Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

Euler · 2005-01-07 15:34:41

Seven more American soldiers were KILLED yesterday in Iraq.
Seven more lives thrown away for absolutely nothing. If you focused on that you would see the logic in my "argument."

There are over 25 MILLION people living in Iraq. If we nuked Iraq, we would have 25 million people killed for absolutely nothing. Plus, the diplomatic consequences of doing something like that would hurt America much worse than anything that terrorists could do.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-07 17:00:20

Blah blah "killed for nothing" yadda yadda...

90% of the "news" you hear from Iraq comes from the desks of people who want to see America's war fail. That is the simple truth of the matter, that the great majority of our sources of information want to discourage us and turn public opinion away from the war. I firmly believe that this bias is sufficently consistant that you can assume that things are going better then what we "hear" about over there by and large.

The "reporters" over there almost exclusively confine their work to the cities where most of the violence is going on, and have willfully ignored the largely peaceful outlying areas. They willfuly seek out only negative opinions about the Coalition and the Allawi's government. The degree that many "journalists" in Iraq are against us is unprecidented in its vicousness, unable to even use the word terrorist or publishing photographs of gunned down Iraqi election workers. Or are Iraqis and soldiers being gunned down because "reporters" were nearby?

And how many people here know that in Afghanistan, they have held their first election... ever? That millions of people, including women, lined up to vote even when explosions could be heard nearby while they were waiting? That the Afghan militias are disarming? Oh no, perish the thought of any victories.

Euler · 2005-01-07 18:13:25

The reporters do not really care if the war is successful or not (remember how they prodded America into starting the war in the first place). They just want a sensational story to report that will get people's attention. What makes for a more exciting story, peace and boredom or people getting killed?

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-07 18:24:20

GCNRevenger:

You wrote, "Blah blah 'killed for nothing' yadda yadda..." Were any of the seven Americans who were killed yesterday your sister or brother, mother or father, aunt or uncle, or cousin? Your cavalier attitude toward the senseless death of American soldiers is part of what drives the United States to engage in spurious preemptive warfare.

President Harry S. Truman had the courage to end and win the Second World War as soon as nuclear bombs were available. George Bush could have eliminated whatever threat Iraq posed to the United States without losing the life of even one American soldier. Instead, George Bush chose to feed thousands of Americans into a meat grinder. George Bush is a coward.

Dook · 2005-01-07 18:40:38

Seven more American soldiers were KILLED yesterday in Iraq.
Seven more lives thrown away for absolutely nothing.

Seven more American lives. I consider myself to be a very loyal American. I am disturbed to hear about American's dying day after day while there is nothing I can do about it. Sometimes I want to pick up a weapon and go but I'm getting too old for all that.

My opinion wavers from knowing this fight is necessary to "F*** them, let's just get the hell out and leave them to the insurgents!" Some day there will be peace in the middle east, I am absolutely sure of it. I just don't know how many lives it will take or how long.

I always come back to this thought- The American civil war cost 620,000 American lives. But it was worth it to set men free.

MarsDog · 2005-01-07 18:50:42

I always come back to this thought- The American civil war cost 620,000 American lives. But it was worth it to set men free.

The dead would not agree with the living on that.

===========================================

In the past, it was http://www.google.com/search?q=united+f … -8]Bananas.

Now, US national interest is http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ … 127306]Oil.

Osama was convenient to trigger what the US needed to do anyway.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-07 19:01:33

Scott Beach:-

President Harry S. Truman had the courage to end and win the Second World War as soon as nuclear bombs were available. George Bush could have eliminated whatever threat Iraq posed to the United States without losing the life of even one American soldier. Instead, George Bush chose to feed thousands of Americans into a meat grinder. George Bush is a coward.

You know, Scott, I'm pretty sure one of us is crazy ...
Or we're back to that nice little experiment in cage-rattling again. Seriously though, what are you doing these days, old man, writing a thesis for a degree or something?

Dook · 2005-01-07 19:38:05

The dead would not agree with the living on that.

Really? You think they all thought they would just have a nice little war and no one would die? They knew, don't minimize their commitment and sacrifice.

