Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/28/2004 1:28:31 PM EST
At first, we went to war in Iraq to take out the weapons of mass destruction, but there weren't any.

OK, but still, there were the terrorist training camps. Nope, no terrorist training camps.

Well, we still had to break up the Sadaam/Osama partnership. But they were actually rivals for arab leadership so that was no reason.

Nevertheless, we had to stop Sadaam from killing his own people. Whew, we succeeded at that. Sadaam is no longer killing his own people.

But

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:48 a.m. ET Oct. 28, 2004LONDON - A survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months after the U.S. invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war... There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000...The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and air strikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths.


So now instead of Sadaam killing his own people we are doing it and getting our own people killed in the process.

So what's the real reason for the war? Oil.

Ask yourself this, if there were no oil in Iraq would we have overthrown Sadaam? Would we be occupying the country? Are we doing this anywhere in Africa where dictaters are killing their own people all the time?

I don't have a real big problem with fighting for oil. We need it to survive since the oil interests lobby against seeking alternative fuel sources.

But lets stop saying we took out Sadaam because, for gods sake, he was killing his own people.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think its a Republican or Democrat thing. Its a political thing. But we don't have to like it and we should be demanding greater emphasis on alternative methods of power generation and lessened dependence on oil. Needless to say, the politicians won't raise the subject because oil/auto/highway/electric company people would cut off the campaign contributions.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:30:02 PM EST
So where are you trying to go with this?
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:31:25 PM EST
Ignorant BS
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:32:05 PM EST
Thanks for stepping out of the closet...
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:32:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:35:49 PM EST
Does the package have a troll in it? Or maybe a troll?

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:37:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 1:37:35 PM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By jimb100:

At first, we went to war in Iraq to take out the weapons of mass destruction, but there weren't any.

OK, but still, there were the terrorist training camps. Nope, no terrorist training camps.

Well, we still had to break up the Sadaam/Osama partnership. But they were actually rivals for arab leadership so that was no reason.

Nevertheless, we had to stop Sadaam from killing his own people. Whew, we succeeded at that. Sadaam is no longer killing his own people.

But

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:48 a.m. ET Oct. 28, 2004LONDON - A survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months after the U.S. invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war... There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000...The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and air strikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths.


So now instead of Sadaam killing his own people we are doing it and getting our own people killed in the process.

So what's the real reason for the war? Oil.

Ask yourself this, if there were no oil in Iraq would we have overthrown Sadaam? Would we be occupying the country? Are we doing this anywhere in Africa where dictaters are killing their own people all the time?

I don't have a real big problem with fighting for oil. We need it to survive since the oil interests lobby against seeking alternative fuel sources.

But lets stop saying we took out Sadaam because, for gods sake, he was killing his own people.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think its a Republican or Democrat thing. Its a political thing. But we don't have to like it and we should be demanding greater emphasis on alternative methods of power generation and lessened dependence on oil. Needless to say, the politicians won't raise the subject because oil/auto/highway/electric company people would cut off the campaign contributions.



Click it for an instant translation.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:37:46 PM EST
I only read most of your...uh....shit.
If the war was for OIL then why the fuck am I spending 2 fucking dollars a gallon for gas?


Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:38:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 1:42:11 PM EST by MillerSHO]
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:40:32 PM EST
Amazing that we haven't "taken" the oil, nor have we put in place any plans to do so.

If it was access to the oil we wanted, in order to buy it, all we have had to do was drop the sanctions.

If it was stability in this oil-rich region we were seeking, well... we didn't exactly try for that, either.
Did we?

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:41:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By jimb100:

So what's the real reason for the war? Oil.

I don't have a real big problem with fighting for oil. We need it to survive since the oil interests lobby against seeking alternative fuel sources.




I won't address the rest of your misconceptions, but will address this one.

We are not fighting for "oil".

We already have a plentiful supply in the world market, of which Iraq is a very small contributor. We are not directly getting any of the oil from Iraq.

The "Oil interests" could not stop a new and better alternative to oil. There just isn't one at this time. When there is, it will be successful through the Law of Supply and Demand.

Please get your facts straight before you rant. Thanks.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:42:01 PM EST
I don't think Afghanistan has any oil to speak of, but the military is there, liberating people from the Taliban and getting elections going. Why is it so difficult to believe that we are doing the same thing in Iraq?

