T1B

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:04 am**

TVO wrote:...mvscal is a product of the liberal (free) California school system.

I'm pretty sure that mv is a product of the Military Industrial Complex... and unashamedly so.

I'm damn sure that TVO is a mewling dumbfuck.

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:10 am**

Felix wrote: then why did you bring it up

Speaking of mewling dumbfucks and right on cue, here comes Mr. Microphone, FeelsDix

Didn't you once troll as a chick?

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:13 am**

Wags, man, sssshhhhhhhh, quiet, the teacher is about to appear once he gets his drink on and warms up his fingers.

Here, since you didn't come prepared, I'll lend you one of my books.

Oooops, shit, sorry, that fell out

Research project, yeah, research.

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:22 am**

TVO wrote:
Bsmack why to you hate reason and logic?

Maybe because any tard who this they are the same is an iodiot?

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:24 am**

Look Bushice, TVO put me in charge and I'm writing down the names of people who misbehave on the chalk board. I don't want to have to write your name down dude.

Sit down, get ready to take notes. We'll se it all unfold. The Bilderberg Group met in Chantilly, VA today, it's all been hashed out, Obama is going to win and TVO is going to tell us why it will lead to ----- an exponential increase to 4092.

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:14 am**

TVO wrote:Dead Americans.

Do any of you morons care about $5.00 gas? Has it hit you yet? Now you are about to do it again with this election.

Why do you hate America, worthless fuckstains?

Cuz you ain't one of them.

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:15 am**

The casualty figures are unacceptable in this war even in the relative low rate. The unacceptability stems from the fact that this army was sent to fight with no prize for itself in sight. Every soldier sent over there should have been given an ownership stake in an oil well.

The worthless trash currently infesting the area? Well, should they object to the arrangement they then receive free of charge "ordnance receptor status." Nothing less than full metal jacket ~n~ shrapnel thank you notes for those of them who are considerate enough to share their suggestions.

The uniformed risk takers and asskickers are getting the raw end of this deal. I never served. From my perspective I couldn't in good conscience send troops into battle without there being a goal well fucking worth their while.

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:09 am**

Morte is like lts trn2 with a thesaurus.

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:14 am**

The liberals keep crying about the war but never want to address the important points that ...

1. The democrats in congress voted to give GW authority to begin the war

2. The democrats in congress have continued VOTING TO FUND a war that they piss and moan about

Any democrat nut-kissers care to speak to those two points?

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:07 pm**

poptart wrote: 1. The democrats in congress voted to give GW authority to begin the war

based on the faulty and trumped up evidence presented by Bush and Co. about Hussein and his WMD's (or lack thereof) he could have never sold them on the idea without 9/11 and the fear it created in the American people

2. The democrats in congress have continued VOTING TO FUND a war that they piss and moan about

they have no choice in the matter now-if the Islamo fundies were to ever get control of Iraq, this country would be in serious trouble.
that's the problem I have with Obama and his "withdraw at any cost" mantra...but as mvs has pointed out, it's just lip service...he knows the consequences this country would face if the Islamofacists get control of the Iraqi oil revenues

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:12 pm**

Felix,

If you have an ounce of integrity, and I believe you do, you will stop referring to "Bush and Co." as the ones solely responsible for Iraq, solely responsible for the conclusions drawn based on the information available at the time and the only ones that though toppling Saddam was a priority.

That idea dated back to 1999 and was strongly pushed by many Democrats as well. It was a bi-partisan decision.

Thanks dude.

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:34 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:Felix,

If you have an ounce of integrity, and I believe you do, you will stop referring to "Bush and Co." as the ones solely responsible for Iraq

then why the need to manufacture "evidence"

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:50 pm**

Felix wrote:
poptart wrote: 1. The democrats in congress voted to give GW authority to begin the war
based on the faulty and trumped up evidence presented by Bush and Co. about Hussein and his WMD's (or lack thereof) he could have never sold them on the idea without 9/11 and the fear it created in the American people

That is why Ron Paul is a fucking genius.

Think about what you just said, Felix.