MarsDog · 2005-01-07 21:03:22

Caught in the tides of history, http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/16/16 … tml]Cannon Fodder is not what the soldiers signed up for.

Looking at it from the individual, death is the terminal disaster.

From the interests of the Empire, death is cost effective.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-01-07 23:39:01

Dang. Clearly the ruthless killing of tens of millions of Iraqis to assuade dubious concerns about alleged WMDs is a better alternative to the course of action chosen. It's rare you run into such a downright bizzare argument from the anti-Bush side. ???

So seven Americans died in Iraq yesterday. That's a very sad thing, but you must consider that we are in a war right now. Do you know how many Americans died a day in world war 2? The numbers would dwarf those in Iraq dozens of times over for American casualties alone, let alone world-wide losses. The really sad thing is not that these soldiers are dying in the line of duty per se, it's that they are dying with no benefit whatsoever occuring for America. In hindsight, we should just not have invaded, not launched nukes.

Dook · 2005-01-08 08:03:01

Its easy to move on, grow as a people, live richly with a wealthy supply of food and freedom. Leave other people behind in torment at the mercy of their ruthless government but at some point we will not be able to move any farther. America is not isolated from the rest of the world, we are all connected. If a tsunami hits nations far away does it not affect us as well?

Some day the world will live in peace, each person will have a good supply of food and freedom. It will likely take many more lives than we can now imagine.

Cannon fodder? The military is a volunteer organization. Anyone who joins believing they are simply going to get money for college with no risk is a fool. They could go into submarines, the coast guard, or air national guard.

Everyone knows there is a war going on and Americans are dying. It's on all the news channels.

MarsDog · 2005-01-08 09:36:10

Free people from Evil Dictators; who can disagree with that ?

Given historical US support of Hitler and Mussolini, overthrow of elected governments. Did US turn the corner ?

Maybe not:

http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet … Fall.html] "The de facto role of the United States Armed Forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing"

http://www.oilempire.us/]Oil Empire

http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/archives/000309.html#more]The occupation of Iraq has been an astonishing failure.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle … D=4132]The recent war on Iraq and the current US occupation was fully supported by the mainstream press in the US to the extent that the media became the political wing of the Bush administration.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-08 10:21:54

Seven more American soldiers were KILLED yesterday in Iraq.
Seven more lives thrown away for absolutely nothing.
Seven more American lives. I consider myself to be a very loyal American. I am disturbed to hear about American's dying day after day while there is nothing I can do about it. Sometimes I want to pick up a weapon and go but I'm getting too old for all that.
My opinion wavers from knowing this fight is necessary to "F*** them, let's just get the hell out and leave them to the insurgents!" Some day there will be peace in the middle east, I am absolutely sure of it. I just don't know how many lives it will take or how long.
I always come back to this thought- The American civil war cost 620,000 American lives. But it was worth it to set men free.

The American invasion of Iraq is not the American Civil War. The American civil war was an attempt to tear the American Republic apart by the British and there Southern sympathizers. So to preserve United States as a Nation and as a Republic, yes it needed to be fought. But, this Iraq war does not and should not have been started by the United State and the United States has no business being over in Iraq. This is an Imperial War of conquest and not a war of liberation unless you consider killing people as liberating people from living that is. Matter of fact the only war that the United States should have fought in the Twentieth Century was World War II and even that war would not have had to been fought if Prescott Bush and his cronies would not have finance Adolph Hitler rise to power. As to World War I, the United States should have stay out of that war. All we did was to salvage the British rotten beans of defending there Empire vs letting the world develop into nation states.

