Socialized medicine Europe:UK news media admits NHS cancer survival rate lowest in Eu
Aug 25th 2007, 11:24 am
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Socialized medicine Europe:UK news media admits NHS cancer survival rate lowest i
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:27:19 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 25 Aug, 00:34, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:27:08 -0700, Ribka <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> And this has what to do with the thread?
>>
>> >> >and this thread had **** all to do with european travel......
>>
>> >> Good as any for the subject, especially since people advocate
>> >> travelling for medical care
>>
>> >but not British soldiers when there are Americans in the neighbourhood
>>
>> Forgot completely about what they did in Northern Ireland huh?
>
>thats why they have a political solution, cos its the only one that
>works
>but luckily they also don't have any oil fields otherwise the
>Americans would be in there bombing everyone
>
Right. Oil. I forgot that since we get so little of ours from the
Middle East. But, then, Britain was right there for the first Gulf
War too weren't they? Must be oil.
wrote:
>On 25 Aug, 00:34, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:27:08 -0700, Ribka <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> And this has what to do with the thread?
>>
>> >> >and this thread had **** all to do with european travel......
>>
>> >> Good as any for the subject, especially since people advocate
>> >> travelling for medical care
>>
>> >but not British soldiers when there are Americans in the neighbourhood
>>
>> Forgot completely about what they did in Northern Ireland huh?
>
>thats why they have a political solution, cos its the only one that
>works
>but luckily they also don't have any oil fields otherwise the
>Americans would be in there bombing everyone
>
Right. Oil. I forgot that since we get so little of ours from the
Middle East. But, then, Britain was right there for the first Gulf
War too weren't they? Must be oil.
Aug 25th 2007, 12:06 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Socialized medicine Europe:UK news media admits NHS cancer survival rate lowest i
On 25 Aug, 13:24, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:27:19 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 25 Aug, 00:34, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:27:08 -0700, Ribka <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> And this has what to do with the thread?
>
> >> >> >and this thread had **** all to do with european travel......
>
> >> >> Good as any for the subject, especially since people advocate
> >> >> travelling for medical care
>
> >> >but not British soldiers when there are Americans in the neighbourhood
>
> >> Forgot completely about what they did in Northern Ireland huh?
>
> >thats why they have a political solution, cos its the only one that
> >works
> >but luckily they also don't have any oil fields otherwise the
> >Americans would be in there bombing everyone
>
> Right. Oil. I forgot that since we get so little of ours from the
> Middle East. But, then, Britain was right there for the first Gulf
> War too weren't they? Must be oil.
when Saddam was alive the USA was quite happy to swap arms for his oil
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
but then he became a liabilty so the USA invaded to stop his non-
existent WMD programs.
The British eager to please the biggest bully on the block jumped on
board even though the war money
would have been better spent on cancer treatment back in the UK.
Et viola fool circle
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:27:19 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 25 Aug, 00:34, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:27:08 -0700, Ribka <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> And this has what to do with the thread?
>
> >> >> >and this thread had **** all to do with european travel......
>
> >> >> Good as any for the subject, especially since people advocate
> >> >> travelling for medical care
>
> >> >but not British soldiers when there are Americans in the neighbourhood
>
> >> Forgot completely about what they did in Northern Ireland huh?
>
> >thats why they have a political solution, cos its the only one that
> >works
> >but luckily they also don't have any oil fields otherwise the
> >Americans would be in there bombing everyone
>
> Right. Oil. I forgot that since we get so little of ours from the
> Middle East. But, then, Britain was right there for the first Gulf
> War too weren't they? Must be oil.
when Saddam was alive the USA was quite happy to swap arms for his oil
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
but then he became a liabilty so the USA invaded to stop his non-
existent WMD programs.
The British eager to please the biggest bully on the block jumped on
board even though the war money
would have been better spent on cancer treatment back in the UK.
Et viola fool circle
Aug 25th 2007, 1:09 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Socialized medicine Europe:UK news media admits NHS cancer survival rate lowest i
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:06:15 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Right. Oil. I forgot that since we get so little of ours from the
>> Middle East. But, then, Britain was right there for the first Gulf
>> War too weren't they? Must be oil.
>
>when Saddam was alive the USA was quite happy to swap arms for his oil
>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
>but then he became a liabilty so the USA invaded to stop his non-
>existent WMD programs.
>The British eager to please the biggest bully on the block jumped on
>board even though the war money
>would have been better spent on cancer treatment back in the UK.
>Et viola fool circle
>
Right. This is as close as the moronic left ever gets to the truth.
Forgot all about the first Gulf War again, didn't you genius? The one
where Iraq was invaded by about 500,000 troops to remove Saddam from
Kuwait? All about oil then too wasn't it? Plenty of other countries
involved there weren't there? But you missed all that, including ALL
the major intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD before the
second. You're right about the cancer spending, though, since the
British survival rate is half that of the biggest bully on the block
moron. It obviously could use a lot of help
wrote:
>> Right. Oil. I forgot that since we get so little of ours from the
>> Middle East. But, then, Britain was right there for the first Gulf
>> War too weren't they? Must be oil.
>
>when Saddam was alive the USA was quite happy to swap arms for his oil
>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
>but then he became a liabilty so the USA invaded to stop his non-
>existent WMD programs.
>The British eager to please the biggest bully on the block jumped on
>board even though the war money
>would have been better spent on cancer treatment back in the UK.
>Et viola fool circle
>
Right. This is as close as the moronic left ever gets to the truth.
Forgot all about the first Gulf War again, didn't you genius? The one
where Iraq was invaded by about 500,000 troops to remove Saddam from
Kuwait? All about oil then too wasn't it? Plenty of other countries
involved there weren't there? But you missed all that, including ALL
the major intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD before the
second. You're right about the cancer spending, though, since the
British survival rate is half that of the biggest bully on the block
moron. It obviously could use a lot of help
Aug 25th 2007, 1:54 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Socialized medicine Europe:UK news media admits NHS cancer survival rate lowest i
On 25 Aug, 15:09, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:06:15 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Right. Oil. I forgot that since we get so little of ours from the
> >> Middle East. But, then, Britain was right there for the first Gulf
> >> War too weren't they? Must be oil.
>
> >when Saddam was alive the USA was quite happy to swap arms for his oil
> >http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
> >but then he became a liabilty so the USA invaded to stop his non-
> >existent WMD programs.
> >The British eager to please the biggest bully on the block jumped on
> >board even though the war money
> >would have been better spent on cancer treatment back in the UK.
> >Et viola fool circle
>
> Right. This is as close as the moronic left ever gets to the truth.
> Forgot all about the first Gulf War again, didn't you genius? The one
> where Iraq was invaded by about 500,000 troops to remove Saddam from
> Kuwait? All about oil then too wasn't it? Plenty of other countries
> involved there weren't there? But you missed all that, including ALL
> the major intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD before the
> second. You're right about the cancer spending, though, since the
> British survival rate is half that of the biggest bully on the block
> moron. It obviously could use a lot of help
You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
it ?
So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
US kills.
Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
enough to get cancer.
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:06:15 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Right. Oil. I forgot that since we get so little of ours from the
> >> Middle East. But, then, Britain was right there for the first Gulf
> >> War too weren't they? Must be oil.
>
> >when Saddam was alive the USA was quite happy to swap arms for his oil
> >http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
> >but then he became a liabilty so the USA invaded to stop his non-
> >existent WMD programs.
> >The British eager to please the biggest bully on the block jumped on
> >board even though the war money
> >would have been better spent on cancer treatment back in the UK.
> >Et viola fool circle
>
> Right. This is as close as the moronic left ever gets to the truth.
> Forgot all about the first Gulf War again, didn't you genius? The one
> where Iraq was invaded by about 500,000 troops to remove Saddam from
> Kuwait? All about oil then too wasn't it? Plenty of other countries
> involved there weren't there? But you missed all that, including ALL
> the major intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD before the
> second. You're right about the cancer spending, though, since the
> British survival rate is half that of the biggest bully on the block
> moron. It obviously could use a lot of help
You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
it ?
So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
US kills.
Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
enough to get cancer.
Aug 25th 2007, 2:25 pm
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Socialized medicine Europe:UK news media admits NHS cancer survival rate lowest i
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:54:30 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
>it ?
Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
mess Dubya created.
>So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
cancer in the US every year. Right.
>But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
>US kills.
As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
>enough to get cancer.
Right again genuis. Don't understand what a cancer survival rate is
either. That's how many survive AFTER they get cancer moron. Keep it
up. Demonstrating your complete stupidity is a lot of fun
wrote:
>
>You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
>it ?
Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
mess Dubya created.
>So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
cancer in the US every year. Right.
>But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
>US kills.
As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
>enough to get cancer.
Right again genuis. Don't understand what a cancer survival rate is
either. That's how many survive AFTER they get cancer moron. Keep it
up. Demonstrating your complete stupidity is a lot of fun
Aug 25th 2007, 3:04 pm
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Socialized medicine Europe:UK news media admits NHS cancer survival rate lowest i
On 25 Aug, 16:25, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:54:30 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
> >it ?
>
> Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
> mess Dubya created.
>
> >So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
>
> Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
> cancer in the US every year. Right.
>
> >But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
> >US kills.
>
> As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>
> >Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
> >enough to get cancer.
>
> Right again genuis. Don't understand what a cancer survival rate is
> either. That's how many survive AFTER they get cancer moron. Keep it
> up. Demonstrating your complete stupidity is a lot of fun
On 25 Aug, 16:25, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:54:30 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
> >it ?
>
> Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
> mess Dubya created.
>
you mean he set his son up to do it ?
> >So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
>
> Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
> cancer in the US every year. Right.
>
not just killed, you need to include (for instance) people who lose
their limbs and people who lose their marbles
> >But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
> >US kills.
>
> As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>
how many has this US inspired war killed ?
you don't know because they don't bother to keep any records !
> >Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
> >enough to get cancer.
>
> Right again genuis.
I think you spell that 'genius'......homer
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:54:30 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
> >it ?
>
> Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
> mess Dubya created.
>
> >So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
>
> Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
> cancer in the US every year. Right.
>
> >But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
> >US kills.
>
> As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>
> >Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
> >enough to get cancer.
>
> Right again genuis. Don't understand what a cancer survival rate is
> either. That's how many survive AFTER they get cancer moron. Keep it
> up. Demonstrating your complete stupidity is a lot of fun
On 25 Aug, 16:25, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:54:30 -0700, Malinka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
> >it ?
>
> Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
> mess Dubya created.
>
you mean he set his son up to do it ?
> >So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
>
> Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
> cancer in the US every year. Right.
>
not just killed, you need to include (for instance) people who lose
their limbs and people who lose their marbles
> >But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
> >US kills.
>
> As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>
how many has this US inspired war killed ?
you don't know because they don't bother to keep any records !
> >Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
> >enough to get cancer.
>
> Right again genuis.
I think you spell that 'genius'......homer
Aug 26th 2007, 8:28 pm
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Socialized medicine Europe:UK news media admits NHS cancer survival rate lowest i
>> >You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
>> >it ?
>>
>> Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
>> mess Dubya created.
>>
>you mean he set his son up to do it ?
No I mean he had a lot more of a brain than Dubya and much better
advisors who knew better. Like Brent Scowcroft
>
>> >So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
>>
>> Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
>> cancer in the US every year. Right.
>>
>
>not just killed, you need to include (for instance) people who lose
>their limbs and people who lose their marbles
Since when do people die from losing their limbs or marbles?
>
>> >But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
>> >US kills.
>>
>> As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>>
>
>how many has this US inspired war killed ?
>you don't know because they don't bother to keep any records !
Neither do you ace. You're just waving your hands and flapping your
gums. And funny how you're now trying to change from saying those
that the US kills to those killed overall isn't it? Is that because
your Iraqi lunatic buddies are doing most of the killing by far
perhaps?
>
>> >Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
>> >enough to get cancer.
>>
>> Right again genuis.
>
>I think you spell that 'genius'......homer
>
Whatever. The sarcastic version fits you just fine
>> >it ?
>>
>> Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
>> mess Dubya created.
>>
>you mean he set his son up to do it ?
No I mean he had a lot more of a brain than Dubya and much better
advisors who knew better. Like Brent Scowcroft
>
>> >So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
>>
>> Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
>> cancer in the US every year. Right.
>>
>
>not just killed, you need to include (for instance) people who lose
>their limbs and people who lose their marbles
Since when do people die from losing their limbs or marbles?
>
>> >But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
>> >US kills.
>>
>> As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>>
>
>how many has this US inspired war killed ?
>you don't know because they don't bother to keep any records !
Neither do you ace. You're just waving your hands and flapping your
gums. And funny how you're now trying to change from saying those
that the US kills to those killed overall isn't it? Is that because
your Iraqi lunatic buddies are doing most of the killing by far
perhaps?
>
>> >Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
>> >enough to get cancer.
>>
>> Right again genuis.
>
>I think you spell that 'genius'......homer
>
Whatever. The sarcastic version fits you just fine
Aug 26th 2007, 8:56 pm
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Socialized medicine Europe:UK news media admits NHS cancer survival rate lowest i
On 26 Aug, 22:28, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
> >> >You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
> >> >it ?
>
> >> Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
> >> mess Dubya created.
>
> >you mean he set his son up to do it ?
>
> No I mean he had a lot more of a brain than Dubya and much better
> advisors who knew better. Like Brent Scowcroft
>
and what can you do with an idiot, make him president of
course.............
> >> >So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
>
> >> Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
> >> cancer in the US every year. Right.
>
> >not just killed, you need to include (for instance) people who lose
> >their limbs and people who lose their marbles
>
> Since when do people die from losing their limbs or marbles?
>
depends, what kind of vegetable are you ?
> >> >But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
> >> >US kills.
>
> >> As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>
> >how many has this US inspired war killed ?
> >you don't know because they don't bother to keep any records !
>
> Neither do you ace. You're just waving your hands and flapping your
> gums. And funny how you're now trying to change from saying those
> that the US kills to those killed overall isn't it? Is that because
> your Iraqi lunatic buddies are doing most of the killing by far
> perhaps?
"We don't do body counts", General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
Iraq is a holiday park for all the lunatics invited by the USA
> >> >Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
> >> >enough to get cancer.
>
> >> Right again genuis.
>
> >I think you spell that 'genius'......homer
>
> Whatever. The sarcastic version fits you just fine
HeHe
> >> >You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
> >> >it ?
>
> >> Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
> >> mess Dubya created.
>
> >you mean he set his son up to do it ?
>
> No I mean he had a lot more of a brain than Dubya and much better
> advisors who knew better. Like Brent Scowcroft
>
and what can you do with an idiot, make him president of
course.............
> >> >So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
>
> >> Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
> >> cancer in the US every year. Right.
>
> >not just killed, you need to include (for instance) people who lose
> >their limbs and people who lose their marbles
>
> Since when do people die from losing their limbs or marbles?
>
depends, what kind of vegetable are you ?
> >> >But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
> >> >US kills.
>
> >> As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>
> >how many has this US inspired war killed ?
> >you don't know because they don't bother to keep any records !
>
> Neither do you ace. You're just waving your hands and flapping your
> gums. And funny how you're now trying to change from saying those
> that the US kills to those killed overall isn't it? Is that because
> your Iraqi lunatic buddies are doing most of the killing by far
> perhaps?
"We don't do body counts", General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
Iraq is a holiday park for all the lunatics invited by the USA
> >> >Their cancer survival rates are so good because they don't live long
> >> >enough to get cancer.
>
> >> Right again genuis.
>
> >I think you spell that 'genius'......homer
>
> Whatever. The sarcastic version fits you just fine
HeHe
Aug 26th 2007, 9:21 pm
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Socialized medicine Europe:UK news media admits NHS cancer survival rate lowest i
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:56:50 -0700, Alain Quai
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 26 Aug, 22:28, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
>> >> >You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
>> >> >it ?
>>
>> >> Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
>> >> mess Dubya created.
>>
>> >you mean he set his son up to do it ?
>>
>> No I mean he had a lot more of a brain than Dubya and much better
>> advisors who knew better. Like Brent Scowcroft
>>
>
>and what can you do with an idiot, make him president of
>course.............
Fits all kinds of politicians doesn't it?
>
>> >> >So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
>>
>> >> Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
>> >> cancer in the US every year. Right.
>>
>> >not just killed, you need to include (for instance) people who lose
>> >their limbs and people who lose their marbles
>>
>> Since when do people die from losing their limbs or marbles?
>>
>
>depends, what kind of vegetable are you ?
Too stupid a comment to bother with
>
>
>> >> >But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
>> >> >US kills.
>>
>> >> As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>>
>> >how many has this US inspired war killed ?
>> >you don't know because they don't bother to keep any records !
>>
>> Neither do you ace. You're just waving your hands and flapping your
>> gums. And funny how you're now trying to change from saying those
>> that the US kills to those killed overall isn't it? Is that because
>> your Iraqi lunatic buddies are doing most of the killing by far
>> perhaps?
>
>"We don't do body counts", General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
>
>Iraq is a holiday park for all the lunatics invited by the USA
Sorry. The vast majority of them were already there when we arrived
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 26 Aug, 22:28, [email protected] (John Kulp) wrote:
>> >> >You mean the first gulf war where Bush senior should have finished
>> >> >it ?
>>
>> >> Right again moron. He specifically didn't do that to avoid just the
>> >> mess Dubya created.
>>
>> >you mean he set his son up to do it ?
>>
>> No I mean he had a lot more of a brain than Dubya and much better
>> advisors who knew better. Like Brent Scowcroft
>>
>
>and what can you do with an idiot, make him president of
>course.............
Fits all kinds of politicians doesn't it?
>
>> >> >So what the US gains in cancer survival rates, it loses in combat.
>>
>> >> Right as always. 3000 some killed versus about 1.5 million getting
>> >> cancer in the US every year. Right.
>>
>> >not just killed, you need to include (for instance) people who lose
>> >their limbs and people who lose their marbles
>>
>> Since when do people die from losing their limbs or marbles?
>>
>
>depends, what kind of vegetable are you ?
Too stupid a comment to bother with
>
>
>> >> >But that is still a drop in the ocean to all the Iraqi civilians the
>> >> >US kills.
>>
>> >> As opposed to the 60,000 plus Saddam was killing every year genius?
>>
>> >how many has this US inspired war killed ?
>> >you don't know because they don't bother to keep any records !
>>
>> Neither do you ace. You're just waving your hands and flapping your
>> gums. And funny how you're now trying to change from saying those
>> that the US kills to those killed overall isn't it? Is that because
>> your Iraqi lunatic buddies are doing most of the killing by far
>> perhaps?
>
>"We don't do body counts", General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
>
>Iraq is a holiday park for all the lunatics invited by the USA
Sorry. The vast majority of them were already there when we arrived