Dems believed what they were told when all they had to do was look under the rug. Its fucking rediculous how they vote. Someone tells them something and they vote on it.

Remember how they voted on the Patriot Act?

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:52 pm**

Felix,

You mean focus on evidence that existed, but fit a predetermined agenda and course of action and not present evidence that existed to contradict that predetermined agenda and course of action ?

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:49 pm**

Felix wrote:
poptart wrote:2. The democrats in congress have continued VOTING TO FUND a war that they piss and moan about
they have no choice in the matter now-

That's not what they- and you- were saying 2 years ago. They promised to cut off the war funding and bring the troops home... or maybe Germany, but definitely out of Iraq and definitely immediately. Enough dolts like you believed them, and every one of you are avoiding responsibility like U&L hippies avoid bathing.

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:07 pm**

Cuda wrote: That's not what they- and you- were saying 2 years ago.

that's horseshit-maybe "they" (whoever "they" are) were, but you certainly have never heard that from me

go ahead and provide me a link to a post wherein I've stated the US should withdraw from Iraq

I know fully well whats at stake here

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:56 pm**

Felix wrote:
I know fully well whats at stake here

Your credibility was lost long, long ago

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:36 pm**

Cuda wrote:
Your credibility was lost long, long ago

simply because I remember what I post is no reason to get all huffy Coods....no doubt you're reeling from culling all of those threads trying to find wherein I said the US should withdraw from Iraq, but let me assure you it's not there

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:40 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Oh, bullshit.

then why was it necessary for Condoleezza Rice to insist "there have been shipments going into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." yet the Energy Department had concluded that, "while the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production."

the Energy Department report was produced a year before Rice's appearance

In August 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney stated "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet wrote that Cheney's statement "went well beyond what our own analysis could support."

why the need to enhance, exaggerate, overstate? simply present the facts (sans the embelishments) and let the cards fall where they may

but again, this shit has been hashed and rehashed and really it's pointless...we're there and there's no changing that fact

Posted: **Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:58 pm**

Nice move. Again.

Why do you hate yourself so much?

Posted: **Sat Jun 07, 2008 12:13 am**

TVO wrote:Dead ... fuckstains?

It's "Quagmire v40.92."

Now go fuck yourself.

Posted: **Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:58 am**

Papa Willie wrote: Democrats are wankers.

So are Republicans. So are politicians.

"You can support the troops but not the president" ---Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX)

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." ---Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." ---Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." ---Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." ---Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague
objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) discussing Kosovo, Houston Chronicle, 04-09-99

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

Posted: **Sat Jun 07, 2008 12:13 pm**

Regardless of intelligence that they tell us "everyone" got wrong, there were those in the administration who were not concerned either way - war in iraq sooner than later was their goal.

Dems didn't intend a blank war-making slate. They voted for an authorization of the use of force in Iraq.

Clearly something needed to happen with Saddam. That should have happened decades ago, probably. It's impossible to avoid the fact that the Bush Administration bumbled their way through this.

Posted: **Sat Jun 07, 2008 4:24 pm**

TVO wrote:Nice move. Again.

Why do you hate yourself so much?

Projecting I see.
You are either
A. Retarded. and barely able to type because of teh constant drool on your keyboard
B. So hopelessly stupid, ignoramt and delusional, you have convinced yourself of a false reality
C. Trolling.

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:32 pm**

In mankind's history of warfare, 4092 dead isn't even worth a mention.

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:54 pm**

Sniper 1 wrote:In mankind's history of warfare, 4092 dead isn't even worth a mention.

Nice. So comforting for the widows too.

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:09 pm**

Just think of the omelette, Marty.

Gotta break a few eggs & all that...

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:41 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:It's impossible to avoid the fact that the Bush Administration bumbled their way through this.

Clearly, you're not paying attention to current events.

This coming from one of the most liberal fishwraps in the country. Granted, this particular op-ed writer is their token conservative on staff just to make it appear they're giving a balanced vievpoint, but it's very surprising to see an article like this in that newspaper.