Plus, knowing the AP, that 100,000 probably includes terrorists killed, who had it coming.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:42:18 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:43:15 PM EST
...!
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:43:38 PM EST
Have you paid attention to ANYthing that has happened since we invaded, or have you just been watching TV to get your info?

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:43:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By caveman:
I only read most of your...uh....shit.
If the war was for OIL then why the fuck am I spending 2 fucking dollars a gallon for gas?





2 bucks?!? Come on down to SoCal... 2.50 for reg.


As for our thread starter...

Sorry you troll but the "we invaded for oil" is nothing more than a lie. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or how loud you scream it doesn't change jack shit. It's still A LIE.

Now, slither back under your DU rock and let the ADULTS talk.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:45:08 PM EST
So where did jimb100 go?
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:47:03 PM EST
Interesting. Never been to Iraq have you? I have. Maybe you should have a look around over there before you come here and start spouting you anti-war hippy bullshit. The majority of the Iraqi people have a much better chance at freedom and happiness than they could ever dream about 2 years ago. Barring another dictatorship, there will be generations in Iraq that won't have to worry about being taken away by the Secret Police in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. There won't be anymore Iraqi parents gathered at mass graves outside police stations to stare at the skeletons and look for some trace of familiarity that will tell them that one of the skeletons is their son. Nobody else will ever have WMDs used against them by Iraq like the Iranians and the Kurds did. People in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel have one less threat against their security. The people of Iraq won't have to stand by and starve while the money from the oil for food program is spent on another palace. And, perhaps most importantly, men from all over the Middle East are going to Iraq to kill Americans instead of coming here.

There isn't much doubt that the war was fought in part for oil. However, what you seem to be implying is that American troops are killing Iraqi civilians so we can get our hands on their oil. This is not the case. Why don't you go back under whatever rock you crawled out from.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:47:24 PM EST
Your troll-flage is strong. I can't remember seeing a 535 post troll. That is a long time to bide your time. too bad the cat's outta the bag now. Did you come to the realization that fairy is gonna lose the election, so you won't be able to type a big 'HA HA, FU' to us?

I guess any time now I will get a 'look at your post count' comment......
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:49:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 1:50:29 PM EST by Mauser101]
While I think the original poster is pulling a Kerry Blitz I gotta put up another cynical reason for us to have gone into Iraq.

We don't like terrorists setting off bombs killing our people here in the States, so we gave them the convienience of coming after us in their own home territory. It's a short drive to the front for them and a short drive to the cemetary as well.

Bush went into Iraq to save the terrorists the trouble of buying a plane ticket.

ETA: I spent $2.33 a p/g yesterday on 87 octane.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:50:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:51:08 PM EST
Anyone who claims there were no terrorist training camps in smoking crack, I walk around in one last April after 7th Marines siezed it.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:52:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mauser101:
While I think the original poster is pulling a Kerry Blitz I gotta put up another cynical reason for us to have gone into Iraq.

We don't like terrorists setting off bombs killing our people here in the States, so we gave them the convienience of coming after us in their own home territory. It's a short drive to the front for them and a short drive to the cemetary as well.

Bush went into Iraq to save the terrorists the trouble of buying a plane ticket.

ETA: I spent $2.33 a p/g yesterday on 87 octane.





Would you rather them be blowing up our children/civilians here? WTF is wrong with you people?
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:01:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By fallingwrench:

Originally Posted By Mauser101:
While I think the original poster is pulling a Kerry Blitz I gotta put up another cynical reason for us to have gone into Iraq.

We don't like terrorists setting off bombs killing our people here in the States, so we gave them the convienience of coming after us in their own home territory. It's a short drive to the front for them and a short drive to the cemetary as well.

Bush went into Iraq to save the terrorists the trouble of buying a plane ticket.

ETA: I spent $2.33 a p/g yesterday on 87 octane.





Would you rather them be blowing up our children/civilians here? WTF is wrong with you people?



I don't think you caught the drift of my response. If that was the ONLY reason we went there I'd support it.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:05:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By jimb100:
Needless to say, the politicians won't raise the subject because oil/auto/highway/electric company people would cut off the campaign contributions.

The "highway" company people, huh?

And this new "alternate fuel" you speak of, won't be of use to the electric company folks, huh?



I wonder...

