Why did you put down the WORLD population? It was call the "CIVIL WAR" for a reason you know..
Why sould I care I the corpses were from the US? LIKE WTF? LIKE HOW DOES AN AMERICAN LIFE IS MORE PRECIOUS THAN ANY OTHER? Are americans the masters of the world so that your lives cost more?
Why sould I care I the corpses were from the US? LIKE WTF? LIKE HOW DOES AN AMERICAN LIFE IS MORE PRECIOUS THAN ANY OTHER? Are americans the masters of the world so that your lives cost more?
ok, mr.tardface, if Russia's having a war WITHIN ITSELF (yes that means the country and it's people) would i count the deaths of Chinese people? NO. its called the CIVIL war, because CIVIL means Here's a nice little link to explain to you.
If you or whoever put down the civil war had more deaths proportionally (which means stacked up next to each other in FAIR comparison) why would you put down the worlds population as well?? plain stupidity.. the WORLD WAR 2 (where a bunch of countries came together to fight other countries not WITHIN a country) pandemic is the only one that should have the worlds population.
Do you mind searching about your topics you're so willingly going to offend?
ok, mr.tardface, if Russia's having a war WITHIN ITSELF (yes that means the country and it's people) would i count the deaths of Chinese people? NO. its called the CIVIL war, because CIVIL means Here's a nice little link to explain to you.
If you or whoever put down the civil war had more deaths proportionally (which means stacked up next to each other in FAIR comparison) why would you put down the worlds population as well?? plain stupidity.. the WORLD WAR 2 (where a bunch of countries came together to fight other countries not WITHIN a country) pandemic is the only one that should have the worlds population.
Do you mind searching about your topics you're so willingly going to offend?
LOL. If were talking about the worst war, then I think putting the number of American lives lost in the Civil war in proportion to the world population makes perfect sense, especially if were going to do the same with the WW2 deaths.
The point was that you said that the Civil war was the worst because AMERICAN lives were lost. And we asked you, why does it matter if American lives were lost or any other nationality?
My point is, (an analogy) why would you hunt a bear with a spear, if you were to have a gun?
Perhaps you are out of ammunition, your gun jams, you have a gun that is longer than your spear and you are in an enclosed area where the shorter object is the most effective weapon. Also, perhaps you have a bolt action rifle and after firing one shot your target is still moving toward you, too close for you to have time to eject the shell and chamber another round before they are on top of you. These are all instances in which the bayonet would be the most effective weapon. Do some research before you discard a secondary weapon as an ineffective one.
Lol even a ninja including yourself.. very sneaky son.
The point was that you said that the Civil war was the worst because AMERICAN lives were lost. And we asked you, why does it matter if American lives were lost or any other nationality?
Ok, a little teaching here sir since it seems y'all both aren't from here (excuse me for that then), America was divided into 2 parts, the Confederate, and the Union. They were both still America.
The Union was fighting to free slaves. The Confederates were fighting to have slaves. They fought each other (remember this is still in America) and many many lives were lost due to this war.
out of 31.4 million Lives in America, 1 million died, and that accounts for 3% of the population WITHIN America. WWII, 62-78 million were lost (i dont know how much of the worlds population was back then, cant find a reliable source) and World War 2 is called World War 2 for a reason.
In all, America fought within itself, and the percentage of deaths within America was largest than other wars, and the soldiers were barely payed enough to buy only eggs and flour.
Perhaps you are out of ammunition, your gun jams, you have a gun that is longer than your spear and you are in an enclosed area where the shorter object is the most effective weapon. Also, perhaps you have a bolt action rifle and after firing one shot your target is still moving toward you, too close for you to have time to eject the shell and chamber another round before they are on top of you. These are all instances in which the bayonet would be the most effective weapon. Do some research before you discard a secondary weapon as an ineffective one.
Did you read what post i was replying to?
OK, why would anyone, in a war, use just a bayonet? Doesn't make sense, does it?
