• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The JFK/LBJ/Nixon war was far more costly than this ever will be

Jack Dawson

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
47,369 Killed in Action 10,799 Killed other ways 153,303 Wounded


It is unfair for Kennedy/Boxer/Schumer and the like to compare, because it simply does NOT compare.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
However, we invaded Vietnam. A forest swamp country and the Vietnamese actually had a decent army.

Stop making stupid forum topics!
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I disagree heyjoeo, IMO this is a valid argument when comparing against the current war.

But, I do agree that this should be placed in the non topical discussion forum.
 
Last edited:

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
It's not really a valid argument. An invasion and a war are two different things.
 
J

Jufarius87

we will stop making stupid forum topics when liberals stop making stupid comparisons and you just proved out point heyjoeo there is a difference between a costly war and an invasion with minimal casualties so your deceitful ,liberal buddies in congress should stop comparing iraq to vietnam
 
Top Bottom