Who Has Hurt America More? OBL or GWB?
Doing the simple arithmetic does not give us a pretty picture.
George Bush's illegal, un-provoked, unnecessary, and largely unilateral invasion and unplanned occupation of Iraq (IUULUIUOI for short) has cost our nation more in blood and treasure than Osama bin Laden.
First, contrast the bloodshed by al Qaeda in America with the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq, beginning four years ago today:
OBL: Total Deaths - All 9/11 Attacks: 3,030
OBL: Total Injuries - All 9/11 Attacks: 2,337
GWB: Total US KIA in Iraq): 3,219
GWB: Total U.S. WIA in Iraq (not counting those troops wounded and returned to combat): 10,685
What I failed to consider when I initially posted this position is that it can be argued - as I vehemently have argued - that massive American retaliation against Afghanistan was not only justified by the 9-11 attacks, but mandated. Therefore our costs sustained in Operation Enduring Freedom are costs which are directly attributable to the 9-11 attacks against us.
As you can see, adding 373 U.S. KIA and 633 WIA in Afghanistan to the Osama bin Laden side of the ledger does not materially effect my contention that George Bush has cost America more in blood than has Osama bin Laden. That's especially true when you remember economists predict that several decades of care for the wounded will amount to an unbelievable $2.5 trillion.
On the financial ledger, the Department of Defense has not provided Congress with the individual costs of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) as opposed to Operation Iraqi Liberation. But the estimated disparity in costs is apparent to us, as a glimpse at the chart to the right reveals.
The financial losses due to the four airliners' attacks on 9-11, estimated up to $ 40 billion, do not begin to make up the difference. Costs of economic recovery are generally accepted as being less than those of Katrina.
Let's add to the ledger, that as a result of Bush's reckless adventure in Iraq,
our military is Stretched to Breaking Point. Finally, of penultimate importance to a global war on terror, is an international consensus on its behalf. Al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington gave us an overwhelming groundswell of sympathy throughout the world. By the time Bush mobilized for his unprovoked and unwarranted invasion of Iraq four years ago today, he had squandered that foundation of support. In fact, Bush's war was the first war in history to garner world-wide demonstrations against it on the day before it began.
It is George W. Bush, who has put the biggest hurt on Americans, in squandering our blood, our economic resources, our military assets, and our international esteem.
George Bush's illegal, un-provoked, unnecessary, and largely unilateral invasion and unplanned occupation of Iraq (IUULUIUOI for short) has cost our nation more in blood and treasure than Osama bin Laden.
First, contrast the bloodshed by al Qaeda in America with the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq, beginning four years ago today:
OBL: Total Deaths - All 9/11 Attacks: 3,030OBL: Total Injuries - All 9/11 Attacks: 2,337
GWB: Total US KIA in Iraq): 3,219
GWB: Total U.S. WIA in Iraq (not counting those troops wounded and returned to combat): 10,685
What I failed to consider when I initially posted this position is that it can be argued - as I vehemently have argued - that massive American retaliation against Afghanistan was not only justified by the 9-11 attacks, but mandated. Therefore our costs sustained in Operation Enduring Freedom are costs which are directly attributable to the 9-11 attacks against us.
As you can see, adding 373 U.S. KIA and 633 WIA in Afghanistan to the Osama bin Laden side of the ledger does not materially effect my contention that George Bush has cost America more in blood than has Osama bin Laden. That's especially true when you remember economists predict that several decades of care for the wounded will amount to an unbelievable $2.5 trillion.
On the financial ledger, the Department of Defense has not provided Congress with the individual costs of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) as opposed to Operation Iraqi Liberation. But the estimated disparity in costs is apparent to us, as a glimpse at the chart to the right reveals.The financial losses due to the four airliners' attacks on 9-11, estimated up to $ 40 billion, do not begin to make up the difference. Costs of economic recovery are generally accepted as being less than those of Katrina.
