Yep, here's a perfect study of the difference between the Left and the Right. To the Right, it's important because another individual sacraficed themself for something better. For the Left, it's "2000! Woohoo! Cake and ice cream for everyone! See you in 2006."

kbiel:
I try to be civil on this board, but since I'm one of the people you are referring to, I'm calling you an asshole. You don't have the market cornered on caring about the troops, or recognizing their sacrifice. Please tell me on what you base your bullshit remarks.

I'm sick of sitting by and letting jerks like you make these kind of outrageous statements, and I have every reason to be pissed off.

A little light reading for Chris:
http://instapundit.com/archives/026403.php

Damn.

Chris, I'm sure you care. But Left's brand of 'care' is to mourn & pity them. The Right's brand of 'care' is to mourn & respect them.

Or instead of reading Instapundit....one could browse oh lets see, the Democratic Underground:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2181449

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2181442

Or we can go to Daily Kos and take a quick look around.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/25/12415/862

Firt of all, links to right wing blogs are hardly objective. Second, of course opponents of the war are going to say different things than supporters do. But saying "this is sad, when will Bush bring our troops home" is hardly the same as "Woohoo! Cake and ice cream for everyone!" If you think Democrats are using this moment for political gain, then make that point, although I disagree with it. That's not what kbiel said.

Chris:

Like links to left-wing blogs or websites are objective? Do you really mean to imply that? Puhleez.

And that's the very problem, Chris. Democrats and those on the far left will precisely use the number to say 'look at the bad and murderous Bush Admin.' or '2,000 reasons to impeach Bush' and use it for political gain. If you don't think so, just watch the news or scan the editorial boards or the letter to the editors sections in the NY Times, LA Times, SF Chronicle and papers across the country, they'll largely smack of false and cheap sentiments for the fallen then turn right back to deriding the war and Bush.

It's cheap and feckless political opportunism at it's worst.

Firt of all, links to right wing blogs are hardly objective.

The point of the post wasn't Instapundit's take; read what the servicemen and women say. They don't want to be used, in life or death, to undermine the mission.

Chris:
"But saying "this is sad, when will Bush bring our troops home"..."

That is precisely the wrong question to be asking in light of a life lost in service to their country. The right question is, "This is sad, when can we —in good conscience— bring our troops home?" Note the good conscience bit. Good conscience is when the goal that those service men and women have given their life for has been reached. Good conscience means not throwing their sacrifice away. Good conscience means making sure the Iraqi's can stand on their own two feet to defend their burgeoning sovereign nation.

Demanding anything else —anything less— is demeaning to the sacrifice and the continued service of every member of our armed forces.

I never said left wing blogs were more objective, so I don't know what the point is there. Linking to a partisan blog as a way of supporting your point makes no sense. Also, I'm surprised that no one sees the irony here. You guys are patting yourselves on the back about how respectful you are, yet the very first comment on this thread was about how awful the left is. Look around the web and you'll see the same thing on every right wing blog. Why is using the occasion of the 2,000th death to attack the left respectful, while those who attack the Bush administration are disrespectful? What's the difference? You're using the death of that 2,000th soldier as an opportunity to advance your views, but because you see yourselves as being on the correct side, it's somehow OK.

Wow! 2000! LET THE PARTY BEGIN!!!!!

.......wait a minute? You mean it's a sad occasion? Huh, I've been reading the MSM and the "mainstream" lefty sites, you'd have thought it was a day for celebration.

Sorry Chris. You and your fellow travelers don't care 1 whit about the troops, just how you can exploit them. Go chain yourself to the White House with your patron saint, Mother Sheehan.

Also, I guess the soldiers killed in Afghanistan just don't rate....

For the most part, political blogs find themselves easily over run with disrespect. Chris, kbiel, et al, so ass easy to take off on diatribing and missing the sober points here.

1) original estimates of casualties for the invasion were over 2k. Since the SOB's didn't cooperate by standing their ground and being mowed down, taking us out in last ditch stands, this longer attempt at attrition should be no surprise. So now that we've hit this point of sacrifice, what have we got? Elections, Sadam on trial, continued ugly attempts by a minority of thugs to intimidate the general populace that are slowly decreasing.

2) How far were we when we had 2k casualties in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam?

3) Who started and perpetuated this whole body count thing, which endangers troops and emboldens the enemy to add to this propaganda tool?

War is a nasty, ugly thing. Something best resorted to when the alternatives are uglier. All we have to argue about is whether the alternatives were indeed uglier, and despite all the rhetoric about whether one side misrepresented their case or not, I see no real evidence posted by the Left that the alternative to attempting to control Sadam without war was going to be less ugly.

One chemical or bio attack against our troops in the sandbox could have left us with a whole lot more than 2k casualties. And one would have surely come, eventually, if we stayed there twidling our thumbs for long enough. If not from Iraq, then AQ, Iran, etc. Maybe even by this year. While its still a threat, we have a hold of what had been one major source of that threat.

[And splitting the front on terror has had a weakening effect on the strength of AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan.]

You may disagree with my premises, but lets argue from this hill, not the silly, demeaning and insulting premises so many stand on above.

How many innocent deaths caused by Islamic terrorists will capture the attention of the MSM or the Left like the "2000th" American death in Iraq??? 3000, 5000, 10000??? BTW, 400 of those deaths were non-combat fatalities. So "only" 1600 troops died in combat. That is about 2 casualities per day to keep America safe. That is extremely low. In fact, its safer to be a U.S. soldier in Iraq than drive on U.S. roads. But it sure is good to know that the left supports the troops. Right???

Chris,

Yes, I was being an asshole when I made my comment and, you know, I don't care. I'm tired of the "We support the troops, so bring them home crowd." My comments are hardly bullshit. You need only spend a day on The Daily Kos or Democratic Underground to see that. You only need to listen to 5 minutes of Cindy Sheehan to know that the left no longer cares who they use or how they use them to bludgeon their opponents. When the left in this country start counting the deaths of innocent people caused by Islamic terrorist activities with as many "this is sad" commentary then I won't have any basis to make the kind of comment I made earlier.

As I tried to make clear, I am usually respectful on this blog, despite the fact that I am usually quite outnumbered. I think most would agree with that. I didn't call kbiel an asshole because I disagreed with his point. He was personally insulting me and everyone else who supports the troops but opposes the war. I'm not going to have some jerk accuse me of celebrating American soldiers dying without telling him what I think. I idsagree with most of what has been subsequently posted on thsi thread, but I'm not calling names, so I do resent being lumped in with kbiel as "diatribing". Ever since this war began, the right has vilified anyone who opposes it. I acknowledge that a lot of lefties say ridiculous things about Bush (the Nazi stuff embarrasses me) but the right unloads on anyone who questions the war in the most personal terms. As I've said before, it used to be a big deal to question someone's loyalty to the country, but the right had turned it into a parlor game. I don't believe in sitting still for that, and I'm going to speak up.

So you can keep posting all of your rationales for the war, but that wasn't the point of my original post. And I notice no one has acknowledged that the right is using the occasion to attack their enemies as much as to honor the fallen. Read the right wing blogs (hell, read this thread) and tell me I'm wrong.

If you think Democrats are using this moment for political gain, then make that point, although I disagree with it. That's not what kbiel said.

Okay, Here. They're using this moment for political gain.

Happy?

And their ideological allies are using it as a fundraising opportunity.

No, they weren't looking forward to this death at all.

Now there is also this list too.

Link

This list stands in stark comparison with the list of today's landmark.

Respectfully,

Robert

Well Chris...if you rally around those who politicize the deaths of our brave soldiers...you should take action to distance yourself form such scum and dare I say, traitors. I think the Democrats are traitors to this country. I think the looney left moonbats are traitors to this country. If you associate yourself with them...well then it comes to the saying, it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..it must be a duck. Because, they consistantly say, they "support our troops", yet their actions state clearly the opposite. IF you supported our troops would you use their deaths for fundrasing? Would you use those deaths to try to bolster your base? So, the ball is in your court. Are you going to associate with these sort of people?

Slublog... good catch.

And Chris, the big 2000 is an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system. The only thing significant about the "toll" is that it is unbelievably tiny considering the scope of the conflict.

And Chris, the big 2000 is an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system.

Good point Synova. I, personally, am going to wait until number 800 (hexidecimal since I am a programmer by trade, 2048 for those of you with 10 fingers, instead of 16) until I begin to unfairly blugeon those who are supporting our troops by using their deaths to campaign and raise funds.

Chris,

I will virtually guarantee you that if NONE of the far lefty groups were trying to use this to political advantage, then none of the righty blogs would be using it to pummel them.

Also, why don't you try taking your respectfulness to one of the lefty blogs and try disagreeing with their use of this occasion as a political weapon and see how far it gets you. I double dog dare you.

Some cold, hard facts to consider and present perspective. Caveats abound due to statistics and data sourcing, but interesting nonetheless.

Death rate (deaths/1,000 population) 2005 est. [as of 4 October, 2005]

001 Botswana...... 29.36
011 Afghanistan... 20.75
110 United States. 08.25
181 Iraq.......... 05.49
225 Kuwait........ 02.42

US Forces Order of Battle - 4 March 2005
"...the total figure of US troops in Iraq may be higher than the official count of ~150,000 by multiple thousands."

