"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:090220070752124599%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eqi2hg$400$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45cbfbab$0$14136$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:080220070805116167%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eqfb99$6k6$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45caa1ba$0$80117$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

Over 100,000 children killed by U.S. Troops.

Want to give a cite please ... I almost positive that is an
incorrect
number.

Of course you are. That is what you do.

Just wanted to respond to this one statement you wrote: "Over
100,000
children killed by U.S. troops" The most I could find: between
55,664
minimum, 61369 maximum CIVILIANS, not children, killed in Iraq.
Check
out
Iraqbodycount.org.

They only put a lower bound on the number of people killed. They
don't count anybody who was killed but whose death wasn't
reported.

So, I'll be waiting for you to give the correct figures with a web
site
I
can visit and that has some credibility, OK Honest Ray.

LOL! So it has to be on the web to be true and you have to approve
of
the site. DENIAL.

Here you go:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html>

Lets take some quotes out: One of the first attempts to independently
estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded
that
at
least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S.
invasion.
And:
Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq were far
lower,
never exceeding 16,000.

The war isn't over yet, MORON! People are still dying.

Honest Ray you are the only one saying the war isn't over ... everyone
else
here seems to recognize that fact ... but thanks for the input.

Ray is correct. You act as though we are done killing.

This is getting comical ... we were talking about the number of civilian
death ... no one thought the war was over. Please point out where I said I
though the war was over?

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45cca04e$0$14142$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45cbfbab$0$14136$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:080220070805116167%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eqfb99$6k6$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45caa1ba$0$80117$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

Over 100,000 children killed by U.S. Troops.

Want to give a cite please ... I almost positive that is an
incorrect
number.

Of course you are. That is what you do.

Just wanted to respond to this one statement you wrote: "Over
100,000
children killed by U.S. troops" The most I could find: between
55,664
minimum, 61369 maximum CIVILIANS, not children, killed in Iraq.
Check
out
Iraqbodycount.org.

They only put a lower bound on the number of people killed. They
don't count anybody who was killed but whose death wasn't reported.

So, I'll be waiting for you to give the correct figures with a web
site
I
can visit and that has some credibility, OK Honest Ray.

LOL! So it has to be on the web to be true and you have to approve of
the site. DENIAL.

Here you go:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html>

Lets take some quotes out: One of the first attempts to independently
estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that
at
least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S.
invasion.
And:
Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq were far
lower,
never exceeding 16,000.

The war isn't over yet, MORON! People are still dying.

Honest Ray you are the only one saying the war isn't over ... everyone
else
here seems to recognize that fact .

Except for you, who thinks that the number of people died in Iraq is
wrong because old reports say fewer people died than current reports.

Never said the report was wrong. It was suspect as the person in the report
said ... it (the # of deaths) may be inflated.

I gave my reason why

I
though it was somewhere between the high and low in the article 100,000
high/16,000 low. I stated my site I believed was closer.

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45cca0a3$0$14142$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45cbfb81$0$14136$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

Over 100,000 children killed by U.S. Troops.

Want to give a cite please ... I almost positive that is an
incorrect
number.

Of course you are. That is what you do.

Just wanted to respond to this one statement you wrote: "Over 100,000
children killed by U.S. troops" The most I could find: between
55,664
minimum, 61369 maximum CIVILIANS, not children, killed in Iraq. Check
out
Iraqbodycount.org.

They only put a lower bound on the number of people killed. They
don't count anybody who was killed but whose death wasn't reported.

So, I'll be waiting for you to give the correct figures with a web site
I
can visit and that has some credibility, OK Honest Ray.

In short, you will insist that every person's death in Iraq was
reported to some media or government agency despite the near-anarchy
present in the country. And you'll reject anything which doesn't
fit with your irrational desire to excuse an immoral invasion.

No, Honest Ray, I'll accept figures that I think are the best possible
figures

No, the evidence is that you will reject any information that
contradicts your wish to kill people.

I don't think you know what evidence is

In article <eq33cs$jbm$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071352041585%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eq2vkt$f6d$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

[snip]

*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list of ³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.

Are these people dishonest who also believed that there were weapons
...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say that they
had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false intelligence ...
they
blame the President for lying:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear.
We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons
of
mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are
confident
that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological
weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up
his
chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate
that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real
and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
And here Ms Clinton even ties Al Qaeda to Iraq.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show
that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He
has
also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and
will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
I believe she is correct about al Qaeda but how quickly the
complainers
forget that they also believed that there were WMD's. Who are the
real
liers?

Yeah - they ³believed² that lying sack of ***** BUSH. They were naive,
not lying. The good news is that most people realize that Bush and the
Republican Party are liars. To those people, I give credit.

Yes, I guess you are right ... you and Mr Fischer should get together and
talk you have a lot in common.

Is this your idea of supporting your position?