Bush: 575 Obama: 575

[georgephillip]

As of Monday 16 August 2010 each "decider" has wracked up the same number of dead Americans according to Robert Naiman's article which makes use of the icasualties.org website.

"Therefore, total US deaths in Afghanistan have doubled in Afghanistan under President Obama, and when the next US soldier is reported dead, the majority of US deaths in Afghanistan will have occurred under President Obama."

One US death that occurred in Afghanistan was Pat Tillman, star safety for the Arizona Cardinals, who literally walked away from $millions to become a Ranger.

This coming Friday, 8/20/10 "The Tillman Story" a "R"rated documentary (for language) of Pat's life and death will hit the theaters.

If it's true a majority of Americans are "deeply skeptical of the Administration's Afghanistan policy", maybe voices from the dead like Pat's will wake the echos from Vietnam and kill America's War Racket once and for all.

By US Deaths,

 

[Modbert]

I think these numbers certainly speak for the situation in Afghanistan since Obama has taken office and how much more aggressive he has been on that war front.

 

[georgephillip]

If General Petraeus opposes removing any troops from Afghanistan next summer, how do you see that affecting support for Obama's war?

 

[xotoxi]

What are the death counts in Iraq?

 

[Modbert]

If General Petraeus opposes removing any troops from Afghanistan next summer, how do you see that affecting support for Obama's war?

What is even more important is the friendship of Barack Obama and Robert Gates. Obama has listened to Gates to a great degree since taking office. In fact, Gates is the only Defense Secretary ever to stay in the cabinet despite a party change.

If Gates and Petraeus opposes removing any troops, Barack Obama would make the argument to the American people that he's listening to the people who know what they're talking about.

It's difficult to have support for any war that's not a total war in the long run because there are few measurements that are good indicators of success.

The roughest estimates right now that at least 30,000 Taliban are dead. Since the Taliban bury their dead quickly, much like the Vietcong hid their dead, it's tough to get a official count. Other estimates currently show the Taliban and allies strength in Afghanistan to be around 93,000.

What will happen by next year all is dependent on the condition of Afghanistan, deaths on both sides, and if there is a layout of what to be done there.

 

[random3434]

Bring them all the hell home!

 

[Modbert]

What are the death counts in Iraq?

Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4,414 dead Americans, 31,716 wounded, and 47,541 injured/diseased/other medical.

 

[xotoxi]

The roughest estimates right now that at least 30,000 Taliban are dead. Since the Taliban bury their dead quickly, much like the Vietcong hid their dead, it's tough to get a official count. Other estimates currently show the Taliban and allies strength in Afghanistan to be around 93,000.

My unnamed sources quote between 86,750 and 86,831 Taliban dead.

 

[xotoxi]

What are the death counts in Iraq?

Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4,414 dead Americans, 31,716 wounded, and 47,541 injured/diseased/other medical.

No what are the death counts per President...since that's what the OP was presenting.

 

[Modbert]

No what are the death counts per President...since that's what the OP was presenting.

Ah.

183 under Obama from my counts, which makes it:

Bush: 4,231
Obama: 183

 

[georgephillip]

No what are the death counts per President...since that's what the OP was presenting.

Ah.

183 under Obama from my counts, which makes it:

Bush: 4,231
Obama: 183

Possibly what we're missing here is how many Muslim civilians have died on each president's watch and how many billions of dollars in war profits have been amassed during the last nine years?

 

[georgephillip]

If General Petraeus opposes removing any troops from Afghanistan next summer, how do you see that affecting support for Obama's war?

What is even more important is the friendship of Barack Obama and Robert Gates. Obama has listened to Gates to a great degree since taking office. In fact, Gates is the only Defense Secretary ever to stay in the cabinet despite a party change.

If Gates and Petraeus opposes removing any troops, Barack Obama would make the argument to the American people that he's listening to the people who know what they're talking about.

It's difficult to have support for any war that's not a total war in the long run because there are few measurements that are good indicators of success.

The roughest estimates right now that at least 30,000 Taliban are dead. Since the Taliban bury their dead quickly, much like the Vietcong hid their dead, it's tough to get a official count. Other estimates currently show the Taliban and allies strength in Afghanistan to be around 93,000.

What will happen by next year all is dependent on the condition of Afghanistan, deaths on both sides, and if there is a layout of what to be done there.

Some of us of a certain age remember Robert Gates's friendship with Ronald Reagan and Bill Casey and find it hard to believe any opinion Gates might offer would be truthful.

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and Gates's branch chief in the early 1970s. In his article A CIA Insider's View of Robert Gates in late 2006, Ray reveals how Gates and Bill Casey violated the Arms Export Control Act in two ways by providing arms to Iran: "ignoring the requirement to notify Congress; and providing arms to a state designated as a sponsor of terrorism."

"It gets worse. To grease the skids for this dubious adventure, Gates ordered his more malleable subordinates at the CIA to cook up intelligence reports to provide some comfort to Reagan in acquiescing to these activities.

"A National Intelligence Estimate of May 1985 predicted Soviet inroads into Iran if the United States did not reach out to 'moderates' within the Iranian leadership"

I suspect what Gates and Petraeus know most about is what Smedley Butler warned about in War is a Racket.

 

[georgephillip]

US Senator Chuck Schumer finds the war in Afghanistan a "complex issue" for which there are no easy answers.

Chuck's pretty sure we have a "mission" in Afghanistan and "We can achieve victory...when we have an environment that is conducive to economic development and most importantly when the Afghans have a security infrastructure that permits them to independently fight off and neutralize the Taliban insurgency in that country."

What would you pick as the most operative word in Chuck's quote? "Economic" or "Development"?

"All the troops, all the missiles, and the predator drones are there to bring Afghanistan under American dependence, consolidating US presence in the oil and gas rich Caspian Basin with its geopolitical significance toward potential enemies Russia and China, and encircling Iran.

"We're fighting them 'over there' not so we don't have to fight them 'over here', but because that's where the oil and gas are.

"Try telling that to the American public and see if it turns up a few less patriots..."

Why Afghanistan?

"The cheapest asset of US multinationals is the US military, serving to protect foreign investment with costs of blood and limb, paid for in full by the commons."