[a green flag with a leaf stands above an utopian green city with vegetation and clean energy]
Greenists believe that the world should be a better place for green people, and everyone else too
[an orange fascist-looking star in a gear logo stands above a bleak concrete city]
Orangites believe that the world should only have orange people, and that all greens should be hung
[an orange character speaks smugly, in a bedroom that contains an orangite logo and a greenist/orangite flag]
Me?
I'm a greenist-orangite,
why do you ask?
https://thebad.website/comic/coherent_ideology
Do you have an actual source for that? Considering the hundreds of thousands of people he had killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it hard to believe his death toll was lower than Clinton's, or hell, even Bush Sr.
Iraq was effectively over when Obama started and Afghanistan slowed too by the end of Obamas second term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan
Bush Sr: 100-200k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
Neither of those sources break down casualties by term. The idea that Afghanistan "slowed" seems to be entirely vibes-based and detached from reality - he escalated in both drone strikes and deployments, with the "troop surge."
Yes, Bush Sr. killed 100-200k, which is still considerably less than the war in Afghanistan. If roughly half the deaths in Afghanistan were under Obama, then that would put him about on par with Bush Sr.
The graphs show that Afghanistan casualties were flat
https://www.statista.com/chart/20932/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-in-last-decade/?srsltid=AfmBOorw0E6-ZCL-OnLzljFLq8mSXw1D0XIQXn7QXZNhCI0sDTcuXFhm
It's of particular interest that there is no data until 2009. Bush had made everything about the war secret and didn't collect or release numbers. Do you really think the initial invasion which included all of NATO had less casualties?
The data shows ~6k per year which is 48k over 8 years.