----------------------------------

Obama misses the reality of progress in Iraq
By E. THOMAS McCLANAHAN
The Kansas City Star

It’s odd how things turn out. Barack Obama’s long opposition to the Iraq war has been a big part of his success in clinching the Democratic presidential nomination.

But now his doggedly anti-war rhetoric sounds increasingly out of place. As recently as Tuesday, he told supporters he could not “pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq” — an astonishing statement in light of the dramatically changed circumstances.

Obama has favored immediate withdrawal, regardless of conditions on the ground. He has accused the Bush administration of merely “throwing troops at the problem.” He has even voted against funding ongoing combat operations.

He predicted the failure of the surge. After the additional troops were deployed, he said they should be removed immediately. “Not in six months or one year — now.”

Last week he sounded slightly more measured. He said that in getting out of Iraq, we must be as careful “as we were careless getting in.” Yet this is a man who has stayed in place as the situation on the ground has steadily improved. The ongoing success of the troop surge is undeniable to all but the most closed-minded opponents.

Late last month, The New York Times reported that recent Iraqi successes in Basra and Sadr City “appear to be stretching to the long-rebellious Sunni Arab district” in Mosul.

The Washington Post reported that in Sadr City, “A little over two weeks ago, U.S. troops were on the front lines of fierce, unrelenting urban warfare. But virtually overnight, their main mission has become one of rebuilding portions of the vast, tattered Shiite district … .”

Last week, The Post published an editorial with the surprising headline, “The Iraqi Upturn: Don’t look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.”

Iraq, it said, passed a turning point last fall, thanks to the drop in violence stemming from the troop surge and the shift to a counterinsurgency strategy.

The old mission was search-and-destroy operations and force protection. The new mission is protection of the Iraqi population. Many leading Democrats called the plan “more of the same,” but the change in strategy — which Obama seems to have missed — made a tremendous difference.

In the search for turning points, the Iraqi army’s Basra operation earlier this spring also marked a major change, although initially it looked like a fiasco.

With disorder and violence on the rise in Basra, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki deployed more than 30,000 Iraqi troops without fully coordinating with the U.S. command. The Mahdi Army followers of the firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fought back. Hundreds of Iraqi army troops deserted.

But the Iraqis didn’t back down. Disloyal soldiers were fired. Ineffective commanders were relieved. Coordination with coalition forces improved. A truce was arranged and the Iraqis gained control of the city.

The highly informative Westhawk blog, written by a former Marine company commander, noted that Basra was a major turning point because it proved that the Iraqis could stand and fight and make the adjustments needed to win: “The U.S. now has a clear path to achieve its goals in Iraq with a much smaller commitment of U.S. ground forces.”

The next president will probably have an opportunity to significantly draw down U.S. troops in Iraq. If so, it will be thanks to the success of the troop surge, and thanks to President Bush’s refusal to heed critics like Obama, who was eager to throw away the hard-won gains of our troops.

Obama’s Iraq position may have helped him win the nomination. But his inability to “change” could prove a significant vulnerability in the general election.

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:11 pm**

so the iraqis will find wmds now?

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:36 pm**

So in summary, after more than 5 years Bush has finally managed to begin to extricate us from a war he never should have started in the first place?

Excellent. Well done. To hell with the constitution, 4 more years please.

And in other news...terrorism continues elsewhere, unabated.

It's a good thing we're getting out of Iraq. So much terrorism, so many countries left to invade:

Official: 13 people dead in 2 Algerian bombings

By AOMAR OUALI, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 21 minutes ago

ALGIERS, Algeria - Two bombs in quick succession rocked a train station in Algeria on Sunday, killing 13 people, including a French engineer and Algerian firefighters and soldiers who responded to the first blast, a security official said.

The first bomb killed a Frenchman working on a renovation project at the station in Beni Amrane, about 60 miles east of the capital, the security official said. The second bomb hit minutes later, as security officials and rescue workers arrived at the scene. Both devices appeared to be remote-controlled.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Algeria's al-Qaida affiliate, al-Qaida in Islamic North Africa, is known to be active in the area.