Very rough estimates from limited data:
Expected per annum death rate from sustained total of 150,000 military agents using current estimated death rate in U.S. as the relative base [150 x 8.25 = 1238/year]. I've used "per annum" but this may be an incorrect interpretation.

So, the death rate of soldiers in the Iraqi theater is actually lower than that found in the "safe" U.S. Also, the overall death rate is lower in the country of Iraq taken as a whole. Kinda surprising if these estimates are validated at the end of the assessment period. Granted, age/health demographics taint these numbers but overall, this back-of-the-napkin computation shows that hysteria is unwarranted. Every death is tragic, every injury is saddening, every sacrifice heroic... but let's keep the big picture in mind when we consider the alternatives not taken.

How many of those deaths were caused by terrorists who find support in the fact that so many on the left take their side, or anyone else's for that matter, against the United States? If you don't believe the terrorists are emboldened by the left's anti-war protests you are wrong.

bullwinkle,

No doubt they are emboldened to some extent. In fact they count on the Left and some of its media minions to spread the anti-America word. Exhibit A? Monday's bombing at the Palestine Hotel.

These terrorists, despite periodic boosts from partisans, become increasingly ineffectual and are being rebuffed by an expanding and confident electorate. So, to staunch the their bleeding, they attack a soft target of media personalities in full light so that their semi-sympathetic target may carry the message of "chaos","failure", and "quagmire".

Yes, the terrorists studied the Vietnam model well and it is their only hope of "winning" against superior forces and determination. The old media has tried to accommodate their desperation to some degree but, due to alternate media, that message no longer trumps all. We'll see how far the politicians run with the sentiment too. Despite protestations from Sheehan-like sycophants, today's constituency can more readily recognize their folly.

Chris,

I think the point of the first article linked was that the 2000th soldier voluntarily put his life at risk to fight for something he believed in. Unfortunately, it did cost him his life. So, he gave his life to advance a cause he believed in. What's disrespectful about what some of the left will do is that they will try to use his sacrifice as a point to work against the goal for which he so unselfishly gave his life. I can't see how that's respectful for what he chose to do.

- MikeB

Chris, I just want to respectfully add that here in Philly the media (a sort of liberal institutuon) has been saying for the past couple of days that the death toll in Iraq is close to reaching 2000. It's like they were preoccupied with preparing us for the headlines that appeared today. It's a little weird how the 2000th death merits a different font compared to the 1873rd death.

The media and the left don't seem to give a shit about the dead in Afghanistan. Wonder why? And it really doesn't matter, if Scooter Libby gets indicted, the left will oh so quickly forget this and jump all over that. Then the troops will be forgotten by them again, until something happens they can use to hurt Bush.

Yeah, you support the troops. But you don't support their commander, you don't support their mission, you don't support the way they do their jobs, and you don't support their goals. You ran a candidate for president who slandered the troops mercilessly during his hayday! Your presumptive nominee in 2008 said she "loathed" the military! So please, stop the pretense, ok? We know that the one CYA lesson you scumbags learned from Vietnam was to pretend to like the troops next time you protested, and it still doesn't work. You go apeshit over Abu Ghraib, while Americans are strung up and butchered on a bridge and your master Kos says "screw them" with nary a dissent from you, and Kos is affiliated with Howard Dean. Guess Dean supports that message. We saw a million pictures of some idiot with panties on their head, but beheading videos are off limits. You demand the pictures of the dead being offloaded at Dover, but heaven forbid they show the poor bastards forced to jump from the WTC. That idiot communist Italian journalist Segrena runs a checkpoint and gets shot, you jump down and blame the military with both feet. The left claims over and over that the military is DELIBERATELY targeting journalists. Yeah, some support. They can do without that support.
You take offense to this post? You don't like being "lumped in"? TOO FUCKING BAD. If the shoe fits, cram it.

The number is tragic for everyone. So both sides should take a minute, stop the finger pointing and shut up.

DUDATTACK, you have a point that this is tragic for everyone. But a significant part of the Vietnam War was lost in the media. I personally don't feel that shutting up is a good option.

When Mother Sheehan ties herself to the White House Fence, we can hope no one unties her. Perhaps volunteer could tie her cohorts along side her and leave them all there until the troops come home! (I'm really getting tired of the far Left crap.)

So let me see if I've got this straight. The minute the President commits troops somewhere, we give up all rights as citizens to voice our opinion? Thta's bullshit, and certainly wasn't the case when Ton DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Gary Bauer, Judd Gregg, Richard Lugar and Geoirge W. Bush, among others, criticized our mission in Bosnia. And Bush would love to keep making the point that if you don't support him, you don't support the troops, but that just ain't so. The most important cost of this war is the lives of our soldiers, and you folks want us to just ignore them. You're the oones who are willing to keep feeding these young men and women into the machine in order to advancde your political aims. These men and women are dying so the Iraqis can have a constitution? That's ridiculous.