Where did this story come from.
I dare you to post a link.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:11:25 PM EST
Fuck this DUjimbo-like jackass and his Grand Moonification Theory


Folks wanting REAL news about Coalition casualties in Iraq should check this site -
icasualties.org/oif/

Does a great straightforward job of gathering all the data from the real sources, and summing it up. No fuzzy crap, no jihadist / Workers World Weekly reports.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:17:01 PM EST
I've got serious doubts about the accuracy of this study. Timing's awfully convenient, isn't it? I mean, could you imagine a better time to release a study critical of the war than the Thursday afternoon before election day? Give it a weeknight to get spun up in the media, let everybody book guests for the Sunday morning talk shows, but not really allow enough time for the data to get analyzed and for the opposing view to get a response out?

I always take studies like this and think about them for a moment, try and look at the information from a different angle. 100k Iraqi civilian casualties, at least four times what everyone else has been saying for the last year? That study purports to include data from about the first seventeen months after the invasion. According to them, that means 200 civilians were being killed every single day.

200 a day? Don't you think that if 200 had been dying every fucking day that would have come to someone's attention by now?

I'm curious as to how these folks define "excess deaths". I remember reading the same phrase being applied to deaths caused by conditions from the UN sanctions. Those numbers, which were also probably way off, came to between 30-50k a year. So, if that rate stayed constant over an 18 month period, plus let's say 25k dead from the war, altho I think that number is bullshit too, we've got...let's see....100k "excess deaths". Wow.

Now, this certainly isn't good news. But the notion that the US is committing mini-Dresdens on a daily basis is stupid.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:20:02 PM EST
Maauser101: Well hell, I guess I did mis-read yor response. Sorry bout that.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:25:43 PM EST
No terrorist training camps?
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:30:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By fallingwrench:
Maauser101: Well hell, I guess I did mis-read yor response. Sorry bout that.



Is cool. My post count is kindof low and I haven't paid for a membership yet. You're under more scrutiny until you've invested.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:31:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
So where did jimb100 go?

He went to the store to get Yasser arafat a get well card or maybe he's just reloading his bong.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:34:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR-JR:
Thanks for stepping out of the closet...



Quick, someone hit the ALERT button

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:42:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By Airwolf:

Originally Posted By caveman:
I only read most of your...uh....shit.
If the war was for OIL then why the fuck am I spending 2 fucking dollars a gallon for gas?





2 bucks?!? Come on down to SoCal... 2.50 for reg.


As for our thread starter...

Sorry you troll but the "we invaded for oil" is nothing more than a lie. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or how loud you scream it doesn't change jack shit. It's still A LIE.

Now, slither back under your DU rock and let the ADULTS talk.



OK genius, tell me again why we are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq? How it benefits us?

And please spare me the crap about so that we can set up a democracy in a country with no democratic traditions and no interest in having a demcracy? Do you really think the Saudis believe an Iraqi democracy will inspire democratic movements in Saudi Arabia? Would they still be our friends if they thought we were trying to get them replaced?

This forum has some of the most knee jerk dumbasses on the internet.

My post isn't anti-Bush or pro-Kerry. If Gore had been handed the nod, he would have eventually had to do something similar. 911 was a wake up call. Not just that Bin Laden was out there looking to do us harm. It was a wakeup call to the fact the middle east was in danger of falling under the leadership of a guy like Bin Laden. He is a hero in the middle east.

The middle east is putting out the US no longer welcome sign even without Bin Laden in charge.

We had to have a place to strike from to protect our oil interests from muslim fundamentalist who will, one day, use oil as a bargaining chip against us. And Saudi Arabia is ripe for a takeover by fundamentalists.

Evidently not too many here remember the Arab Oil Embargo of 1972.

Like I said, dumbasses.

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:44:08 PM EST
Don't be a dumbass.

Look at where Iraq is located and then tell me it is not the best place to base the war on terror.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:51:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 2:56:41 PM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By jimb100:

Originally Posted By Airwolf:

Originally Posted By caveman:
I only read most of your...uh....shit.
If the war was for OIL then why the fuck am I spending 2 fucking dollars a gallon for gas?





2 bucks?!? Come on down to SoCal... 2.50 for reg.


As for our thread starter...

Sorry you troll but the "we invaded for oil" is nothing more than a lie. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or how loud you scream it doesn't change jack shit. It's still A LIE.

Now, slither back under your DU rock and let the ADULTS talk.



OK genius, tell me again why we are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq? How it benefits us?

And please spare me the crap about so that we can set up a democracy in a country with no democratic traditions and no interest in having a demcracy? Do you really think the Saudis believe an Iraqi democracy will inspire democratic movements in Saudi Arabia? Would they still be our friends if they thought we were trying to get them replaced?

This forum has some of the most knee jerk dumbasses on the internet.

My post isn't anti-Bush or pro-Kerry. If Gore had been handed the nod, he would have eventually had to do something similar. 911 was a wake up call. Not just that Bin Laden was out there looking to do us harm. It was a wakeup call to the fact the middle east was in danger of falling under the leadership of a guy like Bin Laden. He is a hero in the middle east.

So, Bin Laden was going to "lead" the entire Middle east, huh?
You ARE a genius.



The middle east is putting out the US no longer welcome sign even without Bin Laden in charge.

"Bin Laden in charge" ?

How the hell would that happen?
How would osama take over Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, UAE, OMAN, Bahrain, Pakistan, etc.????

How would this occur?
How?
How?
How?



We had to have a place to strike from to protect our oil interests from muslim fundamentalist who will, one day, use oil as a bargaining chip against us. And Saudi Arabia is ripe for a takeover by fundamentalists.

One thing missing from your equation.


911

That region is from where ALL such attacks are funded, planned, and staffed.

You are right though....
It is true, that we need to ensure that the world's oil supply does not fall into the hands of terrorists.
But that's not fighting for oil.
That's fighting for civilization.
All of your silly "alternate fuel" fantasies aside.... the world's engine is powered by oil.
NOTHING will replace it during the next several decades.
LOSING that supply would bring a collapse to the world's economy, depression, famine, etc.
Isn't that worth fighting to avoid?



Evidently not too many here remember the Arab Oil Embargo of 1972.

Like I said, dumbasses.



After the idiocy of your intitial post, do you really think that you have the right to call anyone a dumbass?

AND, I still dare you...
Show your link to that story.
If you have the balls.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:52:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By jimb100:

OK, but still, there were the terrorist training camps. Nope, no terrorist training camps.



Lie. The largest terrorist training camp in the world was in northern Iraq.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:53:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By mattja:
Don't be a dumbass.



Don't ask him to do something of which he is physically incapable.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:53:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 2:54:16 PM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By jimb100:

OK, but still, there were the terrorist training camps. Nope, no terrorist training camps.




Originally Posted By STLRN:
Anyone who claims there were no terrorist training camps in smoking crack, I walked around in one last April after 7th Marines siezed it.

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:57:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By caveman:
I only read most of your...uh....shit.
If the war was for OIL then why the fuck am I spending 2 fucking dollars a gallon for gas?





Because the President's an oil man. They haven't had this much fun since the late 70's.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:00:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By kingfish:

Originally Posted By caveman:
I only read most of your...uh....shit.
If the war was for OIL then why the fuck am I spending 2 fucking dollars a gallon for gas?





Because the President's an oil man. They haven't had this much fun since the late 70's.



Lie. The oil companies are NOT making more profits from this.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:10:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
AND, I still dare you...
Show your link to that story.
If you have the balls.

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:21:19 PM EST
Read it all. There is only one reason this lie was published.
www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/28/news/toll.html

Editors of the journal decided not to wait for Lancet's normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:27:02 PM EST
1.Set a fine example; you hit U.S, you get your ass kicked
2.Forward base in the middle east
3.Remove Saddam from power (one of three evil down)
4.Check for illegal weapons (U.N's job which U.N didn't do very well)
5.Liberate the oppressed/women in Iraq
6.Oil? Hopefully, since the gas prices aren't coming down now

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:31:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 3:36:16 PM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By tisfortexas:
Read it all. There is only one reason this lie was published.
www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/28/news/toll.html

Editors of the journal decided not to wait for Lancet's normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election.


That's not HIS link.

I want to see jimb100's link.

I doubt he'll show it.

C'mon Jim, show us where you cut and pasted the article from.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:35:59 PM EST


DU has unloaded the bus..should only last another 5 days and they'll be gone.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:02:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By jimb100:

Originally Posted By Airwolf:

Originally Posted By caveman:
I only read most of your...uh....shit.
If the war was for OIL then why the fuck am I spending 2 fucking dollars a gallon for gas?





