The history you learn in school is based on facts ;P

Facts from the american point of view. Oh no Minoc didnt like what I had to say and dropped my rating. :rolleyes: That rating system is so stupid all these people voting for themselves and ****.

You'd be surprised how much they reword it and how much isn't mentioned in the books. And those cynical historians tend to be bias, anyway.

It saved lives from every country the war, even Japan. The alternative to the atomic bomb was a ground invasion. The Japanese would fight to the last man, this battle could have gone on for months and be a stalemate, doing nothing but eating lives from every side, such a battle could have killed millions of soldiers before it ended. As it was w/ the a-bombs, two of them were dropped, and Japan knew it was defeated and surrendered. War is war, innocent people die. It can't affect a battle, it may be reduced, but never eliminated.

I'm sure this article was from a 100% unbiased source too, wasn't it? Even if it were true, such casualties probably came from bombings, I seriously doubt that the US army would go through the city streets and massacre people as you make it sound like they did. As I said above, war is war and innocent ppl die in a war. It can't affect those who fight or they will end up being killed to avoid casualties.


Nothing could ever make me take a second look at 9-11 and say it wasn't so bad. I still belive it was a good reason to level terrorist camps w/hydrogen bombs.

Osama could go to hell then, he already will when he dies.

From the Iraqi point of view they won the Gulf War, anyone who knows about that would be truly stupid to believe that. The casualties of that war were about 100 Iraqi to every 1 American.

So killing millions of women and children to save lives of other countries? They didnt know how long it would take. They just assume. Hey we blew the **** out of them they surrendered. We must have saved lives. Then you also take into account the millions of people dying from then to present day from the radiation poisoning and sickness.

Times magazine sure is a biased source. ;) 750,000 from bombs dropping bombs. Either we have some really stupid people deciding what are targets. Or some people have really bad aim. Babies are such elite terrorist shock troops you know.

Hydrogen bombs. On the terrorist camps? Now with that thinking I can understand the high civilian casulaties. Can we say overkill? Doing that would kill millions of innocent people. Not to mention millions more from radiation poisoning.

Osama going to hell is all depending on your point of religion and such. Which I'd rather not get into.

Who controls Iraq right now? Do we?

As I said before, war is war. It must be ended quickly no matter what the cost. The atomic bomb did just that. Radiation poisoning may be a bad part of it, but that doesn't mean that the US shouldn't have used it.


Did it say how they died? If not, they have no business making it sound like our soldiers went into a civilian area and just opened fire.

Overkill? There is no overkill. These terrorists must be stopped no matter what the cost. War is war and innocent people may die. It can't affect what is done to stop the terrorists, otherwise there will always be terrorists.

No, so-damn insane does, and still will until he dies or is overthrown by rebels or the US army.

Thank you. With your responses I think I've proven my points. It's ok for millions to die even if they're women and children as long as those millions arn't american.

As for the 750,000 it wasnt just one set way. ;)