Larry,

Grypd · 2005-01-08 11:20:05

Seven more American soldiers were KILLED yesterday in Iraq.
Seven more lives thrown away for absolutely nothing.
Seven more American lives. I consider myself to be a very loyal American. I am disturbed to hear about American's dying day after day while there is nothing I can do about it. Sometimes I want to pick up a weapon and go but I'm getting too old for all that.
My opinion wavers from knowing this fight is necessary to "F*** them, let's just get the hell out and leave them to the insurgents!" Some day there will be peace in the middle east, I am absolutely sure of it. I just don't know how many lives it will take or how long.
I always come back to this thought- The American civil war cost 620,000 American lives. But it was worth it to set men free.
The American invasion of Iraq is not the American Civil War. The American civil war was an attempt to tear the American Republic apart by the British and there Southern sympathizers. So to preserve United States as a Nation and as a Republic, yes it needed to be fought. But, this Iraq war does not and should not have been started by the United State and the United States has no business being over in Iraq. This is an Imperial War of conquest and not a war of liberation unless you consider killing people as liberating people from living that is. Matter of fact the only war that the United States should have fought in the Twentieth Century was World War II and even that war would not have had to been fought if Prescott Bush and his cronies would not have finance Adolph Hitler rise to power. As to World War I, the United States should have stay out of that war. All we did was to salvage the British rotten beans of defending there Empire vs letting the world develop into nation states.
Larry,

Errrr what novel have you been reading?

The American Civil war was a fight between the South who believed in a States right to control its own affairs and the Norths belief in a federal system being paramount. Add in the differences over slavery, a lot to do with money, add in immigration paterns. And who got to control all the land to the west and you have an unholy mix of friction.

The United States entered the first world war as a result of the killing of a lot of civilians in the Lusitania incident where a german U boat torpedoed a luxury liner. The drawings of women and children drowning in the cold sea in all newspapers caused a real wave of anger. The WW1 equivalent of 9/11.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 11:20:43

GCNRevenger:
You wrote, "Blah blah 'killed for nothing' yadda yadda..." Were any of the seven Americans who were killed yesterday your sister or brother, mother or father, aunt or uncle, or cousin? Your cavalier attitude toward the senseless death of American soldiers is part of what drives the United States to engage in spurious preemptive warfare.
President Harry S. Truman had the courage to end and win the Second World War as soon as nuclear bombs were available. George Bush could have eliminated whatever threat Iraq posed to the United States without losing the life of even one American soldier. Instead, George Bush chose to feed thousands of Americans into a meat grinder. George Bush is a coward.

Again, that little itty bitty difference you are hopscotching over between IMperial Japan and Baathist/Saddam's Iraq, which you are apparently not capable of understanding unless it is spelled out for you:

The people of Japan willingly obeyed Emperor Hirohito and followed his commands to attack America. The Japanese people supported the war until Hiroshima and Nagasaki illustrated the futility of it. In WW2, the Japanese people made war against us, and so we were justified in making war against them.

The people of Iraq were for intents and purposes slaves of Saddam, living under his fist, torturing, raping, and killing those who opposed him in droves. When the Kurds tried to resist, he killed every last man, woman, and child in Halabja to punish them. When the Iraqis in the south in Basra tried to resist, he sent his army in and killed thousands of people.

The people in Iraq were not loyal or willing or complicit in Saddam's WMD programs, his ties with terrorists groups, or sharing in his pathological hate for America... Our fight is not with them. It would be the height of immorality and hypocracy to just pull out and nuke them.

Oh no, vaporizing millions of innocent people because their oppressor is our enemy... THAT would be cowardace.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 11:27:38

Errrr what novel have you been reading?

Don't mind Martian Republic Grypd, he is a devout follower of one Lyndon LaRouche, a genuine psychopath with delusions of granduer and aspiring to be some kind of Neo-Roosavelt or somthing. Declaring with a straight face that he is the only hope to save America, etc etc.

"This is an Imperial War of conquest and not a war of liberation unless you consider killing people as liberating people from living that is..."

Blah blah blah whatever. I guess you'll believe that we intend to rig the Iraqi election and steal all their oil or somthing. Invading Iraq has saved tens of thousands of people from certain death at the hands of a monster named Saddam.

Dook · 2005-01-08 11:30:30

MarsDog: You think a few links to obscure web sites of some completely unknown persons proves your opinion is right? It only proves your minority status in this debate.

Our disagreement lies in the worth of war. You feel that war should never be fought to free people. You take your freedom for granted and readily use it but criticize its cost. Your next door neighbor beats his wife nightly while you cover your ears and have the nerve to call President Bush a coward.

Also, US historical support of Hitler and Mussolini? War of conquest? You two are so detached from reality. Conspiracy Theory must be your favorite movie.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 11:38:13

MarsDog: You think a few links to obscure web sites of some completely unknown persons proves your opinion is right? It only proves your minority status in this debate.
Our disagreement lies in the worth of war. You feel that war should never be fought to free people. You take your freedom for granted and readily use it but criticize its cost. Your next door neighbor beats his wife nightly while you cover your ears and have the nerve to call President Bush a coward.
Also, US historical support of Hitler and Mussolini? War of conquest? You two are so detached from reality. Conspiracy Theory must be your favorite movie.

Especially that last pathetic one... the media having a RIGHT wing slant? Please, that isn't even worthy of countermanding.

Another bad case of BDS... I wouldn't bother debating him anymore, that would be pointless.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-08 12:22:08

Seven more American lives. I consider myself to be a very loyal American. I am disturbed to hear about American's dying day after day while there is nothing I can do about it. Sometimes I want to pick up a weapon and go but I'm getting too old for all that.
My opinion wavers from knowing this fight is necessary to "F*** them, let's just get the hell out and leave them to the insurgents!" Some day there will be peace in the middle east, I am absolutely sure of it. I just don't know how many lives it will take or how long.
I always come back to this thought- The American civil war cost 620,000 American lives. But it was worth it to set men free.
The American invasion of Iraq is not the American Civil War. The American civil war was an attempt to tear the American Republic apart by the British and there Southern sympathizers. So to preserve United States as a Nation and as a Republic, yes it needed to be fought. But, this Iraq war does not and should not have been started by the United State and the United States has no business being over in Iraq. This is an Imperial War of conquest and not a war of liberation unless you consider killing people as liberating people from living that is. Matter of fact the only war that the United States should have fought in the Twentieth Century was World War II and even that war would not have had to been fought if Prescott Bush and his cronies would not have finance Adolph Hitler rise to power. As to World War I, the United States should have stay out of that war. All we did was to salvage the British rotten beans of defending there Empire vs letting the world develop into nation states.
Larry,
Errrr what novel have you been reading?
The American Civil war was a fight between the South who believed in a States right to control its own affairs and the Norths belief in a federal system being paramount. Add in the differences over slavery, a lot to do with money, add in immigration paterns. And who got to control all the land to the west and you have an unholy mix of friction.
The United States entered the first world war as a result of the killing of a lot of civilians in the Lusitania incident where a german U boat torpedoed a luxury liner. The drawings of women and children drowning in the cold sea in all newspapers caused a real wave of anger. The WW1 equivalent of 9/11.

To really understand the American Civil War you have to understand the British system and the American System of economics and the on going battle between these two system. This fight against the United State or at the time the thirteen colonies started after the French and Indian war when the British Government turned against there American Colonies to crush them. At that point there was a division inside those thirteen colonies between the Tories or British sympathizer and the other group that became know as the Rebel and later on as the Patriots during the American Revolution. From that time on there has been a battle between these two system of economics system. Most of the time it just a financial battle, but during the war of 1812 it turned into an actual shooting war. Of these Tory became the blue blood like the Rockefellows, Harriman and one of there for father was Arron Burr. There were two basic group of these Tories. One group was based in the South and manifest itself under the Leadership of Jefferson Davis. The other group was based in the North and manifested itself primarily around Wall Street and those Robber Barons of the 19th Century. So Lincoln had two enemies internally and two enemies externally. He had to deal with the South by way of the American Civil War and deal with other group that was in the North some way. Then he had to deal with the British that help to promote the Southern rebellion and was ready to come in on there side, which would have brought the French into the war too on the side of the British. Lincoln definitely had his problems and his hand full. The only bright side was the Russians came in on the Northern side and helped Lincoln. The Russian Pacific Fleet went to San Francisco and there Atlantic Fleet went to New York for about eighteen months or so to convince the British that they meant business. Which kind of offset the balance of power of the British and French being on the Southern side. Now Abraham Lincoln could fight the American Civil war without overt intervention from some foreign power. The British still did some gun running of the American blockage to get guns to the South and was even building ship for the South, but they didn't deliver those ships, because the South started losing the Civil War by the time that they were built. Then the British had second thought about delivering those ship to the South, because they piss Lincoln off and get into a war with the United States which was increasingly a bad idea to do. The United States begin to industrialize under Lincoln leadership. We building Iron Clad Ships, they have wooden Ship. We have repeating rifle and they have single breech load with power horn and musket balls. At the end of the American Civil War, the United State had become a world power that could take on Great Britain and beat them if there were a war between the United States and Great Britain and the British knew it too. So the British changed there tack tick when it came to dealing with the United States. It became more of an internal subversion of the United States and there junior partners which were the Rockefellows, Harrimans, etc.

Larry,

MarsDog · 2005-01-08 13:16:00

All we did was to salvage the British rotten beans of defending there Empire vs letting the world develop into nation states.

Very humorous way of putting it. We are living in the results of various empires.

The British concept of equality before the law, if only for the nobility, became a universal human value to strive for.

The inequality of people, is a seed for further discontent (terrorism).

============================================

Another opinion on Cannon Fodder:

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archi … ll.htm]But the warlords of the White House -- notorious battlefield shirkers who prefer to do their killing by remote control -- have little regard for the cannon fodder they churn through in their quest for dominance and loot.

=============================================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na … s30.htm]US business interest is the overriding value. An Empire cannot have it any other way.

http://www.correspondences.org/archives/000479.html] While virtually all inside the US have benefited to some extent with a purported higher standard of living, the true beneficiaries have been corporations and monied interests.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-08 15:29:14

All we did was to salvage the British rotten beans of defending there Empire vs letting the world develop into nation states.
Very humorous way of putting it. We are living in the results of various empires.
The British concept of equality before the law, if only for the nobility, became a universal human value to strive for.
The inequality of people, is a seed for further discontent (terrorism).
============================================
Another opinion on Cannon Fodder:
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archi … ll.htm]But the warlords of the White House -- notorious battlefield shirkers who prefer to do their killing by remote control -- have little regard for the cannon fodder they churn through in their quest for dominance and loot.
=============================================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na … s30.htm]US business interest is the overriding value. An Empire cannot have it any other way.
http://www.correspondences.org/archives/000479.html] While virtually all inside the US have benefited to some extent with a purported higher standard of living, the true beneficiaries have been corporations and monied interests.

As far as living in the current state or result of an Empire, yes you are correct, but that not what our founding father originally intended for the United States. I can tell by your post links that you at least understand part of what I'm talking about with the British and there Junior members inside the United States setting up Adolph Hitler. One of the article links that you put out go over Henry's Ford effort to finance Adolph Hitler rise to power also. This financial system is throw back to or hold over by the Kings, serf, slavery system of those Oligarchs. If there would never have been a United States, we would not be having this discussion, because those Oligarchs would not have let technology develop to the level of development that it is right now. Because, a technological society scares them, because you have to educate the people to run to be able to run that society. An educated society is harder to control than a stupid beat down society is with slaves. The backer of George Bush aren't interested in free election, healthcare, Social Security or the American troop over in Iraq either or the average Americans best interest. So trying to sell a Mars Mission to those Oligarchs scare the shit out of them, because they will have to lose control over the physical economy which they currently have a strangle hold over. And talk about building a City on Mars, well that would really scare them, because Empire and Oligarchal system will become obsolete and they will become extinct like the Doe Doe Bird long before we ever finish that city.

Larry,

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-01-08 19:37:14

GCNRevenger:
You wrote, "Blah blah 'killed for nothing' yadda yadda..." Were any of the seven Americans who were killed yesterday your sister or brother, mother or father, aunt or uncle, or cousin? Your cavalier attitude toward the senseless death of American soldiers is part of what drives the United States to engage in spurious preemptive warfare.
President Harry S. Truman had the courage to end and win the Second World War as soon as nuclear bombs were available. George Bush could have eliminated whatever threat Iraq posed to the United States without losing the life of even one American soldier. Instead, George Bush chose to feed thousands of Americans into a meat grinder. George Bush is a coward.

