Quote:
Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls
Bombing houses full of women and children with no terrorist in them is the right war? 
What happened to the lefts claim that Bush was making more terrorist than killing? If Obama is killing 1000x more civilians in Pakistan than Bush using the lefts logic he must be making 1000x more terrorists.
Fighting a war where his generals say we are not looking to win, that there is "no winning" in Afghanistan ? Thats the right war?
Yeah sounds VERY sheepy to me. |
That happens in all war... it sucks. But trying to compare the civilian death rates to Bush is a bit nuts. First, Bush did not focus on Afghan, he focused on Iraq. Sadly, Bush has killed far more people.
95,888 ? 104,595 civilian deaths as a result of the Iraq conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
or
"that at least 392,979 Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation"
http://brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf (a study)
VS.
575. That's how many U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in the Afghanistan war since Barack Obama became President at noon on January 20, 2009 - It's higher than that though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert..._b_683441.html
You may want to flush the news articles down the drain saying Obama has killed more Civilians in Afghan than Bush has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilia...2%80%93present)
Just from 01-03 direct & indirect civilian deaths: 6,300 - 23,600 - That's what happens when you carpet bomb an entire Country with 5000lb bombs. And total, direct civilian deaths: at least 11,443 - 14,240.