Political posterizing redux.

[kiki5711]

but you could afford 10 yrs prior without complaint? you're quite ok with more wars, less jobs, at least jobs that can support your family, and on, and on, and on.......your logic has NO logic. You're ok someone taking your business, job, house and saying, "sorry, I had to do it, you know how those shareholders are". They come first. You, and anything you do for this country, will come LAST of importance, if at all.

[kiki5711]

This is what you're for? To keep inventing wars to profit the 1%, at the expense of lives of the other 99%.?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Warren Dew]

This is what you're for? To keep inventing wars to profit the 1%, at the expense of lives of the other 99%.?

No, that's what Obama's for.

[Warren Dew]

[kiki5711]

Are you kidding me Warren? that picture is from POLITIFAKE.ORG. (which, by the way is for sale if you're interested). Do you even pay attention to what you post? Last picture you posted was all fake too. I went to each and every link posted on it, and it was totally different information then how it's presented in that picture.

[kiki5711]

This is what you're for? To keep inventing wars to profit the 1%, at the expense of lives of the other 99%.?

No, that's what Obama's for.

How is Obama for encouraging more wars? He's totally opposite. Trying to do everything possible to avoid losing more lives of our soldiers. Are you so full of hate of him cuz he's black that you'll believe anything, just to get him out of the White House, like the rest of the Republican upstanding citizens?

[Ian]

If there's one thing this forum has taught me about Republicans, it's that they care absolutely nothing for context. Only spin.

I think Warren's right that 69% of casualties in Afghanistan have come during Obama's term. I also think the majority of US casualties in Europe during WWII came after D-Day.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If there's one thing this forum has taught me about Republicans, it's that they care absolutely nothing for context. Only spin.

I think Warren's right that 69% of casualties in Afghanistan have come during Obama's term. I also think the majority of US casualties in Europe during WWII came after D-Day.

And the number of Japanese casualties at Hiroshima were suspiciously high as well. Just SCREAMS racism.

[Kristie]

404743_547325698626279_128453705_n.jpg (37.35 KiB) Viewed 250 times

487014_547905698568279_562349952_n.jpg (42.93 KiB) Viewed 250 times

[Kristie]

I don't know if this has been posted anywhere yet, but I just saw it and it's AWESOME!!!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc&feature=b-mv[/youtube]

[kiki5711]

If there's one thing this forum has taught me about Republicans, it's that they care absolutely nothing for context. Only spin.

I think Warren's right that 69% of casualties in Afghanistan have come during Obama's term. I also think the majority of US casualties in Europe during WWII came after D-Day.

I tried to find info to explain this figure. It is written about in this news article supporting the 69%. However, after reading the article, I got the larger picture and what I see is that a lot of the killing was done by the very Afghan soldiers we're training to protect their own country.

Now I understand why Obama said we're getting the hell out of Afghanistan, we've done all we can to teach them. Let them do their war crap themselves now, if they even care. (well, this is my wording, not Obama's). I'm assuming this is a reliable source, I mean this paper? do you know?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s ... casualties

CNSNews.TV
On the Spot
On the Scene
The Schein
OTJ
Golden Hookah

Home » News
Obama’s Watch: 39 Months, 69 Percent of Afghan War Casualties
By Edwin Mora
May 1, 2012
Subscribe to Edwin Mora's posts


Barack Obama, Joe Biden

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at Fort Campbell, Ky., in May 2011. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

(CNSNews.com) - Although President Obama has only served 39 months in office, 69 percent of the U.S. military fatalities in the more than 10-year-old war in Afghanistan have occurred on his watch.

Through April 30, the Defense Department had reported that 1,844 U.S. military personnel have been killed in and around Afghanistan while deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom, which was launched in October 2001 after al Qaeda terrorists attacked the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.

According to CNSNews.com’s comprehensive database on Afghan war casualties, at least 1,275 of the 1,844 U.S. troops killed in the Afghanistan conflict have been killed since Jan. 20, 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated as president.

In the more than 10 years the U.S. military has been fighting in Afghanistan, each of the three deadliest years have been during Obama’s presidency. The deadliest year was 2010, when 497 U.S. service personnel gave their lives in Afghanistan. The second deadliest year was 2011, when 399 U.S. service personnel gave their lives in Afghanistan. And the third deadliest year was 2009, when 303 U.S. service personnel gave their lives in Afghanistan.

In recent years, some U.S. casualties in Afghanistan have come at the hands of the Afghan forces that the U.S. military is seeking to train so that they can defend their own country. Since 2007, when the Pentagon began tracking these killings, 54 U.S. soldiers have been killed by Afghan troops.

On March 22, Gen. John Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, testified in Congress that as of that point 52 U.S. service personnel in Afghanistan had been killed by Afghan forces. Of those 52, Gen. Allen said, six had taken place this year alone.

Since Gen. Allen’s testimony, two more U.S. casualties at the hands of Afghan forces have come to light.

On March 16, the Associated Press reported that the Pentagon failed to identify a U.S. soldier killed by Afghan forces in February. On May 1, the Associated Press reported that on April 25 a U.S. Army special forces soldier had been killed by Afghan forces.

CNSNews.com’s detailed count of U.S. military fatalities in Afghanistan is derived from official casualty reports issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), augmented by information taken from ISAF and media accounts. (To see chart alone, click here.)

[Svartalf]

404743_547325698626279_128453705_n.jpg

I'm surprised this one didn't come up earlier... it's old but seems truer and truer with each election cycle.

[Coito ergo sum]

If there's one thing this forum has taught me about Republicans, it's that they care absolutely nothing for context. Only spin.

I think Warren's right that 69% of casualties in Afghanistan have come during Obama's term. I also think the majority of US casualties in Europe during WWII came after D-Day.

This is what you call "context?" Of course, most of the US casualties in Europe came after D-Day, because our troops weren't in Europe until D-Day, except for a few in G.B. and the Italian campaign (and we had like 3 times as many casualties on D-Day as in the entire Italian campaign). Jesus Christ, dude....

[Ian]

Not a perfect analogy, but it works just fine Coito. The US had been at war for 2.5 years by the time D-Day happened, and only 11 months afterwords. The difference here is that the allies would have invaded sooner if it were militarily possible.

In Afghanistan, an invasion happened very soon after 9/11... and then the war was shunted to a lower priority for the next seven to eight years... during which time the Taliban had ample time to regain some footing.