• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Caucasus is on fire again

joko104 said:
So you are going to triple down on proving you are incapable of doing simple math and refuse to accept even the most commonly known historic facts. But some people are very proud to talk stupid. Anyone who can not accept obvious truth because they are a cult member or mindlessly submissive often have radically frail egos.

FACT - WW1, WW2, Vietnam and Korea count for over 90% of American war deaths and were all under Democratic leadership - not counting the Civil War. If the Civil War - the attempt of Democrats to create their own slave nation, is rises to around 95%.
Click to expand...
Are you actually saying that FDR should not have retaliated against the Japanese attack on the USA and the German declaration of war against the USA in 1941? Are you suggesting the a Republican president would have surrendered without putting up a fight and that this would have been best? You truthfully believe this? Extraordinary!
 
What is the purpose of determining whether more people died during wars started during Democratic or Republican administrations? Do you two think that if you can find the right actuarial table that it will bring you some insight? What would that insight be? Would it prove anything other than that a president from one party or the other happened to be in office at a time of global conflict? Could you ever prove that his handling of a conflict resulted in a better outcome (or a worse) than an outcome that would have resulted had there been a president from the other party in power? What would have been a better outcome: not going to war? Going to war earlier and more aggressively? Is war always bad? This does not sound like a very sophisticated analysis of anything.
 
NewfieMom said:
What is the purpose of determining whether more people died during wars started during Democratic or Republican administrations? Do you two think that if you can find the right actuarial table that it will bring you some insight? What would that insight be? Would it prove anything other than that a president from one party or the other happened to be in office at a time of global conflict? Could you ever prove that his handling of a conflict resulted in a better outcome (or a worse) than an outcome that would have resulted had there been a president from the other party in power? What would have been a better outcome: not going to war? Going to war earlier and more aggressively? Is war always bad? This does not sound like a very sophisticated analysis of anything.
Click to expand...
Of course you are correct and these posts are well off-topic which is supposedly the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom