Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Under Obama than Bush

[Camp]

This topic will be debated forever. Forty years from now documents will be declassified and books will be written reevaluating all the arguments and debates. Fifty years from now some old guys will publish books telling "untold" stories that will change everything again. 75 years from now the Iraqi's will find old letters sent between the Iraqi leaders and leaders of Iran. 80 years from now some USMB poster will post a cut and paste thread proving Obama had a bromance with the Ayatollah.

 

[francoHFW]

We are out of Iraq. It's not Obama's death toll, but it sure is Bush's legacy.

Really who's is it then?

And thank God he was POTUS when he was because Gore and Kerry would have done nothing...

Well they sure wouldn't have invaded Iraq and created this whole damn mess now would they?

They probably would have stopped 9/11 too. The Boooshies were incredibly incompetent- like putting in Maliki

 

[RandallFlagg]

What do you expect from a reckless greenhorn, look what he has done to the planet...

Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Under Obama than Bush

January 21, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

In Bush's last year in office, the Iraqi civilian death toll was at around 10,000. Under Obama, it hit 20,000 in 2014. And it's still very high.

Nearly 19,000 civilians were killed in Iraq between January 2014 and October 2015 -- a toll the United Nations calls "staggering" in a new report.
​

This is worse than all but two of the worst years under Bush. By Bush's last year in office, the Surge, which Obama opposed, had worked and the violence had died down. Before Obama called ISIS a JV team, civilian casualties had doubled in one year.

...

Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Under Obama than Bush

Well, it's not surprising - 500 pound bombs do not discriminate. Since the messiah-in-chief insists on bombing - civilian casualties are sure to follow - not that I particularly give a damn.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What do you expect from a reckless greenhorn, look what he has done to the planet...

Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Under Obama than Bush

January 21, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

In Bush's last year in office, the Iraqi civilian death toll was at around 10,000. Under Obama, it hit 20,000 in 2014. And it's still very high.

Nearly 19,000 civilians were killed in Iraq between January 2014 and October 2015 -- a toll the United Nations calls "staggering" in a new report.
​

This is worse than all but two of the worst years under Bush. By Bush's last year in office, the Surge, which Obama opposed, had worked and the violence had died down. Before Obama called ISIS a JV team, civilian casualties had doubled in one year.

...

Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Under Obama than Bush

We weren't in Iraq until 3 years into Bush's Presidency you stupid fuck.

Isn't that exactly the point, three years in, then BUSH went in. Not Obama.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We are out of Iraq. It's not Obama's death toll, but it sure is Bush's legacy.

Really who's is it then?

And thank God he was POTUS when he was because Gore and Kerry would have done nothing...

I'm sure nothing would have been better than what we have now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What do you expect from a reckless greenhorn, look what he has done to the planet...

Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Under Obama than Bush

January 21, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

In Bush's last year in office, the Iraqi civilian death toll was at around 10,000. Under Obama, it hit 20,000 in 2014. And it's still very high.

Nearly 19,000 civilians were killed in Iraq between January 2014 and October 2015 -- a toll the United Nations calls "staggering" in a new report.
​

This is worse than all but two of the worst years under Bush. By Bush's last year in office, the Surge, which Obama opposed, had worked and the violence had died down. Before Obama called ISIS a JV team, civilian casualties had doubled in one year.

...

Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Under Obama than Bush

Well, it's not surprising - 500 pound bombs do not discriminate. Since the messiah-in-chief insists on bombing - civilian casualties are sure to follow - not that I particularly give a damn.

Pro-lifer, huh?

 

[GWV5903]

I'm sure nothing would have been better than what we have now.

I knew you had pretty low standards...

 

[Care4all]

We are out of Iraq. It's not Obama's death toll, but it sure is Bush's legacy.

Really who's is it then?

And thank God he was POTUS when he was because Gore and Kerry would have done nothing...

And several thousand of our military men and women would be alive today, and several thousand women and men would not be widows and several thousand Military children would still have their fathers and mothers, alive today, and several thousand of disabled military veteran men and women would not be over burdening the VA to where these medical facilities are failing....

and a few trillions in debt would not be plaguing us for the next century with just the interest payment alone on the borrowed money for this war of CHOICE...

yeah, sure....you can thank Bush and your god for that.....

