PDA

View Full Version : Obama Afghanistan War Deaths Under Obama Surpass Those Under Bush


healthpellets
08-18-2010, 05:31 PM
You can make whatever arguments you want, or interpret this however you want. But the fact is, the future leaders of our country are dying for a nation building effort that in all likelihood will fail. And that's a goddamn shame.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Military_Deaths_in_Afghanistan_under_Obama_Top_Those_under_Bush_100818

In less than two years, the United States has suffered more combat deaths in Afghanistan under President Barack Obama than it did during the two-term presidency of George W. Bush. The latest casualty figures show 577 American soldiers have died in the war from January 20, 2009, the date of Obama’s inauguration, until now. The U.S. suffered 575 deaths from October 2001 to January 19, 2009, according to figures computed by Robert Naiman, of Just Foreign Policy from figures provided by icasualties.org. Three U.S. deaths on August 17 put the Obama total ahead of the Bush total. The names of the three have not yet been released, pending notification of next of kin.

And for visual impact, watch this.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YlfQQnH6_Cc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YlfQQnH6_Cc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Chocolate Hog
08-18-2010, 05:32 PM
But Obama is much different than Bush! He's change!

Bwana
08-18-2010, 05:46 PM
Hope and Change!

HonestChieffan
08-18-2010, 05:58 PM
Its a good war though.

Bill Parcells
08-18-2010, 11:49 PM
The taliban are our friends. didnt Obama say that? ROFL

DenverChief
08-19-2010, 03:53 AM
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/12/01/image5855123.gifNot a Rocket Scientist but it would make sense to me the more troops inserted into an area the higher the death total--Obama took over in 2009 and the troop levels doubled--just seems like the deaths would go up with more troops to square off against the terrorists

Messier
08-19-2010, 08:50 AM
What where the troop levels in Afghanistan under Bush? Didn't he kind of ignore Afghanistan

stevieray
08-19-2010, 08:53 AM
democrats support this war...non issue.

/amnorix

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 09:39 AM
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/12/01/image5855123.gifNot a Rocket Scientist but it would make sense to me the more troops inserted into an area the higher the death total--Obama took over in 2009 and the troop levels doubled--just seems like the deaths would go up with more troops to square off against the terrorists

and it's worked out so well.

ForeverChiefs58
08-19-2010, 04:36 PM
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/12/01/image5855123.gifNot a Rocket Scientist but it would make sense to me the more troops inserted into an area the higher the death total--Obama took over in 2009 and the troop levels doubled--just seems like the deaths would go up with more troops to square off against the terrorists

graphs mixed and intertwined with sound logic have no place in this thread.

Detoxing
08-19-2010, 04:38 PM
My shit has been stinkier under the Obama Admin as well. Come to think of it, I got a case of Athletes foot while under the Obama Admin too.

Damn Obama....

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 04:45 PM
graphs mixed and intertwined with sound logic have no place in this thread.

or maybe increasing troops resulting in additional unnecessary american deaths was piss poor foreign policy.

ForeverChiefs58
08-19-2010, 04:50 PM
American Republicans are really meeting up with the zionist jews and are posing as islamic terrorists, actually killing americas own troops just to justify war, drive up the price of mosques($100 million) make the jews rich and make obama and the democrates unpopular at home. Evil Genious. /castro

fan4ever
08-19-2010, 07:55 PM
My shit has been stinkier under the Obama Admin as well. Come to think of it, I got a case of Athletes foot while under the Obama Admin too.

Damn Obama....

Stop walking around in your stinky crap.

Saul Good
08-19-2010, 08:02 PM
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/12/01/image5855123.gifNot a Rocket Scientist but it would make sense to me the more troops inserted into an area the higher the death total--Obama took over in 2009 and the troop levels doubled--just seems like the deaths would go up with more troops to square off against the terrorists

Throwing good money after bad is a sound financial strategy, too. After all, it takes money to make money.

KC Dan
03-22-2011, 11:33 AM
Do you know how many Coalition forces have died in Afghanistan? ABC Sunday morning show used to air "In Memoriam" to detail those servicemen and women who were killed in the war theatres but they have sadly stopped airing that ath the end of the broadcasts. Also, the major media used to give frequent updates of soldier casualties but no more. Is this due to Obama being a media favorite and the media not wanting to down his administration? Nahhhhh...

FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

Chief Faithful
03-22-2011, 11:49 AM
Hope and Change!

Hope and Change seems to have been beat down by reality.

Chief Faithful
03-22-2011, 11:51 AM
What where the troop levels in Afghanistan under Bush? Didn't he kind of ignore Afghanistan

He didn't ignore it he just didn't sell the nation on Afghanistan being the "right" war.

patteeu
03-22-2011, 12:45 PM
I'm not counting. The number of deaths is really pretty low in the context of military operations. The real question is whether or not the mission is worth even this minimal loss of life. We need changes in both the Kabul government and the policies of Pakistan in order to achieve our objectives in that region, IMO. Until that happens, we seem to be just treading water.

Amnorix
03-22-2011, 01:15 PM
While I have read little lately, I did read a whiel back that the Afghanis were making some inroads into traditional Taliban havens. That said, it did seem that a stalemate was more or less in place, though the understanding is that the US will be drawing down forces there in the short/intermediate term.

The death toll is a function of the renewed focus on Afghanistan after years of it taking a distant second seat to Iraq in terms of priority/focus. Whether that's a good or bad decision is a separate debate, but when you go from trying to minimize the involvement/conflict to trying to make some serious progress, it's axiomatic that the costs, including in blood, will also rise.