2 bucks?!? Come on down to SoCal... 2.50 for reg.


As for our thread starter...

Sorry you troll but the "we invaded for oil" is nothing more than a lie. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or how loud you scream it doesn't change jack shit. It's still A LIE.

Now, slither back under your DU rock and let the ADULTS talk.



OK genius, tell me again why we are in the middle of a civil war in Iraq? How it benefits us?

And please spare me the crap about so that we can set up a democracy in a country with no democratic traditions and no interest in having a demcracy? Do you really think the Saudis believe an Iraqi democracy will inspire democratic movements in Saudi Arabia? Would they still be our friends if they thought we were trying to get them replaced?

This forum has some of the most knee jerk dumbasses on the internet.

My post isn't anti-Bush or pro-Kerry. If Gore had been handed the nod, he would have eventually had to do something similar. 911 was a wake up call. Not just that Bin Laden was out there looking to do us harm. It was a wakeup call to the fact the middle east was in danger of falling under the leadership of a guy like Bin Laden. He is a hero in the middle east.

So, Bin Laden was going to "lead" the entire Middle east, huh?
You ARE a genius.



The middle east is putting out the US no longer welcome sign even without Bin Laden in charge.

"Bin Laden in charge" ?

How the hell would that happen?
How would osama take over Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, UAE, OMAN, Bahrain, Pakistan, etc.????

How would this occur?
How?
How?
How?



We had to have a place to strike from to protect our oil interests from muslim fundamentalist who will, one day, use oil as a bargaining chip against us. And Saudi Arabia is ripe for a takeover by fundamentalists.

One thing missing from your equation.


911

That region is from where ALL such attacks are funded, planned, and staffed.

You are right though....
It is true, that we need to ensure that the world's oil supply does not fall into the hands of terrorists.
But that's not fighting for oil.
That's fighting for civilization.
All of your silly "alternate fuel" fantasies aside.... the world's engine is powered by oil.
NOTHING will replace it during the next several decades.
LOSING that supply would bring a collapse to the world's economy, depression, famine, etc.
Isn't that worth fighting to avoid?



Evidently not too many here remember the Arab Oil Embargo of 1972.

Like I said, dumbasses.



After the idiocy of your intitial post, do you really think that you have the right to call anyone a dumbass?

AND, I still dare you...
Show your link to that story.
If you have the balls.



Yes, you are a knee jerk neo-con dumbass.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:03:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By kingfish:

Originally Posted By caveman:
I only read most of your...uh....shit.
If the war was for OIL then why the fuck am I spending 2 fucking dollars a gallon for gas?





Because the President's an oil man. They haven't had this much fun since the late 70's.



Lie. The oil companies are NOT making more profits from this.



And you would know that how???
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:05:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 4:07:14 PM EST by jimb100]

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By tisfortexas:
Read it all. There is only one reason this lie was published.
www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/28/news/toll.html

Editors of the journal decided not to wait for Lancet's normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election.


That's not HIS link.

I want to see jimb100's link.

I doubt he'll show it.

C'mon Jim, show us where you cut and pasted the article from.



Dumbass, knee jerk neo con, its all over the news. Open your eyes. Even Fox has it. Being published in the Lancet.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:07:26 PM EST
you are a dumbass.....
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:08:44 PM EST
If the war was for oil, we would lift the embargo on Iranian oil. The Iranian oil fields are every bit as plentiful as the one's found in Iraq, however, we just don't use them because of the regime currently in power. So don't play the fucking "No War For Oil" card you liberal Dick-Cheese.


Someone's been gayed
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:15:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 4:18:04 PM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By jimb100:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Originally Posted By tisfortexas:
Read it all. There is only one reason this lie was published.
www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/28/news/toll.html

Editors of the journal decided not to wait for Lancet's normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election.


That's not HIS link.

I want to see jimb100's link.

I doubt he'll show it.

C'mon Jim, show us where you cut and pasted the article from.



Dumbass, knee jerk neo con, its all over the news. Open your eyes. Even Fox has it. Being published in the Lancet.


Again, stop with the name calling, and show us where you cut and pasted it from.
C'mon. Why are you so afraid?

Coward.
Show exactly from where you cut and pasted this:

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:48 a.m. ET Oct. 28, 2004LONDON - A survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months after the U.S. invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war... There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000...The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and air strikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths.




Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top