4 ms·

>you're making some pretty wild assumptions about how it compares to wars that are much longer running. This is wrong, there is a casualty count timeline over

>you're making some pretty wild assumptions about how it compares to wars that are much longer running. This is wrong, there is a casualty count timeline over the course of each of the listed conflicts. They are not exact but the range is worth comparing. >Also this 'post your sources' for stuff that you know is going to be impossible to do accurately is not in good faith. It's not impossible, they made a claim and I want to see the sources that led them to the conclusion. This is pretty normal in fact based discourse.

jacquesm 5y ago
> This is wrong, there is a casualty count timeline over the course of each of the listed conflicts. Oh that would work so well for World War II. Really, this is meaningless. > It's not impossible, they made a claim and I want to see the sources that led them to the conclusion. This is pretty normal in fact based discourse. It's pretty normal for things where such sources are available, such as discussions about scientific subjects or other things that are easy to quantify in an exact manner. When talking about a war in progress it is just a way to throw shade.