If that's you're conclusion...I don't think you get it at all.
But that's the only thing you know how to argue, so that's what you'll ascribe to make your job easier.
Ahaha, no I’m just being a dick. The first post you referred to was also a joke and an embellishment.
Waging war on foreign soil has been a fixture of American foreign policy since Pearl Harbour. Presidents both Democrat and Republican have exacted huge death tolls on civilian populations overseas since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kennedy and Johnson poured thousands of men into Vietnam, Nixon pulled them out (sort of). Bush Snr went into the Gulf, Bush Jnr followed a decade later and Obama continued the campaign.
I don’t think you can say that if Presidential chronology had been reversed Nixon wouldn’t have gone into Vietnam or Obama into Afghanistan/Iraq.
So don’t worry, I understand, and I was just making a wisecrack. Trying to use the number of air strikes as some metric for who did more damage though is a long bow to draw when Obama adopted an administration that was already waging war (same goes for Nixon), in which the political/foreign policy consequences of just immediately walking away would have been pretty major.
The fact that Trump’s scorecard basically only reads “didn’t start any new wars” is not really something to crow about.