Chef Jim Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I'm surprised it was even mentioned at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Liberal media picking on motorcycles again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Just another in an endless series of reasons why we shouldn't be in Iraq. Motorcycle deaths would go back to pre-war levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 Just another in an endless series of reasons why we shouldn't be in Iraq. Motorcycle deaths would go back to pre-war levels. Oooooh I get it now. If it were not for the war we wouldn't of had this spike in motorcycle deaths. God I'm an idiot. No Motorcycle Deaths for Oil!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 That less than two dozen Marines have been killed in Iraq this year was an interesting little nugget of real information buried in that story. I guess, in the philosophy of "if it bleeds, it leads" journalism, they simply had to run the gorier story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Just another in an endless series of reasons why we shouldn't be in Iraq. Motorcycle deaths would go back to pre-war levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 As of yesterday , no US soldiers were killed by combat in October in Baghdad, the first time this has happened. Country wide there were only 13 killed. The surge is not working!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 That less than two dozen Marines have been killed in Iraq this year was an interesting little nugget of real information buried in that story. I guess, in the philosophy of "if it bleeds, it leads" journalism, they simply had to run the gorier story. If I am not mistaken, and I may be, haven't the Marines been maily moved to Afganistan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 As of yesterday , no US soldiers were killed by combat in October in Baghdad, the first time this has happened. Country wide there were only 13 killed. The surge is not working!! Imagine how many deaths could have been avoided if an adequate number of troops were used from the start. We could be debating the success of the initial effort instead of the band aid. I fail to see reason to gloat about the fact that we finally found a way to win a war we had no business starting in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 If I am not mistaken, and I may be, haven't the Marines been maily moved to Afganistan? I know the Corps Commandant argued for it a while back (and I felt his argument was specious - though the Marines are uniquely suited to either mission, they are far more valuable in Iraq than Afghanistan). But I don't recall hearing that CENTCOM implemented any such plan, or that the JCS suggested it be done. In fact, I just checked the Marine Corps Times. Two regimental combat teams were deployed to Iraq back in June. Didn't say whether this was a normal rotation (probably was), but at a very rough estimate that's about a total of 20k Marines in-theater at a minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I know the Corps Commandant argued for it a while back (and I felt his argument was specious - though the Marines are uniquely suited to either mission, they are far more valuable in Iraq than Afghanistan). But I don't recall hearing that CENTCOM implemented any such plan, or that the JCS suggested it be done. In fact, I just checked the Marine Corps Times. Two regimental combat teams were deployed to Iraq back in June. Didn't say whether this was a normal rotation (probably was), but at a very rough estimate that's about a total of 20k Marines in-theater at a minimum. Ya, I guess I just remember the argument being made to move them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Ah here we go again said the Coyote to the Road Runner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 If I am not mistaken, and I may be, haven't the Marines been maily moved to Afganistan? You can't even acknowledge good news can you. If Obama had been in the white house the past four years you know you'd be waving this one around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 You can't even acknowledge good news can you. If Obama had been in the white house the past four years you know you'd be waving this one around. He asked a question, got an answer, and acknowleged the new information he was given. I think he's turned over a new leaf. Regardless, can we at least acknowledge that he's limiting himself to being an "evil shill", rather than an "evil, stupid shill"? Christ, you've got me defending molson. !@#$ you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 You can't even acknowledge good news can you. If Obama had been in the white house the past four years you know you'd be waving this one around. No he wouldn't, because there would have been zero Marine deaths in Iraq, because they wouldn't still be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 No he wouldn't, because there would have been zero Marine deaths in Iraq, because they wouldn't still be there. That just a dumb !@#$ response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 That just a dumb !@#$ response. Because you have no retort... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 Because you have no retort... Not much to say. If you had said something like that's great news that only 12 marines have been killed in Iraq this year but if we had never gone there would be none. But as long as there is a guy with an R next to his name in the white house there is never any good news with you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Not much to say. If you had said something like that's great news that only 12 marines have been killed in Iraq this year but if we had never gone there would be none. But as long as there is a guy with an R next to his name in the white house there is never any good news with you guys. It's not great news that "only" 12 marines were killed when the alternative was zero marines killed. Relativity doesn't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 It's not great news that "only" 12 marines were killed when the alternative was zero marines killed. Relativity doesn't make it right. I get it, you wish we weren't there, but reality is we are there. But if we're there we might as well improve what we !@#$ed up while we're still there and the fact that we've "only" lost 12 marines in my mind is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts