|
Grex > Agora56 > #31: It is time to get the hell OUT of Iraq! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 133:
| 
Jan 6 23:32 UTC 2006 |
Is a Fleshlight AC or DC?
|
scholar
|
|
response 51 of 133:
|
Jan 6 23:51 UTC 2006 |
AHAHAHAHA< IT"S ID AHAHAHA AS IN ID LUBE AHAHBAHA.
|
gull
|
|
response 52 of 133:
|
Jan 7 03:50 UTC 2006 |
It looks like many of the troop deaths have been needless, too:
'A secret Pentagon study, The New York Times reports on Saturday, has
found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in
Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had
extra body armor.
'"Such armor has been available since 2003," writes Michael Moss, "but
until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops
despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to
military officials."'
(http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_conte
nt_id
=1001807591)
But then, they volunteered for this, right? I guess that makes their
lives cheap, in the eyes of some.
It seems to me that the question now isn't whether we can establish a
democracy in Iraq, but instead how long we want to stay involved in a
civil war between two rival factions of Islam.
|
richard
|
|
response 53 of 133:
|
Jan 7 16:46 UTC 2006 |
gull said:
"It seems to me that the question now isn't whether we can establish a
democracy in Iraq, but instead how long we want to stay involved in a
civil war between two rival factions of Islam."
Just like Vietnam, where the question became by the early seventies,
not whether we could establish/maintain a democracy in south vietnam,
but how long we wanted to stay involved in a bitter civil war, where
once side was never going to accept our presence there.
|
naftee
|
|
response 54 of 133:
|
Jan 7 20:42 UTC 2006 |
whoa ! scholar !
haven't you heard of fleshlights before ?!
i'm sure they were mentioned on m-net somewhere.
|
scholar
|
|
response 55 of 133:
|
Jan 7 22:52 UTC 2006 |
whoa, oh no!
my fleshight is being held at the border so they can collect 'duties and/or
taxes'!
i hope no-one tries it out!
|
naftee
|
|
response 56 of 133:
|
Jan 8 00:40 UTC 2006 |
what !
i hope the duties aren't expensive
|
aruba
|
|
response 57 of 133:
|
Jan 8 04:27 UTC 2006 |
I on't understand why we aren't supplying body armor to all the troops. Is
it incredibly expensive? Does it make it impossible to bend over? What's
the deal?
|
naftee
|
|
response 58 of 133:
|
Jan 8 04:35 UTC 2006 |
pickles clean your teeth. somewhat.
|
scholar
|
|
response 59 of 133:
|
Jan 8 10:12 UTC 2006 |
by the way: i ordered a SUPER TIGHT CLEAR *VAG* fleshlight.
I WANT TO WATCH MYSELF AS I MASTURBATE.
|
scholar
|
|
response 60 of 133:
|
Jan 8 11:13 UTC 2006 |
OH< ALSO< UH>
APPARENTLY< I BOUGHT ABOUT 0.8 LITRES OF LUBE>
THAT"S A BIT MORE THAN A STANDARD BOTTLE OF WINE OR LIQUOR
|
scholar
|
|
response 61 of 133:
|
Jan 8 19:12 UTC 2006 |
what!
why is it taking so long to clear customs?!
did any of YOU call and claim there was obscene material in it or something?!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 62 of 133:
|
Jan 8 19:57 UTC 2006 |
The customs agents are trying it out...
|
scholar
|
|
response 63 of 133:
|
Jan 8 20:16 UTC 2006 |
:(
i hope they wash it awfully varefully. :(
or i'll have to buy a bunch of rubbers. :(
,.
|
naftee
|
|
response 64 of 133:
|
Jan 8 22:04 UTC 2006 |
what !
what if the supre-tight model is uh,, TOO TIGHT >!
|
scholar
|
|
response 65 of 133:
|
Jan 8 22:05 UTC 2006 |
i haven't heard any complaints of that one b eing too tight.
i've heard complaints about it being too loose ; a guy i know on irc
apparently uses rubber bands to make his tighter.
also,
i've heard complaints about the ultratight one being too tight.
|
naftee
|
|
response 66 of 133:
|
Jan 8 22:11 UTC 2006 |
i'm thinking it'll loosen the more you use it, and so it's good to buy
something that's SLIGHTLY TOO TIGHT than one that's too loose.
also ; is there an irc channel for general fleshlight discussion ?
|
scholar
|
|
response 67 of 133:
|
Jan 8 22:23 UTC 2006 |
i don't know.
there's a message board.
|
naftee
|
|
response 68 of 133:
|
Jan 8 22:28 UTC 2006 |
nobody in #fleshlight on undernet :(
|
jep
|
|
response 69 of 133:
|
Jan 9 01:43 UTC 2006 |
re resp:57: I imagine the expense is substantial.
I wonder if there isn't some resistance to the idea from the troops? In
my experience, soldiers in training avoid carrying any kind of equipment
they don't have to -- including steel (now kevlar) pots and chemical
protection (MOPP) gear. Maybe body armor is cumbersome enough that the
troops would rather not have it.
|
tod
|
|
response 70 of 133:
|
Jan 9 02:36 UTC 2006 |
What kind of knucklehead would forego their flack jacket and helmet let alone
body armor if available?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 71 of 133:
|
Jan 9 03:22 UTC 2006 |
I did see an article that claimed some soldiers preferred mobility and
speed over the protection of (heavy) body armor.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 72 of 133:
|
Jan 9 03:43 UTC 2006 |
re #69: Many families have buying body armor for servicemembers who are
deployed overseas. I don't doubt that there are soldiers in Iraq who would
choose not to have body armor but my guess is that there are a lot more of
them who wish they had the option.
|
klg
|
|
response 73 of 133:
|
Jan 9 11:48 UTC 2006 |
What portion of the servicemembers deployed overseas are (a) in
battlezones and (b) what percent are in combat?
|
tod
|
|
response 74 of 133:
|
Jan 9 17:00 UTC 2006 |
re #73
Your question should be "What percentage receiving dangerzone pay have not
been issued body armor?"
|