The French engineer, working on a project to boost the number of rail lines at the station, was killed as he prepared to leave the site in a car, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to media. The man's Algerian driver was also killed. France's Foreign Ministry said it was in contact with Algerian authorities about the attack but provided no other details.

The second bomb came about five minutes later. Eight soldiers and three firefighters were killed in that explosion, the official said. Several others were wounded, though the exact number was unclear.

The North African nation's Islamic militants have mounted several attacks over the past week. On Wednesday, a suicide attack on a military barracks and a second bombing at a cafe shook a beach neighborhood outside the Algerian capital, wounding six people. A day later, a roadside bomb killed six soldiers in the city of Boumerdes.

The attacks of the past week have come as Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika prepares to inaugurate an international trade fair Monday outside Algiers, a high-profile event that will draw members of foreign governments.

Though Algeria has battled an Islamic insurgency for years, the number of attacks has risen dramatically since the country's main militant group vowed allegiance to al-Qaida in 2006.

Most of the country's bombings have been claimed by al-Qaida in Islamic North Africa, formerly known as the GSPC. The group grew out of an insurgency that raged in the country in the 1990s. The violence, which has left as many as 200,000 dead, was prompted by the army's cancellation of legislative elections in 1992 that an Islamist party was poised to win.

Many attacks in Algeria have targeted the national security services and military, while others have struck foreigners. Sunday's attack was apparently crafted to hit both of those targets. In December, a double suicide bombing in Algiers killed 41 people, including 17 U.N. workers. In April 2007, coordinated suicide strikes against the main government offices in central Algiers and a police station killed 33.

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:42 pm**

I am ALL FOR using the military to go after terrorist groups and wipe them the fuck out, worldwide.
That is, unless you are a spineless, hand-wringing libtard, who would prefer to play the ostrich and stick their head in the sand and pretend everything is ok and grand, and they really love us, and want to bring us flowers and give us sage advise on child raising.............

Posted: **Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:20 pm**

I am ALL FOR using the military to go after terrorist groups and wipe them the fuck out, worldwide.
That is, unless you are a spineless, hand-wringing libtard, who would prefer to play the ostrich and stick their head in the sand and pretend everything is ok and grand, and they really love us, and want to bring us flowers and give us sage advise on child raising

Nope. I'm just tired of pumping my tax dollars down the gullets of some unwashed ignorant sand rats who would rather we all be killed. I would've like to have seen some of that half a trillion dollars spent on our own needs here in the US rather than piss it away into the desert halfway around the world. Fuck the rest of the world and their ignorant religions. let them kill themselves off, but if they come here, we'd be in a great position towards making them regret it.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:38 am**

MP wrote: am ALL FOR using the military to go after terrorist groups and wipe them the fuck out, worldwide.
That is, unless you are a spineless, hand-wringing libtard, who would prefer to play the ostrich and stick their head in the sand and pretend everything is ok and grand, and they really love us, and want to bring us flowers and give us sage advise on child raising...........

By this, you've approved ...

1. The U.S going to war to enforce U.N. regulations.

2. The U.S going to war despite not facing an imminent threat.

Now if you're cool with both of those ... ?minor? ... details, then just remember not to open your piehole when we do either of those things in the future for a cause that you don't happen to believe in.

In my view, it's frankly unthinkable that we would go to war for those reasons.

I'm not a liberal, I'm a fuggen comservative, dude.
Our government's actions are anything but conservative.

Beyond all that, as Bushice has pointed out, we really don't have the money for our overseas adventures ... to say the very least.

We're broke.
We're DEEPLY in debt.

pffft ... whatever, pass me a bud and let's kill some muzzies, DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

The 'war on terror' is a farce.
Sorry you had to find out this way.

The U.S foreign policy is like watching a dog chase it's tail.

Bring our soldiers home from the bulk of the 130 countries we are in.
Enforce our OWN borders ... duh.
STOP the entitlement programs ... duh.
AGGRESSIVELY pursue other energy options -- something we should have been doing a LONG time ago ... did I say duh?

