If the previous occupant kicks a hornets nest before you move in, that might force your hand in killing a lot more than the handful his foot managed.

I don't disagree with the fact, I disagree with the comparison.

Ah Bush made Obama kill all of those civilians. That is such a mind boggling, ridiculous excuse.

If we're to trust the IBC accounts, he killed less than half the civilians of Bush year on year, much thanks to the use of drones.

I don't condone any of it, but I think you're being disingenuous about how wars work if you're suggesting they can be waged without civilian deaths.

>Obama authorized 10x the number of drone strikes as Bush that killed over 391+ civilians

Perspective is in order here. "Credible estimates of Iraq War [alone] casualties range from 150,000 to 460,000" [0].

Obama inherited two wars (one illicit) and he settled on drone strikes in part to reduce the awful rate of civilian casualties. There is really no equivalence here and to suggest that there is actually introduces the bias that makes it about right vs. left.

I applaud your encouragement to focus on facts, but let's consider the complete set vs. those that support a particular world view.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#T...

> let's consider the complete set vs. those that support a particular world view.

What a pompous response. You are not using a 'complete set [of facts]' either, you're just adding your own facts which support your particular worldview.

Let's not imply that anyone is working from perfect knowledge of the subject as a rhetorical attempt to signal authority. Both misleading and clearly incorrect.

>What a pompous response. You are not using a 'complete set [of facts]' either...

I've added facts to the original set that was offered. Those added facts broaden the context. If you have more facts to add that would further broaden the context, then you're free to add them as well, versus merely devising adjectives for others' responses.

Funny expression. One of my favorites is "The only thing Obama stopped was the war protests"

Obama is also I think one of very few presidents who explicitly targeted and killed American natural born citizen. Not accidentally, but actually targeted. Didn't even bother hiding it.

But I agree with the original point, GOP did start this mess on the lie of weapons of mass destruction.

Well you go back to 911 itself and the government involvement with Osama Bin Laden going back to the 1980s, go back to the CIA making my childhood incredibly dangerous by dumping incredible amounts of guns and drugs into cities such as Los Angeles. When do the American people get to tell the CIA "you're fired!"

Those were massive fups.

That is very different from listing the name of an American on a "kill list" and ordering a drone strike. Judge, jury and executioner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate, but is what Obama did significantly different from Union soldiers under Lincoln's orders during the Civil War? The form of warfare has changed dramatically, but wouldn't that be something of a parallel?

P.S. I don't want to sound like an apologist regarding Obama's actions here. My personal feelings are that he was largely better than Bush, but not without fault.

No it's not different. I just said that not many presidents have targeted and killed their own citizens. Lincoln was probably one of them. Perhaps one could argue Obama was in a civil war with Americans of the Muslim faith / extremists.

One could argue it was justified. I would personally feel horrible if it was justified that way. But, hey, it's not my country.

Every president has killed innocent people. Americans have been complicit in far worse, actually.

I don't understand this whole idea that we're 'normalizing' immoral actions. Never in our history have they not been normal.