dubla

Joined

• started 31 topics
• posted 2,222 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by dubla

• 
  117

  Letter from a friend in Iraq

  by Yerusalyim in

  1. social
  2. current

  ok, i won't give his name, but he is a major with an engineer unit in iraq.

  here's what he has to say on iraq, i've highlighted a few interesting points.

  it has been a while since i have written to my friends about what's really going on here in iraq.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dubla

  simon-
  

  i think you know what i meant, but ill elaborate anyhow......first off, let me preface this by saying that i highly doubt 90% of all the damage in iraq was done by iraqis......and i also doubt that the author of the letter meant it as a literal number........but i do fully understand the point he was making, which was: there was very minimal damage done outside of specific targets. thats what precision means....it means that our current capabilities are more error proof than any in the history of the world, and that buildings that werent targeted were very rarely damaged. i have no doubt (and anyone with a brain shouldnt) that the iraqis intentionally killed their own civilians in an attempt to win the media war. hell, they even stole thousands of u.s. and u.k. uniforms for that very reason. is it out of the question that they intentionally destroyed parts of their own infrastructure? anyone who knows a lick about the regimes history would have to answer no. and what about accidental fire? whose mistakes are likely to be larger....those of the coalition armies, or those of the iraqi army?

  aa
• 
  117

  Letter from a friend in Iraq

  by Yerusalyim in

  1. social
  2. current

  ok, i won't give his name, but he is a major with an engineer unit in iraq.

  here's what he has to say on iraq, i've highlighted a few interesting points.

  it has been a while since i have written to my friends about what's really going on here in iraq.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dubla

  If it were really true, what does it say about the might of the US/UK miltary?

  i think it would say a lot more about the precision of the us/uk military than the might.

  aa
• 
  117

  Letter from a friend in Iraq

  by Yerusalyim in

  1. social
  2. current

  ok, i won't give his name, but he is a major with an engineer unit in iraq.

  here's what he has to say on iraq, i've highlighted a few interesting points.

  it has been a while since i have written to my friends about what's really going on here in iraq.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dubla

  yeru-

  thanks for the letter...........you do realize youre throwing meat to the wolves though, right?

  aa
• 
  62

  Are Posters Here Getting A Bit Thin Skinned?

  by rem in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can't believe i'm starting a thread on this after four years of participating on jw discussion boards.

  lately there seems to be a band of posters who believe that all opinions must be respected (wtf?).

  they believe that any type of criticism or alternate viewpoints constitute an 'attack'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dubla

  simon-
  

  I don't think re-hashing old disagreements of who said what and who started it does anyone much good.

  If people do come out with insults or anything that contravenes the posting guidelines then let us know.

  i dont think this was about rehashing old arguments, or trying to blow the whistle on some insults.......in fact this thread is really just a discussion stemming from another thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/55573/811751/post.ashx#811751

  in that thread, kgb flew off the handle at rem for his comments, implying they were outrageous and insulting. heres one quote from kgb:

  yeah it was going pretty good but some people like Rem and logansrun seem to always get there nasty mouths in it. If there were two people here I would like to see kicked off this board it would be those two. It is interesting to hear different views from all walks of life and you try to have a nice peaceful discussion and some doof screws it up.

  so, this probably (im guessing) led rem to ask the question "are posters...getting a bit thin skinned"? (its a valid question after reading through that thread). in response to that question, kgb comes on this thread with a holier than thou statement about not wanting to be called an idiot, and how name calling is childish. to me, it is completely relevant, in this situation, to show kgbs past patterns of insulting behavior.......just my two cents. this whole offshoot of the topic is apparently just a pile of s**t that needs shoveling anyhow, so this will be my last log on the subject.

  aa
• 
  44

  Who has the best chance of defeating Bush in '04?

  by badwillie in

  1. social
  2. current

  i will be backing former vermont gov howard dean to run in '04.

  my reason: clinton was quoted recently as saying that "strong and wrong always beats weak and right".

  i remember during the run up to election in 2000 watching the bush vs. gore debates and thinking..i know gore is smarter but he comes across as weaker in debate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dubla

  I don't think the majority of non-southern people can stand him for one minute longer than his four years.

  ash

  well, luckily it isnt just the south that votes. im guessing bush wins going away, and not just the southern states.

  aa
• 
  62

  Are Posters Here Getting A Bit Thin Skinned?

  by rem in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can't believe i'm starting a thread on this after four years of participating on jw discussion boards.

  lately there seems to be a band of posters who believe that all opinions must be respected (wtf?).

  they believe that any type of criticism or alternate viewpoints constitute an 'attack'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dubla

  kgb-

  teenyuck beat me to the punch, as i was just reviewing the threads you are both speaking of (and which you claim show that she provoked you first). she did leave out your first post to her (as far as i could tell), which was in response to her "blanket hugging babbies" comment. up to this point, she had not addressed you personally, at all....not once (again, as far as i could tell, correct me if im wrong by providing links). here was your first comment to her:

  Teenyuck,

  Let me ask you one thing have you given your life to your country? Probably not. Have I ? Probably yes ! I am a veteran there little lady so dont call me a blanket holding baby.. I didn`t die for my country but I did give the opportunity to do so. So don`t tell me how wonderful you are until you do what I did.

  And about atrocities, you say give them to you everyday ? So you want to kill babies too, You know I always said it takes a sick prick to support a sick prick so I guess you are who you are and who you want to be. I never once spoke on Saddams behalf as I said earlier that he is a cruel man but his cruelty has been known for many and I say many long before Dessert Storm probably long before any of you were even born so why now 35 years later do people make the excuse. No I can`t be so absent minded like you who are so easily fooled.

  and on the other thread, you again addressed her first, unprovoked. you really need to examine yourself if you truly believe you only "resorted" to name-calling after she started something.

  i know this isnt even my battle, but it always amuses me when i see someone posting absurd accusations......and i had few minutes of free time to kill.

  aa
• 
  62

  Are Posters Here Getting A Bit Thin Skinned?

  by rem in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can't believe i'm starting a thread on this after four years of participating on jw discussion boards.

  lately there seems to be a band of posters who believe that all opinions must be respected (wtf?).

  they believe that any type of criticism or alternate viewpoints constitute an 'attack'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dubla

  kgb-

  but, you said:

  Name calling is childish.

  so, its no longer "childish" or wrong if the person is provoked? then its "all bets are off"? hmm....strange set of guidlines you follow there.

  aa
• 
  865

  WoMD ... so where are they?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

  perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

  now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dubla

  simon-

  Rumpsfelds comments that they had not new intelligence since before Sept 11 really means that they must have already decided on it !

  of course it was already decided.....its only been a matter of time since 1991......even clinton bombed iraq. had bush never taken office, iraq wouldve still been invaded, at some point, by whoever was in office............saddam "decided" the fate of his regime long ago.

  The switch is unbelievably transparent. Once the war was underway they gradually switched to "we're liberating the people" instead of looking for WMD

  i agree...it was completely a media ploy to change the main justification immediately after the war started (or i guess right when it started, considering the name given to the operation). the fact is though, that the iraqis have a much better future ahead of them than they did under saddam.

  If one of the reasons for invading was to prevent them falling into the hands of Al Quida then why the delay in looking for them?

  this is a misunderstanding that youve had (im not sure why) for some time, and you seem quite attached to it. the fact is, from the time the war started until now, there has been a search ongoing.....there was ZERO delay. the number of people searching has of course continued to grow as other priorities (such as protecting the troops from incoming fire) have decreased. this is common sense, and should be easily understood by anyone not trying to twist the facts to fit their own argument.

  aa
• 
  865

  WoMD ... so where are they?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

  perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

  now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dubla

  I don't agree with you that Bush thought they were there.

  well, you said "good point", so i thought that meant you agreed.....my mistake. you were just agreeing that i have a valid point about bush thinking they were there?

  aa
• 
  865

  WoMD ... so where are they?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

  perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

  now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dubla

  I agree with your logic on this point, but you seem to be making a big issue of the fact that if they didn't know they were there they would have already planted these weapons. Good point.

  well, thats not exactly what i was saying, but i think you got the meat of it. at least we agree that bush thought they were there (as i did, and still do), and thats all i was getting at.

  aa