Did Bush have more die overseas than Obama?

ehtheist

ehtheist

#FreeBanchan
Banned
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
6,280
Reaction score
0
During their respective presidencies, who had more American soldiers die under their watch? Who had more civilian casualties in U.S. military operations under their watch? Not just in one conflict, but in total? Are these numbers compiled anywhere? I'd guess Bush was ahead in both categories but I really don't know...
 
Bush is way ahead in both but Obama has more than enough blood on his hands.
 
Sup, Ehtheist, how was the exam? I hope it wasn't an English exam, 'cause your thread title is wonky.
 
dontsnitch said:
Sup, Ehtheist, how was the exam? I hope it wasn't an English exam, 'cause your thread title is wonky.
Click to expand...

Hah, it was an English exam... And final paper... And several papers submitted to professors for a look through for an application... And creative writing samples... And all sorts of stuff. Been taking a break from most everything for the past two weeks or so - and not sure the break is quite done.

And yes, that title is on the wonky side... I blame my good friend Henkell Trocken. Seeing out the old year in a very merry manner so far.

And @The Higher Power, that's about what I expected. Are there any compiled figures that you know of? Bush was famously a Warmonger, but Obama has been slipping a lot of conflict under the Radar and I never hear anything about the human costs of these conflicts, so I'm curious to know how they actually compare. Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing figures for Clinton or the previous Bush, too, if they exist.
 
Bush waged a war using American soldiers, so more Americans did die under him I think.

Obama and Clinton waged war using jihadis and drones. Less American soldiers died, but all of Europe got taken over by Islam, and more innocents died to drone strikes than guilty parties.

Bush has taught us to be careful about agreeing to war after a domestic attack, as the war could be about something else.

Obama has taught us that if you're unwilling to send your own soldiers in, the war is not worth fighting.
 
ehtheist said:
Hah, it was an English exam... And final paper... And several papers submitted to professors for a look through for an application... And creative writing samples... And all sorts of stuff. Been taking a break from most everything for the past two weeks or so - and not sure the break is quite done.

And yes, that title is on the wonky side... I blame my good friend Henkell Trocken. Seeing out the old year in a very merry manner so far.

And @The Higher Power, that's about what I expected. Are there any compiled figures that you know of? Bush was famously a Warmonger, but Obama has been slipping a lot of conflict under the Radar and I never hear anything about the human costs of these conflicts, so I'm curious to know how they actually compare. Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing figures for Clinton or the previous Bush, too, if they exist.
Click to expand...

Cheers, I'm also celebrating a milestone of sorts, but I dare say my Fernet is far better than sparkling wine.
 
BU9Cc6zCMAA9bC6.png
 
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1997/5/8/senate-section/article/S4207-1
AMERICAN INTERESTS IN THE CASPIAN SEA REGION

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, American involvement and interests in the
Caspian Sea Region, have been increasing recently. While this region is
new on the political map of American policy-makers, in that the newly-
sovereign nations there were formerly Republics under the rule of the
Soviet Union, they represent very substantial new opportunities for the
United States.
From the point of view of energy reserves, the tremendous hydrocarbon
resources which are available for development in the region are of
world-class potential. The extent of the resources which apparently
exist, particularly in Kazakstan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan could
well serve as a long-term alternative to Western dependence on
vulnerable supplies of Persian gulf oil. The proper development of the
energy resources of the Caspian Sea region should also provide an
invaluable impetus to the economic development of all the nations of
the region. As a result of this growing potential, the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act for FY 1997 included a provision that I
proposed for the Administration to develop a plan of action for the
United States government to assist and accelerate the earliest possible
development and shipment of oil from the Caspian Sea region to the
United States and other Western markets.
Click to expand...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...r_in_Afghanistan#Casualties_by_month_and_year
More than two-thirds of those deaths have occurred since the American military presence in Afghanistan was doubled under President Barack Obama in 2009.
Click to expand...


https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/globecon/maresca.htm
One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.

The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.

In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The route through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil.

Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional oil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia.

The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the pipeline would be in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Note the timeline.
 
Cint said:
BU9Cc6zCMAA9bC6.png
Click to expand...
I'm no Obama fan, but this is misleading. The Surge in Iraq was roughly 2006-2007, while the Surge in Afghanistan was roughly 2010-2012. Afghanistan was an afterthought during the height of the War in Iraq, for better or for worse.
 
ehtheist said:
Hah, it was an English exam... And final paper... And several papers submitted to professors for a look through for an application... And creative writing samples... And all sorts of stuff. Been taking a break from most everything for the past two weeks or so - and not sure the break is quite done.

And yes, that title is on the wonky side... I blame my good friend Henkell Trocken. Seeing out the old year in a very merry manner so far.

And @The Higher Power, that's about what I expected. Are there any compiled figures that you know of? Bush was famously a Warmonger, but Obama has been slipping a lot of conflict under the Radar and I never hear anything about the human costs of these conflicts, so I'm curious to know how they actually compare. Hell, I wouldn't mind seeing figures for Clinton or the previous Bush, too, if they exist.
Click to expand...

as a graduate of college I just want to let you know to tell your professers to go fuck themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,043
Messages
55,463,504
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top