Against the war...for the troops? | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in
Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
ijonspeches
...and 322 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614263
Today 10
Topics 127551
  
 
Messageboard index
Against the war...for the troops?
 

offline Morton from out (Netherlands, The) on 2003-03-20 08:23 [#00605857]
Points: 10000 Status: Addict | Followup to tibbar: #00605838



...damn, there was this joke about that word 'assume'...
i can't recall it anymore... :\

 

offline tibbar from harrisburg, pa (United States) on 2003-03-20 08:24 [#00605861]
Points: 10513 Status: Lurker



hahahahahahaha, nice comeback mort!!!! you da man!

 

offline bill_hicks from my city is amazing it is calle on 2003-03-20 08:25 [#00605864]
Points: 4286 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #00605849



not until now.


 

offline bill_hicks from my city is amazing it is calle on 2003-03-21 02:51 [#00606979]
Points: 4286 Status: Lurker



Anyone else think that the main danger to UK/US troops is
not the Iraqis, but rather themselves?



 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-03-21 02:55 [#00606982]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to bill_hicks: #00606979 | Show recordbag



Everyone knows the US troops are a danger to anyone they
fight alongside.

Oh, by way of followup to what I posted yesterday:

No chems were used- it was an alert that went off (false
alarm) and the new war correspondant in her haste reported
it as an actual chemical attack. She'd better not slip up
again or she'll fall out of my favour no matter how sweet
she looks in fatigues ;)

However, it's still being researched at the mo, but the
iraqs are thought to have used 2 bombs of a type they:
a) Aren't allowed
and
b) Claimed not to have.

So my point from yesterday stands in a way.

 

Messageboard index