All they needed was one bullet for Saddam...why is all the war still happening, and why did he say the UN was useless ?
even Daddy-Bush in Iraq and Clinton who weren't the best in military education but they still did a much in the Baltic Kosovo area and Daddy-Bush did a much better job in the first Iraq War, today we have Iraq people picking up rifles or knocking down US tanks or expenisve high-tech choppers with a 5 $ dollar grenade. If Bush was so keen to start wars then why didn't he turn up for his duty as a young man :hm: guess he feared that narcotic test the army does on its bad younglings :down:

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 20:10:21

Blah blah blah some more...

You too succomb to the false excuse that it was practical to assasinate Saddam. He never stayed in one place for long, he had multiple doubles for sure, and had a small army of security forces. American intelligence/special forces have tried to kill him before after Gulf War-I by bombing his personal motorcade, but he survived and was untouchable after that.

And say we did kill him. Then what? Then his murderous sons would take over, and they are even worse this his father. The chances we could knock off all three of them were nil. And even then if we did do that, the WMDs would be easier for terrorists to steal with nobody to control them.

And this propagandistic prattle about Bush avoiding his military service in the Vietnam days. Nobody has ever been able to show any evidence at all that he did not fulfill his duty. And don't even think about starting the "fake but accurate" meme.

Oh, and for those Kerry fanatics... did you know that he refused to release all his military reccord? He still hasn't to this day... probobly because he was dishonorably discharged for consorting with the enemy (Vietcong) in Paris and in the VVAW (funded/directed by Vietcong) while he was still a member of the military.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-01-09 00:49:08

will we ever hear the answer to that question - if GW was so keen to start wars then why didn't he turn up for his duty as a young man .

:hm:

the enemy (Vietcong)

some of you still don't get it do you ? Let me tell you about the Vietnamese, the British tried to go in their with invasions and make the place more 'democratic' but they were kicked out, the crazy Chinese rulers attempted to take over Vietnam and controled it for a short time but the Vietnamese fought back and knocked China back, and the French and CIA went in trying to control its ports, its structure and its politics

The Vietnamese were never the enemy of the USA, all they ever wanted was their own nation and their own choice for what ever leadership they wanted be its marxist or socialist or whatever, they didn't wanted outsiders have rule and control in their nation this is why Vietnam fought so much. What's all this about Kerry and propagandistic stuff, I may not be a big Kerry fan but at least he had it right to turn up for his duty to his country unlike Awol GW, but some other right-wing-conservative station may say otherwise, it seems the olny station that will spue forth such nonsense is the likes of FoxNoose, and from what I've seen from FauxNews it seem even those at Faux could teach ol' Communist China a thing or 2 about Propaganda.

Grypd · 2005-01-09 10:57:06

Indochina was a French colony not British the British where in Indochina in 1945 for a matter of a few months but only after forcing the Japanese out. Britains only real interest like all western countries was the rubber that was produced there.

Britain did try to get peace talks during the Vietnam war going but....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-01-07 15:34:41

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#27 2005-01-07 17:00:20

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#28 2005-01-07 18:13:25

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#29 2005-01-07 18:24:20

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#30 2005-01-07 18:40:38

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#31 2005-01-07 18:50:42

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#32 2005-01-07 19:01:33

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#33 2005-01-07 19:38:05

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#34 2005-01-07 21:03:22

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#35 2005-01-07 23:39:01

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#36 2005-01-08 08:03:01

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#37 2005-01-08 09:36:10

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#38 2005-01-08 10:21:54

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#39 2005-01-08 11:20:05

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#40 2005-01-08 11:20:43

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#41 2005-01-08 11:27:38

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#42 2005-01-08 11:30:30

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#43 2005-01-08 11:38:13

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#44 2005-01-08 12:22:08

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#45 2005-01-08 13:16:00

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#46 2005-01-08 15:29:14

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#47 2005-01-08 19:37:14

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#48 2005-01-08 20:10:21

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#49 2005-01-09 00:49:08

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#50 2005-01-09 10:57:06

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

Board footer