Let's add to the ledger, that as a result of Bush's reckless adventure in Iraq,
our military is Stretched to Breaking Point. Finally, of penultimate importance to a global war on terror, is an international consensus on its behalf. Al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington gave us an overwhelming groundswell of sympathy throughout the world. By the time Bush mobilized for his unprovoked and unwarranted invasion of Iraq four years ago today, he had squandered that foundation of support. In fact, Bush's war was the first war in history to garner world-wide demonstrations against it on the day before it began.It is George W. Bush, who has put the biggest hurt on Americans, in squandering our blood, our economic resources, our military assets, and our international esteem.
posted by Vigilante at 3/19/2007 09:21:00 AM
20 Moderated Comments:
GWB = double trouble.
While you may have a point at this moment Vigil, I am afraid that will all change. All of the relevant intelligence points to a massive terror strike against the United States during this decade. It will involve the use of nuclear weapons smuggled into our country by way of our open borders. I suspect several cities will be targeted and hundreds of thousands will die immediately, with many more dying during the days and months to come. Even though I seriously dislike Bush I cannot think of him in the same light as Osama Bin Laden. The latter is evil, the former is just stupid.
So is the note that M. Mike is sounding here one of optimism or pessimism? Is he confident that George Bush has more catastrophic mischief left in him than Osama bin Laden? or Less?
It's not clear to me: if we ultimately suffer a nuke-attack in coming years, will it eventually prove to have been inspired by Bush's excesses or by bin Laden's exhortations? And not by some successor of either's?
vigilante Your case is well thought out and very well documented.
So let's get on with the impeachment, BUT........
....let's not compound Bush's folly by a precipitious, poorly thought out and ill concieved withdrawal from Iraq.
We must protect our flank, even while we clean house.
the Wizard.....
madmike A voice of reason... I agree completely. Bush is imcompetent, not evil.
Further attacks in the coming years I'm afraid is a given. But its a damn if you do and damned if you don't issue as concerned with Iraq. Our staying the course, in some fashion, in Iraq will inspire attacks as will our withdrawal no matter if it slow and organized or Saigon like in its haste. The justification for the former will be viewed as taking the battle to the enemy. The latter will be viewed as us running away in defeat and they will come to bring the battle to our soil.
If we had someone in the White House with any brains they would be looking for ways to defuse and separate the terrorist's popular support among the Arab population but I might as well wish for a winning lotto ticket along with that.
What will that attack consist of? I agree with Mike on the nukes but I see and even higher chance of soft targets such as schools, malls, and large vacation spots such as Mouse World being hit.
Given the fear, cases of outright panic and willingness to surrender liberties after 9/11 I fear for the basic structure of the country after more any more attacks.
And in turn what we could end up doing to the Middle East in renewed rage and vengeance.
GWB = Grim Reaper.
Someone reputable is now claiming 1,00,000 Iraqi lives have been lost.
Four years after the illegal US-UK-Australian invasion of Iraq, how many Iraqis have died post-invasion?
Post-invasion Occupied Iraqi excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that did not have to happen) now total ONE MILLION as of March 2007, after 4 years of war and as estimated from data from the top US medical epidemiology group in the World’s top Public Health School (the Nobel Laureate-containing Bloomberg School of Public Health) at the top US Johns Hopkins University, published peer-reviewed in the top UK medical journal The Lancet and endorsed by 27 top Australian medical experts. [1-3]
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/41814
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
People of the world make a distinction between Americans and their leadership. Bahamas Journal speaks at length of That Bloody Arrogance:
And for sure we wish and hope for the best for the people of the United States of America as they deal with the fact that their president –George W. Bush-is today a reviled, hated and feared man.
That article was heartening Indicted P. Thanks.
Two of my three grandchildren are adopted, and young enough to be my great, great grandchildren, and I cannot bear to think of the world that is ahead for them. It is almost as hard for me to think of what is ahead for my own children.