What is it, something like the first 4 months of the year the average worker works ... just to pay his taxes. LOL

Yep, if that ain't freedom, I don't know what is.

Gotta love it. :doh:

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:22 pm**

People like to sneer at nations that have high taxes, but the fact is they usually use those funds for services for average citizens. In our case, we have high taxes and they go towards herding ghosts in Afghanistan, subsidizing oil corporations, lining up iraqi police candidates to be mowed down by insurgents, fueling POTUS campaigns, and staffing the IRS. Not good.

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:43 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:staffing the IRS.

Flat tax would solve that issue.

Posted: **Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:09 pm**

I think PSUFan needs to take a look at the US budget. While you're at it--check out the US
Constitution and see where it says the federal government is in the business of providing
"services" (like health care) to its citizens. Check back when you get an education.

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:02 am**

FUCK YOU --ASSHOLE !!
I pay for everything I get---how about you ??
FUCK you and the horse you rode in on !!
Stick it up your ass !!
want more ??

FUCK YOU !!

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:20 am**

Wolfman wrote:While you're at it--check out the US
Constitution and see where it says the federal government is in the business of providing
"services" (like health care) to its citizens.

It's right next to the section where it says citizens have the right to own assault weapons.

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:22 am**

Wolfman wrote:FUCK YOU --ASSHOLE !!
I pay for everything I get---how about you ??
FUCK you and the horse you rode in on !!
Stick it up your ass !!
want more ??

FUCK YOU !!

No. Oh no you di-eeent. You did not just meltdown over a Toodle Owned post.

Wolfman, you are one of the preeminent elderstatesmen of the boards. Toodle is smack cannon-fodder. He is a posting mechanism that is specifically designed to be beat down. That is his choice and his destiny. It is against all common sense that anything he can say would cut anyone to the quick.

Either defend yourself or get someone else to do it or ignore the lowlife likes of Toodle. Your lack of appropriate response undermines the very voice you deserve to have as longtime board(s) standard-bearer/elderstatesman.

Make a fucking example of Toodle. Smack the fuck outta him. Or enlist the aid of others: there is no shame in that, especially considering your efforts and representation over time and boards.

Aiiiiight. That's enough. I didn't come back here to be nice to any fuckers here (directly, anyway).

Toodle,

I know you can read, a little. So I'm going to do my best to make certain things clear to you as carefully as possible. You WILL fucking learn. Frame your response in any way that isn't unconditional obsequious capitulation and your lessons will be severe.

Posted: **Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:09 pm**

Toddowen wrote:I hope you die while waiting in line for an egg Mcmuffin, you tired old sloth.

You must die! I alone am best!

I hope ya flip some guy the bird
He cuts you off and you're forced to swerve
In front of the Beatles tour bus
A bookmobile and a Mack truck
Hauling hazardous biological waste
The light turns red you have no brakes
And Hard Copy gets it all on tape
So you can see the look on your face

I hope your Pinto begins to spin
Takes out a disabled Vietnam veteran
Mows down a Nobel peace prize winner
And maybe some orphans having Christmas dinner
Perhaps even the British royal family
And the rabbi that's clutching the bottle-fed puppy
And we can't forget the newlyweds
And those Jerry's kids are as good as dead

I hope this helps to emphasize
I hope this helps to clarify
I hope you die

I hope your cell mate thinks he's God
But CNN refers to him as Bowling Ball Bag Bob
Serving time again for abuse of a corpse
Only this time the victim's a Clydesdale horse
While he masturbates to photos of livestock
He does the Silence of the Lambs dance to Christian rock
Eats feces and quotes from Deliverance
And fights with his imaginary playmate Vince

I hope he grins like Jack Nicholson
And forces you to play a game called balls on chin
And whatever happens next is all a blur
But you remember fist can be a verb
And when you finally regain consciousness
You're bound and gagged in a wedding dress
And the prison guard looks the other way
'Cause he's the guy ya flipped the bird the other day

I hope this helps to emphasize
I hope this helps to clarify
I hope you die

I hope you die

T1B

4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq

Re: 4092 dead in Iraq