 

[Care4all]

and this report says 461,000 Iraqi have died since Bush's 2003 invasion thru 2013

Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000 - BBC News

 

[Damaged Eagle]

and a few trillions in debt would not be plaguing us for the next century with just the interest payment alone on the borrowed money for this war of CHOICE...

Funny how military spending increased dramatically after 2008 to feed Obama's 'wars that aren't wars'...

*****SMILE*****

 

[Care4all]

and a few trillions in debt would not be plaguing us for the next century with just the interest payment alone on the borrowed money for this war of CHOICE...

Funny how military spending increased dramatically after 2008 to feed Obama's 'wars that aren't wars'...

*****SMILE*****

Economic Costs

The United States federal government has spent or obligated 4.4 trillion dollars on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. This figure includes: direct Congressional war appropriations; war-related increases to the Pentagon base budget; veterans care and disability; increases in the homeland security budget; interest payments on direct war borrowing; foreign assistance spending; and estimated future obligations for veterans’ care.
This total omits many other expenses, such as the macroeconomic costs to the US economy; the opportunity costs of not investing war dollars in alternative sectors; future interest on war borrowing; and local government and private war costs.
The current wars have been paid for almost entirely by borrowing. This borrowing has raised the US budget deficit, increased the national debt, and had other macroeconomic effects, such as raising consumer interest rates. Unless the US immediately repays the money borrowed for war, there will also be future interest payments. We estimate that interest payments could total over $7 trillion by 2053.
Spending on the wars has involved opportunity costs for the US economy. Although military spending does produce jobs, spending in other areas such as health care could produce more jobs. Additionally, while investment in military infrastructure grew, investment in other, nonmilitary, public infrastructure such as roads and schools did not grow at the same rate.
Finally, federal war costs exclude billions of dollars of state, municipal, and private war costs across the country – dollars spent on services for returned veterans and their families, in addition to local homeland security efforts.

Economic Costs | Costs of War

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sure nothing would have been better than what we have now.

I knew you had pretty low standards...

I just understand what the word better means. Are you saying things in the ME are BETTER now than in 2001?

Also, if you read what I was replying to, "nothing" was not invading Iraq.

 

[Care4all]

US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion
The decade-long American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would end up costing as much as $6 trillion, the equivalent of $75,000 for every American household, calculates the prestigious Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
Remember, when President George Bush’s National Economic Council Director, Lawrence Lindsey, had told the country’s largest newspaper “The Wall Street Journal” that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, he had found himself under intense fire from his colleagues in the administration who claimed that this was a gross overestimation.
Consequently, Lawrence Lindsey was forced to resign. It is also imperative to recall that the Bush administration had claimed at the very outset that the Iraq war would finance itself out of Iraqi oil revenues, but Washington DC had instead ended up borrowing some $2 trillion to finance the two wars, the bulk of it from foreign lenders.
According to the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government 2013 report, this accounted for roughly 20 per cent of the total amount added to the US national debt between 2001 and 2012.​

According to the report, the US “has already paid $260 billion in interest on the war debt,” and future interest payments would amount to trillions of dollars. This Harvard University report has also been carried on its website by the Centre for Research on Globalisation, which is a widely-quoted Montreal-based independent research and media organisation.
In its report under review, the 377-year old Harvard University has viewed that these afore-mentioned wars had not only left the United States heavily indebted, but would also have a profound impact on the federal government’s fiscal and budgetary crises over a protracted period.​

The report has attributed the largest share of the trillions of dollars in continuing costs to care and compensation for hundreds of thousands of troops left physically and psychologically damaged by the two wars being discussed here.

​

 

[Damaged Eagle]

and a few trillions in debt would not be plaguing us for the next century with just the interest payment alone on the borrowed money for this war of CHOICE...

Funny how military spending increased dramatically after 2008 to feed Obama's 'wars that aren't wars'...