I grew up mostly on a ranch in Wyoming during the 1930' and l940's, where and when we held smalltown beliefs and values, had no television, only a local newspaper, some people did not even have telephones, and neighbor helped neighbor. It was not a particularly intellectually stimulating life, but it was fairly pleasant. Now I'm 84, and even I can feel the hot breath of the future blowing on my back.
In the sense that GWBush is intellectually challenged, I can grudgingly agree that he may not be evil in the popular sense. But he is driven by an enormous belief in his own importance. You will notice that, rather than concentrating on the men and women who are dying in his name, he frequently reminds us that his main job is to keep the American people safe. (Can you recognize any connection with reality there?)I must plead ignorance of the motives of Bin Laden, but what I have learned about him comes mainly from sources inside and sympathetic to our government which credit him with terror and hatred of everything American, and tell us that if we leave Iraq, his forces will follow us here. Our government has given us no other source of authoritative information, so it is hard for me to compare views so that I can verify or deny in my own mind that that prediction is accurate.
From what little I know of the Middle East and Bin Laden, I am inclined to think that the people of that area are pretty damn well sick of foreign domination. Also, there is a lot of talk about the Muslim religion, but the Christian religion is seldom mentioned, except in glowing terms. It is high time we recognized that this is a widening war of religious belief on both sides.
What with correcting mistakes and looking back and forth, I couldn't even remember what post and comments I just responded to. (Don't laugh. Wait until you're 84!)
Not sure this is a religious struggle. I'm one who believes in the omnipresence of politics. I think politics likes to wrap and adorne itself in a lot of different flags, symbols, icons, and religious snake oil. Otherwise politicos couldn't entice the spectators, who have real lives, into the game.
The prevailing notion seems to be that something bad is in the works for America and the trusted old symbol for all things bad, mushroom shaped nuclear cloud, is raising it's scary head again. One just wonders, why would these sinister forces do the one thing that is the hardest to achieve and the easiest to detect, in order to inflict pain to you?
The weapons grade fuel is not plentyfull in the black markets and building a bomb would be a seriously hard and super expensive undertaking. The less enriched but lethal and relatively cheap radioactive matter is fairly easy to come by and transporting it accros the borders easy in comparison to a full fledged nuclear devise. To explode conventional bomb laced with said radioactive matter (dirty bomb) would be so much easier to do and would be as devastating and panic endusing as anything.
How about those thousands of loads of dangerous goods/chemicals that are transported on your roads and railroads daily, some of them cutting right through your biggest cities, and offer such an easy targets in comparison to this Holly Wood flavoured big bang? How about easily tranported biological incredients that could be released in the air practically anywhere, including your water treatment plants?
I am afraid, that I have to try and deny you for having your very own mushroom cloud and settle something more "European", low key. Big Dick, Skinny Condi and
Texas Chainshaw Cowboy had the same unfullfilled premonition happening to them with the late, Uncle Saddam and his known A-bombs that were about to be launched on your cities. It's your turn now, I guess.
Who Has Hurt America More?
I have a difficult time understanding how this could even be a question in anyone's mind at this late date.
If we've succeeded in anything at all it has been in increasing ill-will towards the US and giving organizations like Al Qaeda more leverage.
Right on! not your mama.
President Bush asked for patience in Iraq as we enter the fifth year of the war. I recall another call for patience. It was the United Nations requesting patience from the United States as weapons inspectors continued their search for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush ignored the U.N. plea and went to war. We should ignore his now and leave.
Indicted Plagarist said: "Bahamas Journal speaks..."
And when people writing from the vantage point of a corrupt vacation destination speak, I take notice.
Why don't you at least point to something more credible?
Al Dubya is a greater threat than Al Qaeda.
AP:
The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday.
The Associated Press count of U.S. military deaths for the month was 81, including a soldier who died from non-combat causes Friday. Figures compiled from officials in the Iraqi ministries of Defense, Health and Interior showed the Iraqi military toll was 44.
The war is over; it is now an occupation and has been for a long time. Why do we keep calling it a war?
Post a Comment
<< Home