Warrior5
03-22-2011, 01:48 PM
The death toll is a function of the renewed focus on Afghanistan after years of it taking a distant second seat to Iraq in terms of priority/focus. Whether that's a good or bad decision is a separate debate, but when you go from trying to minimize the involvement/conflict to trying to make some serious progress, it's axiomatic that the costs, including in blood, will also rise.

I agree with this for the most part; the troop increase in Afghanistan was accompanied by a change in the operational approach. Operations outside FOBs increased, which consequently increased contact with insurgents.

I also agree that the media have essentially stopped the formerly routine reporting of KIAs/casualties/memoriums, and that is plain wrong.

mikey23545
03-22-2011, 02:25 PM
While I have read little lately, I did read a whiel back that the Afghanis were making some inroads into traditional Taliban havens. That said, it did seem that a stalemate was more or less in place, though the understanding is that the US will be drawing down forces there in the short/intermediate term.

The death toll is a function of the renewed focus on Afghanistan after years of it taking a distant second seat to Iraq in terms of priority/focus. Whether that's a good or bad decision is a separate debate, but when you go from trying to minimize the involvement/conflict to trying to make some serious progress, it's axiomatic that the costs, including in blood, will also rise.

Wow...How calm and analytical you are when a liberal is CinC...

LiveSteam
03-22-2011, 02:45 PM
I lost 3 friends under Bush. 2 men & 1 girl.Trisha was there for 36 hours. When an IED vaporized her in shit hole Fallujah
Under Obama, Zero. Not that Obama has anything to do with that.

Amnorix
03-22-2011, 02:48 PM
Wow...How calm and analytical you are when a liberal is CinC...


Don't be hypocritical, since Bush could hardly do any wrong when he was in charge, from the point of view of many on the right (coughPatteeucough).

But the real point here is that most on the left ALWAYS supported Afghanistan. Under Bush and now under Obama. It was Iraq that drove us nuts, because it was unnecessary.

The Mad Crapper
03-24-2011, 12:26 PM
Is Cindy Sheehan still in Texas?

http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-cdr-in-chief.jpg

Jaric
03-24-2011, 06:02 PM
I lost 3 friends under Bush. 2 men & 1 girl.Trisha was there for 36 hours. When an IED vaporized her in shit hole Fallujah
Under Obama, Zero. Not that Obama has anything to do with that.

I'm sorry to hear that Live. I was fortunate that my best friend was able to come back safe and sound after his tour there. I've only talked about it with him briefly (I didn't want to pry) but I know he lost people he was close to there. It's a situation I can't even imagine (and I don't think you can unless you've experienced it)

It's very easy for us to become very selfish in how we view the war when we aren't a part of it and it's thousands of miles away in some far off shithole.

Don't know if you have any other friends still over there, but if you do, I pray you will be spared further pain from their loss.

KC Dan
03-24-2011, 06:23 PM
We are at war in Afghanistan? Obama said that he'd get us out and it's not ever in the news that we are at war there so....I just assumed that Obama got the U.S. out.

Amnorix
03-24-2011, 08:41 PM
We are at war in Afghanistan? Obama said that he'd get us out and it's not ever in the news that we are at war there so....I just assumed that Obama got the U.S. out.

Can I get a quote/cite there? I remember that he said we should focus on Afghanistan instead of ignoring it, as we had done under Bush. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't think so.

The Mad Crapper
03-24-2011, 09:04 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/lib-lid-small.jpg

RJ
03-24-2011, 10:14 PM
Obama War-Monga!

That should be a bumper sticker. On the back of a Prius. I think I'll run that up the flag pole and see if it brings down a cash cow.

KC Dan
03-25-2011, 10:59 AM
Can I get a quote/cite there? I remember that he said we should focus on Afghanistan instead of ignoring it, as we had done under Bush. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't think so.sarcasm and yes, he did say that he was starting withdrawls in July 2011 and completed turnover in 2014. Get your head out of the sand, man

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-21/news/24843839_1_afghan-withdrawal-afghan-security-nato-afghan

Amnorix
03-25-2011, 11:02 AM
sarcasm and yes, he did say that he was starting withdrawls in July 2011 and completed turnover in 2014. Get your head out of the sand, man

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-21/news/24843839_1_afghan-withdrawal-afghan-security-nato-afghan

Ah sorry, I'll try to adjust my sarcasm meter...

go bowe
03-25-2011, 12:03 PM
Do you know how many Coalition forces have died in Afghanistan? ABC Sunday morning show used to air "In Memoriam" to detail those servicemen and women who were killed in the war theatres but they have sadly stopped airing that ath the end of the broadcasts. Also, the major media used to give frequent updates of soldier casualties but no more. Is this due to Obama being a media favorite and the media not wanting to down his administration? Nahhhhh...

FYI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan
it is curious that they stopped doing those in memoriam spots...

KC Dan
03-25-2011, 12:19 PM
it is curious that they stopped doing those in memoriam spots...It's not curious at all. It is OBVIOUS why they stopped.

go bowe
03-25-2011, 12:48 PM
It's not curious at all. It is OBVIOUS why they stopped.well, that possibility seems obvious, but i'd like to hear what explanation the networks have...

that is, if they have any explanation other than what appears to be obvious...

KC Dan
03-25-2011, 12:52 PM
well, that possibility seems obvious, but i'd like to hear what explanation the networks have...

that is, if they have any explanation other than what appears to be obvious...hahahahaha, I emailed ABC and asked them why and if they would put the segment back on and guess the response...

go bowe
03-25-2011, 12:59 PM
hahahahaha, I emailed ABC and asked them why and if they would put the segment back on and guess the response...they offered to buy you out?

i'm not saying that they even have a rational response, but they must get a kazillion emails every day and i doubt they answer each one...

still, it is curious, if not obvious...