And let's be real, 2,000 is a milestone, whether you like it or not. We always observe things in milestones. "the big 2000 is an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system." Are you shitting me? And your comment is an accident of the fact that we speak English. The 2,000 casualty number means something to both sides. Of course the Republicans aren't going to play it up. They'd rather people never thought about the human cost of the war.

Soldiers are trained to believe in their mission. That's the only way you can maintain a disciplined military. The fact that a soldier believes in his mission doesn't automatically justify the mission.

As for this constantly repeated bullshit that the insurgents are emboldened by dissent in this country, I call bulllshit. Do you really believe that these guys would lay down their arms and give up the fight if all of the left-wing bloggers closed up shop?

What I primarily see here is a strong tendency on the part of the right to stifle dissent. If you don't like what the left thinks, then argue against their policies. All of this bullshit that we don't support the troops, we give strength to the enemy, we don't like this country, that just reflects your inability to defend your position.

I didn't want the first soldier to die. You giuys say 2,000 is no big deal (exzcuse me, an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system.) I want them to come home and stop dying. You want them to stay and get shot at. Some support you're offering there.

First, I'd like to know why a leftist troll bothers to post here. However, no matter.

Second, I'll ask the leftist troll one question: Do you believe the U.S. and its allies are fighting against evil (or terrorists or murders) in Iraq???

So let me see if I've got this straight. The minute the President commits troops somewhere, we give up all rights as citizens to voice our opinion? Thta's bullshit, and certainly wasn't the case when Ton DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Gary Bauer, Judd Gregg, Richard Lugar and Geoirge W. Bush, among others, criticized our mission in Bosnia.

Look troll, Bosnia was not in our national interest, and did not threaten our national security. It was purely a humanitarian effort. Were you for that conflict???

And Bush would love to keep making the point that if you don't support him, you don't support the troops, but that just ain't so. The most important cost of this war is the lives of our soldiers, and you folks want us to just ignore them.

The PRESIDENT of the U.S. is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. If you don't support him, then yes, you don't support the troops. Supporting the troops means supporting the mission too. You can't separate the warrior and the war. The cost of war is the lives of soldiers. But they are defending our freedom and security. Would you complain about the loss of U.S. soldiers in Normandy or Iwo Jima??? Get a clue, defending a country, changing the Middle East to be more civilized is not a trivial matter to be left to pussies like you.

You're the oones who are willing to keep feeding these young men and women into the machine in order to advancde your political aims. These men and women are dying so the Iraqis can have a constitution? That's ridiculous.

Why??? Are you too dense to figure this out??? I'll spell it out for you: Invading Iraq has caused lots of would-be jihadis to fight there. Killing them there is a lot easier than killing them here. Furthermore, once the swamp of Iraq is cleaned out and a form of democracy established, the Middle East will be less volatile. Certainly, Iran and Syria have to be handled too. What do you think Zarqawi would be doing now if he wasn't in Iraq planning suicide bombings??? Selling used cars in Jordan??? You're naive.

And let's be real, 2,000 is a milestone, whether you like it or not. We always observe things in milestones. "the big 2000 is an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system." Are you shitting me? And your comment is an accident of the fact that we speak English. The 2,000 casualty number means something to both sides. Of course the Republicans aren't going to play it up. They'd rather people never thought about the human cost of the war.

How come you leftists never have candlelight vigils for the VICTIMS of terrorism: Like the 50 in London, the 200 in Madrid, or the 1000 Israeli women and children since 2000??? I guess because dead Jews, Brits and Spaniards don't help your political agenda. Now, who never thinks about the human cost of the war on terror???

Soldiers are trained to believe in their mission. That's the only way you can maintain a disciplined military. The fact that a soldier believes in his mission doesn't automatically justify the mission.

You're obviously a military expert, I mean, having been in the military and all. Right??? No?!?! I'm shocked. Listen, punk, soldiers aren't robots you turn on and control. They're well aware of the meaning and consequences of the mission. Every soldier abides by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You are just fuckin' stupid.

As for this constantly repeated bullshit that the insurgents are emboldened by dissent in this country, I call bulllshit. Do you really believe that these guys would lay down their arms and give up the fight if all of the left-wing bloggers closed up shop?

Jaysus dude, you're fuckin' dumb. Of course they wouldn't lay down their arms if you leftists closed up shop!!! But they WOULDN'T close up shop if you were running the country either!!! That's the hole point, they want sharia. There, and here. And they are willing to die for it. And they don't care if you're a left-wing nutjob appeasement pussy, or a clear thinking American patriot.

What I primarily see here is a strong tendency on the part of the right to stifle dis