Says who???  YOU???

The fact that using the bombs saved many thousands of lives, dipshit.



Well, you said you hated everything FDR and we were talking about the bomb, so it appeared that you thought that FDR okayed dropping the bomb.  Given all your other BS, I figured you probably weren't aware that he was dead when the decision was made.




Wrong, PB is a raving lunatic, I am not.


I don't need to read your garbage more than once to realize what an idiot your are.  You want to get personal, fine with me.



NO, you haven't enumerated anything, just your opinion, which is not worth much.

.My historical ignorance?  My functional illiteracy?  Your grasp of history is only what lunatics like PB tell you.  According to the article, PB did not seem to be too upset by the Rape of Nanking, go figure.  Your own hero, PB, says that FDR did not want to cut off the oil for it meant war, but you continue to slam him.

Let's see, according to PB, it's FDR's fault that Vietnam and everything since WWII occurred because he wouldn't meet with the prince and concede many things, like Chamberlain did with Hitler.  Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler worked real well, didn't they.

As long as you spout the lunatic maniacal ravings of someone like Pat Buchanan, don't call anyone else either intellectually or historically challenged.  Your last paragraph is a joke, trying to sound like you are some kind of intellect.  Good joke though, very funny.

He is just a comedian that got in over his head,he has no wife,or children or life.

He is a baron tree,and a queer,so all things he says or thinks is queer.    Used to think he was unique, now don't think anything about him.

Good riddance     Bob

Quoted:
[b]Says who???  YOU???[/b]
Me, the Easter Bunny, and every damn history professor in these united States. But, alas, you have already demonstrated your intrinsic aversion to higher education.

[b]The fact that using the bombs saved many thousands of lives, dipshit.[/b]
The [b]FACT[/b], is that non-partisan scholars and history professors hold the tenable position that you're wrong.

[b]Well, you said you hated everything FDR and we were talking about the bomb, so it appeared that you thought that FDR okayed dropping the bomb.[/b]
Only to you it did. Next time I will use crayons and small words so as you can better understand. If there was a way to make a ball bounce from word to word to music I would use that also.

[b]Given all your other BS, I figured you probably weren't aware that he was dead when the decision was made.[/b]
Even dead FDR is not as dumb as you. Amazing.

[b]PB is a raving lunatic, I am not.[/b]
And under which experts care was this diagnosis given?

[b]Your grasp of history is only what lunatics like PB tell you.  According to the article, PB did not seem to be too upset by the Rape of Nanking, go figure.[/b]
Oh, really?
[i]Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking[/i]
Yeah, PB cleary supports it. Whacko.

[b]Your own hero, PB, says that FDR did not want to cut off the oil for it meant war, but you continue to slam him.[/b]
1. Because he was in bed with Stalin.
2. Because he gew Federal government to monolithic proportions.
3. He stacked the court.
4. He sold out the people of eastern Europe.
5,6,7, ect.

[b]Let's see, according to PB, it's FDR's fault that Vietnam and everything since WWII occurred because he wouldn't meet with the prince and concede many things, like Chamberlain did with Hitler.  Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler worked real well, didn't they.[/b]
Oh dear lord, you really are [b]this[/b] studid. Amazing.

[b]As long as you spout the lunatic maniacal ravings of someone like Pat Buchanan, don't call anyone else either intellectually or historically challenged.  Your last paragraph is a joke, trying to sound like you are some kind of intellect.  Good joke though, very funny.[/b]
As I said, functionally illiterate and historically ignorant. Go back to your MTV and WWF scooter.  

The consensus among WWII vets is the a-bomb saved at least 100,000 American lives and perhaps as many as 1 million. For me, that's enough to justify its usage.

And, BTW, the Japanese military had no problem murdering their own citizens. One has to wonder how many of their own people they would have sacrificed in order to kill a platoon of American GIs.