MUST SEE: Iraq-USA

[BBond]

Originally posted by: slyedog
the lib's are very active tonite. maybe they saw hilliary on the tube today and she got them all fired up.

No, we always appear active to neocons. It's called thinking.

It's a lib thing, you wouldn't understand.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

I'm biting my tongue here to keep from saying something like "If only more people had said the same thing to Bush & Co a couple of years ago, we wouldn't be there in the first place." Whoops, guess I wasn't biting hard enough, 😉

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond
It's called thinking.

It's a lib thing, you wouldn't understand.

Originally posted by: RealityTime


baaaaa :roll:

Oh yes, we do understand, Bob...

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

New Scientist

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

New Scientist

Nice try. You must be one of those thinking liberals bobdn mentioned before.

You know the ones who are continuously getting their asses kicked in elections.

You libs should keep up this "thinking". It is certainly serving you well.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

New Scientist

Nice try. You must be one of those thinking liberals bobdn mentioned before.

You know the ones who are continuously getting their asses kicked in elections.

You libs should keep up this "thinking". It is certainly serving you well.

What are you talking about? He asked for evidence, i gave him that link...

But i kinda am thinking, i'm in an educational precess, so it's kinda hard not to be.

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
It's called thinking.

It's a lib thing, you wouldn't understand.

Originally posted by: RealityTime


baaaaa :roll:

Oh yes, we do understand, Bob...

😀 I'm loving this. Of course these loyal automatons are not appreciating the 'baaaas' Sorry not being a mindless brainwashed sheep, I don't know the true dialect of the cnn-believing, bush-conditioned herd. So I have to resort to a 'baaaaaaaa' as this is the closest I can approximate your group's sheepdom :beer:


baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa or better yet buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush tell me another one .... rofl

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

New Scientist

That 100,000 total includes deaths by natural death, accidents, and so on.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

New Scientist

That 100,000 total includes deaths by natural death, accidents, and so on.

How did you come to that conclusion?

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to the death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific study to examine the issue.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, finds the study, released early by The Lancet on Thursday.

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

New Scientist

That 100,000 total includes deaths by natural death, accidents, and so on.

How did you come to that conclusion?

probably saw it on fox or cnn.

:roll:

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
BTW those of you who are spewing on about 100k dead Iraqi civilians need to put up some solid evidence or shut up.

New Scientist

That 100,000 total includes deaths by natural death, accidents, and so on.

How did you come to that conclusion?

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to the death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific study to examine the issue.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, finds the study, released early by The Lancet on Thursday.

Oops, I think I read that wrong.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: RealityTime
probably saw it on fox or cnn.

:roll:

Nope.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: RealityTime
probably saw it on fox or cnn.
:roll:

Nope.

Funny, i made that very same mistake first time i read it there, a few months ago, i even stopped reading that magazine for a week or so! Must be something psychological i guess...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

100,026 :roll:

CsG

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
100,026 :roll:

CsG

Yer, it stings doesn't it?