational force called on reporters covering the conflict not to look at the event as a milestone.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, director of the force's combined press center, described the number as an ``artificial mark on the wall.''

It's no surprise that this 'spokesman' doesn't want the media to highlight this milestone. The support for this joke of a war decreases every day. Every single death is a milestone. A terrible, tragic milestone. Somebody needs to point out that in our lame effort to 'kill them over there so we don't have to kill them over here' we've lost almost as many soldiers as we lost people on 9/11. Somebody needs to talk about it! Somebody needs to notice!

And for what? Ugh!

Freedom's on the march!
We're spreading democracy
Liberating the people of Iraq
Saddam was a very bad man!
Don't forget 9/11!

"Watch me make this drive..."

Originally posted by Rasputin13
We lost more than 2,000 soldiers storming the beaches at Normandy. In this day in age, ever since Vietnam, the American public can't stomach any level of casualties. We're no longer losing wars on the battlefield alone- but we're losing wars on the homefront. Osama bin Laden realised this, especially after Somalia, the America can be defeated quite easily as a result. The invasion of Iraq should be right or wrong regardless of the number of troops lost. If 2,000 deaths is too many for this cause, then why isn't 1 death too many for it? How many soldiers must die before liberating 25 million people "isn't worth it"?

Yes, its a shame that 2,000 soldiers have lost their lives doing a job that they signed up for. I wish none of them had died. But dying is part of war. It's the risk they took when they signed up. I take a risk by driving everyday- I could get in a car accident and be killed. I think I'm more likely to be killed in a car accident than I am to be killed in Iraq anyway. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have cars.

God bless all those who gave their lives. But them giving their lives doesn't make this mission less noble, or this cause less worthy.

You have voted Rasputin13 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Well put Rasputin13. If there was a draft and people were being forced to go into military service it would be one thing, but it is a volunteer military. I have talked to several people who have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and all of them say that it is no where near as bad over there as the media is portraying it. I was not in favor of going into Iraq, because I knew what would happen, but since we are there we owe it to the people who have been killed or wounded to finish the job. The real crime would be in leting this be all for nothing. I am not calling her a wacko but I do believe that Cindy Sheehan needs to seek psychological help.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I am not calling her a wacko but I do believe that Cindy Sheehan needs to seek psychological help.

I've heard this several times and I don't understand it. Why do people think she needs help? To do what? I'm really curious.

They died for a just and noble cause. Their lives will have never been given in vein and their mission will be completed. Carry on America, carry on.

My God have mercy on those serving now and keep them safe, and bring comfort to the ailing families.

If 2000 deaths is some kind of a giving up point for America we would have been out of WWII before we even entered it. Every death is a loss and should be remembered, but there is no such ting as a no casualty war, so I don't really know what you guys expect. I'm not advocating war, I’m just saying when it’s started it should be finished thru so that no one died for nothing.


[edit on 25-10-2005 by WestPoint23]

Does she believe in it, Jakomo?
Beforehand, she was behind Bush all the way.
According to all her family members, she was distant to her son.
Seems she believes in something, alright, but not what you would have me believe it is. She believes in the microphones and theTV cameras.

I believe in ignoring her.