What is the difference between Ariel Sharon and Slobodan Milosevic?

I like the amount of propaganda used in your post, you must be a greek or a prosfiga!

Awesome! Now try to dispute my claims in a civilized manner and I might take you seriously.

Your sense of history is false, you have no idea of what really goes on in the Balkans other than information supplied to you from Greek/Bulgairan/Serbian/Albanian sources.

And yours is supposed to be the only true version of Balkan history? I am Serbian and I have a good knowledge of the history of my own country.

Here you'll find all the answers you need to solve youre confused mind.

Thanks for showing such great respect towards your opponents. [/sarcasm].

"I am Serbian and I have a good knowledge of the history of my own country."

That may be correct, "Your own country", but not mine. I do respect your country as its people are of equality, like my people. I will ignore your false comments and will not judge all Serbs based on your incompetence!

Have a nice day.

Dude, lay off. If you don't intend to engage in a serious discussion -- walk. I don't have to waste my time on petty, emotional, ridicuolous BS you call history.

You don't have any arguments - all you do is attack me, not my claims. Voljno si.

Oral reports from Americans who were there, from an American publisher and a Pulitzer prize winning book.
Leftist crackpots are given awards at Columbia all the time.

What it does prove is that they used a political opportunity to carry out scientific experiments (like the Germans and the Japanese). We had ships there to look at the damage, survey the effects, and treat the victims. and measure the effects.

Did the US have scientific and medical ships at Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war? Yes! Does this prove some conspracy to conduct experiments? Only in the minds of those who presume this conspiracy. It is circular reasoning.

No it doesn't. We could have nuked Rabaul in New Britain or any other Japanese occupied island for more accurate medical results, since there would be fewer victims leaving the area and foreign contamination.
We hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki to break Japan's will to fight.

The fact is that the US scientists exposed themselves to radiation because know-one understood what was going on.

They knew sufficient that radiation wasn't good for you in a big way
Oh, so we had generals and scientists within a high radiation area during the Trinity test was a fluke?
The fact is that we did not understand the raduis of the blast untill we used the weapons.

We had ships and units surveying the damage to find this out. This isn't nefarious. Instead, it laid the groundwork for these cities to be rebuilt

Now you are in the realms of 'We had to destroy the village to save it.' Radiation problems are still with those two cities.

Now you are showing your lack of reading comprehension. The general theory is that we bombed the two cities to save the rest.
Afterwards, we helped rebuild all of Japan, but poured scientific and medical resources into Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And for a more recent example, what about the 'Massacre at Maz e Sharif'. What an opportunity for revenge for 9/11.Although the prisoners of war had nothing to do with it they were immediately attacked by overwhelming force after the prison revolt. Fish in a barrel and body parts all over the place!

Fish don't have guns or murder hostages!
Your assertion is just plane false.
1.We used force to put down a prison revolt by members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
2. We could have dropped bombs indiscriminately or used Daisy-cutters. Instead, we used precision guided munitions to minimise the bloodshed, even while American troops were under fire.

You should read more Orwell.

I have.

{Pacifism}...objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort on one side you automatically help that of the other....In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted.

George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," in Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus eds. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell (London: Penguin, 1970), II, 261.

Interesting - well, if our news media hasn't shown these things, how did you find out about them?