I doubt that Obama gives a crap that he has killed many more troops in Afghanistan his first 4 years than Bush killed in 8 yearsYeah, but you add in the 4,409 Military killed by Bush in Iraq, and President Obama looks like an amateur.But seriously...you are comparing apples to oranges. In 2008, average Boots on Ground in Afghanistan was 30,000 troops, and in Iraq it was 158,000.Then A Team took over, and ended the Fiasco in Iraq, and began diverting troops to where they were needed, in BushCo's freshly minted Terrorist Training Ground in Afghanistan.In 2009:50,700 in Afghanistan135,600 in IraqIn 2010:63,500 in Afghanistan88,300 in IraqIn 2011: 63,500 in Afghanistan42,800 in IraqIn 2012:63,500 in Afghanistan4,100 in IraqSo...for the math challenged; that's a doubling of forces in Afghanistan and a virtual end to the conflict in Iraq.That casualties would increase with a doubling of forces would for most people be an obvious conclusion...Most, anyway....Oh...by the way....something you failed to mention in your "Obama Bash du Jour"...Remember that number 4,409? That's the number of our men and women that Bush killed during his stay at 1600In his first 4 years, President Obama has killed 264 of our finest in Iraq.Again...the current denizen of the White House is an amateur compared to his Predecessor.....that guy could really waste some lives!Sources: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdfhttp://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdfhttp://icasualties.org/iraq/ByYear.aspxRegards,MichaelP.S. In the above post, I made the statement that both Presidents "Killed" troops during their administration. I obviously do not believe that, but simply wanted to emphasize the stupidity of the OP's original assertion.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra