More US soldiers killed in Afghanistan during 2 years of Obama’s compared to 8 years under Bush

iCasualties.org ^ | 12/12/10

[Evil Slayer]

Obama's rules of engagement and definance of this nation and it's military is disgraceful to the point of treason.

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

It is so curious that the major networks no longer run nightly bios of fallen soldiers! Remember when they ran a daily list of names of the dead? It could have been a very noble thing except that it was so obviously a political attack on GWB!

[Doogle]

ROE, from the head Muslim

[sushiman]

We’ve paid a zilion dollars for weapons that could have ended wars inc. Iraq and Afghanistan but nobody will use them . Instead we send our young over there with one hand tied behind their backs to die for what exactly ? Better start building another Vietnam-like memorial with the names of the dead on it . We haven’t won a war since 1945 , really . Think about it .

[Evil Slayer]

ping

[AlexW]

“3 times as many U.S. soldiers killed under Obama‘s 2 year watch as were under Bush’s entire 8 years”

My God, is it really THAT bad? I had no idea.
Under Bush, we were reminded of every single death.

The sad part is that there are many Obots out there that
will say “It’s a good thing”.

[deks]

The headline is false.

[palmer]

This is from the article:

   Year   US  UK  Other Total
   2001  12   0   0     12
   2002  49   3   18    70              
   2003  48   0   10    58
   2004  52   1   7     60
   2005  99   1   31    131
   2006  98   39  54    191
   2007  117  42  73    232
   2008  155  51  89    295
   2009  317  108 96    521
   2010  486  101 105   692
   Total 1433 346   483 2262

[wmileo]

Is the article filled with 'false' statistics as well?

http://icasualties.org/oef/

If this headline is false, can you direct us FREEPERS to the truth regarding the number of U.S. casualties since 2009 relative to the period 2001 - 2008?

Thank you.

[deks]

You figure it out. (clue...Iraq)

[drpix]

"It is so curious that the major networks no longer run nightly bios of fallen soldiers!"

I think there's something even more sinister behind this than solely the Media that tried to damage Bush now protecting Obama.

I am convinced that, many/most anti-American press were more concerned amount soldiers dieing in Bush's effort to win a war, than dieing in a war they know Obama has no intention of winning. American victory has always been unthinkable for the 5th column.

[drpix]

CORRECTION:

that, many/most anti-American press = that many/most in the anti-American press

[aruanan]

3 times as many U.S. soldiers killed under Obama‘s 2 year watch as were under Bush's entire 8 years

This is from the article:

   Year   US  UK  Other Total
   2001  12   0   0     12
   2002  49   3   18    70              
   2003  48   0   10    58
   2004  52   1   7     60
   2005  99   1   31    131
   2006  98   39  54    191
   2007  117  42  73    232
   2008  155  51  89    295
   2009  317  108 96    521
   2010  486  101 105   692
   Total 1433 346   483 2262

2001-2008 total for the U.S. is 630. 2009-2010 total is 803. That's a little less than 30% greater, not three times greater. The average for Barry is 401/year, for Bush, about 79. So you could say average yearly deaths under Obama is about 5 times higher than average yearly U.S. deaths under Bush or that Barry's first two years were 16 times higher than Bush's first two years or that Barry's second year is about 10 times higher than Bush's second year or that Barry's second year is about 3 times higher than Bush's last year.

[SECURE AMERICA]

The stats are only for the Afghanistan War
If you use the Iraq war then it reverses.
Obama is an evil scourge on this Nation but let’s deal with him with a little honesty less we become just like him.

[Evil Slayer]

about 3 times higher than Bush's last year

Thanks for pointing that out. I should have said that instead of "entire 8 years". I picked up the headline from another source prior to posting the article.

It still is a very high causality rate compared to the last year of Bush's watch. I still believe it has more to do with the new rules of engagement rather than the larger number of troops over there since Obama took office.

[edpc]

Problem is, the statistics in the article don't even support the title. As pointed out in post 13, they don't add up. Also, they are not stating specificity to Afghanistan in the headline. Misleading and demonstrably false data doesn't help in the argument against the obvious ineptitude of the current CiC.

[deks]

Re: 3 times as many U.S. soldiers killed under Obama‘s 2 year watch as were under Bush’s entire 8 years

Please forgive me. I like to include links in my comments...a link to information is one of the best things on Free Republic, but I was getting some breakfast. I’ll post the links that I have found.

I saw that a figure of 1400+ killed could not include Iraq (and remembered when the media made an event of reaching 3,000 killed in Iraq.

The page linked to the headline is Operation Enduring Freedom(Afghanistan), and also we went into Iraq in 2003.

[Eye of Unk]

Well duh, Muslim POTUS don’t want to be targeted by pissed off Moslems.
I bet there will be many a new law wrote to prevent this from happening again.

All possible future Presidential nominees must be vetted for any and all Islamic sympathizing or beliefs. No wonder Obama has had associates hiding his past so much.

[thethirddegree]

Obama should be arrested, tried for treason and brought to justice by a jury of the families of those killed by his ROE.

[dforest]

It isn’t hard to notice how the media covers for him by saying “NATO troops”.

Almost all the time they are American troops.