*****SMILE*****

Economic Costs

The United States federal government has spent or obligated 4.4 trillion dollars on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. This figure includes: direct Congressional war appropriations; war-related increases to the Pentagon base budget; veterans care and disability; increases in the homeland security budget; interest payments on direct war borrowing; foreign assistance spending; and estimated future obligations for veterans’ care.
This total omits many other expenses, such as the macroeconomic costs to the US economy; the opportunity costs of not investing war dollars in alternative sectors; future interest on war borrowing; and local government and private war costs.
The current wars have been paid for almost entirely by borrowing. This borrowing has raised the US budget deficit, increased the national debt, and had other macroeconomic effects, such as raising consumer interest rates. Unless the US immediately repays the money borrowed for war, there will also be future interest payments. We estimate that interest payments could total over $7 trillion by 2053.
Spending on the wars has involved opportunity costs for the US economy. Although military spending does produce jobs, spending in other areas such as health care could produce more jobs. Additionally, while investment in military infrastructure grew, investment in other, nonmilitary, public infrastructure such as roads and schools did not grow at the same rate.
Finally, federal war costs exclude billions of dollars of state, municipal, and private war costs across the country – dollars spent on services for returned veterans and their families, in addition to local homeland security efforts.

Economic Costs | Costs of War

The war in Iraq was over in 2011 and the war in Afghanistan was over in 2014...

Who are we now fighting in Obama's 'wars that aren't wars'?

*****SMILE*****

 

[frigidweirdo]

and this report says 461,000 Iraqi have died since Bush's 2003 invasion thru 2013

Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000 - BBC News

The reality is they have no idea how many died, an estimate is just that, but half a million might be a very conservative estimate, some others have said 1 million. No one will really know.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

While at least 25,000 died in Libya during the six months that the blood soaked Nobel Champion Of Peace bombed it and only God knows how many have died since then in Libya and other countries that he's bombed; Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, etc...: without Congressional approval or a Declaration Of War.

Quite a few hundreds of thousands are dead due to the gore splatted Nobel Hero Of Peace as he builds bridges of understanding out of their mutilated bodies.

*****SMILE*****

 

[ScienceRocks]

Iraq surrendered and let isis do this shit. It isn't our problem.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Obviously the progressive Democratic leadership thinks it is since we're fighting 'Wars That Aren't Wars' in a number of countries and killing hundreds of thousands in the process of proving how great our current progressive Democratic leader is at building bridges of understanding as he pins on his Nobel War Award to his uniform each morning.

Then we have a top progressive Democratic candidate just itching to take the reins so she can finish the job of destroying the governments of the other sovereign nations in the Middle East to prove how much better it is to do it the progressive Democratic way and bound to get her a Nobel War Award prior to doing anything in office too.

How many millions are going to die in the progressive Democrat 'Wars That Are Not Wars' as they prove their Nobel intentions?

*****SMILE*****

 

[TheCrusader]

What do you expect from a reckless greenhorn, look what he has done to the planet...

Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Under Obama than Bush

January 21, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

In Bush's last year in office, the Iraqi civilian death toll was at around 10,000. Under Obama, it hit 20,000 in 2014. And it's still very high.

Nearly 19,000 civilians were killed in Iraq between January 2014 and October 2015 -- a toll the United Nations calls "staggering" in a new report.
​

This is worse than all but two of the worst years under Bush. By Bush's last year in office, the Surge, which Obama opposed, had worked and the violence had died down. Before Obama called ISIS a JV team, civilian casualties had doubled in one year.

...

Iraq Civilian Death Toll Higher Under Obama than Bush

So, wait. Obama pulled out of Iraq years ago, but it's still his fault, but Bush didn't pull out of Iraq, he went in, and nothing is his fault because he's not president any more. Er......

Bush didn't pull out of Iraq because it would become a hot bed of terrorists. We can thank Obama for getting out of Iraq and letting that happen.

Why did Bush invade a country telling us it would be over in days, when in reality we could NEVER LEAVE, because if we did it would result in "hot bed of terrorism"?

How stupid are you? 70 IQ?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Iraq surrendered and let isis do this shit. It isn't our problem.

Yes it is, Bush made people angry, they don't blow up Bush, they blow up people like you.