What Iraqis Really Think

[classicman]

Brianna, thanks for being who you are - Its great that you have the wherewithall to deal with this asshat as well as you have considering all the other "crap" you are dealing with in your life. Oh and to answer your question - banned people cannot send pm's - just sayin.

Dana, Thanks for such an eloquent response. Your political acumen is shining.

AD, Just go fuck off.
(sorry, couldn't resist)

Originally Posted by DanaC

Well...I'm generally quite uncomfortable about PMs being shared with the board .....

Then you ought to have reserved your judgement until which time that I might sink so low to have posted her MPs to me. I'm guessing that had both her PMs and mine been posted here for you to see, that you would not have continued with this below ...

Originally Posted by DanaC

..... can I very politely ask you to fuck off? .....

Again, I repeat, fuck off. ....

Fuck you.

I'd rather that you NOT "fuck off", Dana. I think you should remain for the duration of the hump and you may come to realize that you have made an error in judgement.

To answer the burning question ... will I post those PMs "in full"? The answer is "no". Your first instinct was the more sensible one and you should have followed that instinct of being "uncomfortable about PMs being shared with the board".

I'll make you a promise never-the-less. If Briana posts ALL of my (AND HER) PMs here ("in full", without any paraphrasing, etc.) ..... and you still feel that I should "fuck off", then I'll do exactly that, never to return. Simple, yes? That should sound fair to you.

Until your profane outburst above you were the one I respected the most on this board, but I'll ignore my distaste for your reply and fall back on both my first impressions of your character and my promise to you, above. It is beause of my better impressions of you that this promise applies to you, Dana, and to no-one else. It is your decision and yours alone.

So ........ ? What will it be?

[Trilby]

I"ve NEVER PM'd AD!

[lookout123]

I should "fuck off", then I'll do exactly that, never to return.

can we just skip to this part?

you have made the trip from the registration page to the land of unwelcome faster than any poster i remember.

[Trilby]

Tony--I am being slandered. I have never ONCE PM'd AD. Is there any way for you to prove this? This guy is getting scary.

[Trilby]

PM number one from AD to me:

Brianna.
You know very well that my comment about your sig had nothing to with your illness. I would have thought that anyone could clearly see that. And all that crap in my direction because of it is completely unfair. You also must realize that my comment couldn’t possibly have anything to with it ANYWAY as I didn’t know anything about your condition in the first place.

Now I’m curious to know why it is that you haven’t spoken up in my defense? That’s not very kind of you, is it.

Aretha's doctor

I gave no response except the public one on the board. same goes for PM number two.

[DanaC]

Quite honestly AD, it wouldn't matter in the least what has or hasn't been put in PMs. The single line about her not having cancer, is enough to me. I neither want nor require your respect.

[Undertoad]

Banned.

As people point out, the FAQ says...

The Cellar is like an electronic tavern. Behave as you might at a real-life tavern. Don't barge in and interrupt every table in the place. Walk in and sit down, wait for something you know about and politely put in your two cents.

AD barged in, declared loudly that he despised half the people in the tavern, and then picked up a full lager and poured it over the favorite regular's head. When asked to apologize, he refused and picked up another beer. Sometimes you don't need to wait to see what comes next.

[aimeecc]

Wow... I leave for a few days and all heck has broken loose. Now, I'm not for censorship, and this is a place for free expression, but can we all be adults (AD)? We don't have to agree or get along, but there is something to be said for respecting other people.
There is no need for anyone to defend anyone else. The fact that others came to Bris defense is because she's... well, liked and respected. AD - if you have to ask someone to defend you, are you worth defending? Why couldn't you be mature and post a simple gomen-asi, instead of continuing to rant and asking Bri to defend you?
On your opinion that US isn't a democracy, the majority of your posts are backed by no truth whatsoever. We restrict media? Come on. Anything but. In fact, I wish we would restrict them. Frankly, I don't need to see Brittney Spears ta-ta. Our media makes it a daily program to Bush bash and state how bad things are in Iraq without actually reporting any news. Not that I am a fan of Bush or the Iraq war, but the media is definitely left-wing. And they have the freedom to report on anything, no matter the truth.
The UN? What were they doing? Oh, yeah, having the inspectors kicked out, or when not kicked out, being refused in to see the facilities. Oh, yeah, that's real progress. So let's see... they were accused of having WMD (and rightfully so... they had the material, and the desire), and the refused to let inspectors inspect. Yet we were in the wrong? Oh, let us not forget that Saddam gased his own people for decades. Killing hundreds of thousands. Sarin and mustard gasses were discovered post-invasion. Hmmm... I wonder who he was going to use those on? If not a US target (and it probably wouldn't have been) then it would most likely be his own people (as usual) and then the US would be accused of doing nothing to stop him.
Stop accusing the US of being undemocratic without any facts to back it up.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

Sarin and mustard gasses were discovered post-invasion.

Well that spin has long since been proven false - a complete outright lie that has no responsible sources but was promoted, as a lie, for a political agenda. The worst kind of spin.

[aimeecc]

No, that is a fact. Go check it yourself.

[tw]

Originally Posted by aimeecc

No, that is a fact. Go check it yourself.

You made the claim. Least you could do is provide some supporting facts. Well the facts have been repeatedly and widely published for a long time now. First the 75th Exploitation Task Force searched all over Iraq and found nothing. Then David Kay was assigned a (1000 man?) task force. When they could find no chemical weapons production, then the new theory was that Saddam had built a 'surge capacity' to quickly create those chemical weapons on demand.

When Kay went back to Iraq in August, he soon found that even his "surge capacity" theory for chemical weapons didn't hold up. The ISG could find no trace of such a program.

Meanwhile Cheney kept promoting spin - lies - on Meet the Press.

Cheney once again talked about links between Saddam's regime and bin Laden, claiming that Iraq's support for al-Qaeda was "clearly official policy". He once more cited the Czech report about Mohamed Atta in Praque as through it were still credible. He ignored the dispute over mobile bioweapons labs and insisted without equivocation that the US government had found "two of them" - even though David Kay had told him that was not true. ...

The lack of WMDs was but on worry for the Bush administration...

Russert asked If CIA analysts were to be proven wrong, "shouldn't we have a wholesale investigation into the intelligence failure ..."

"What failure", Cheney interjected. "That Saddam had biological, chemical, and developing a nuclear program", Russert replied.

"My guess is in the end they'll be proven right, Tim"

There is the spin source for mythical chemical weapons. The same source was 100% wrong about all WMDs - including chemical weapons. Same source even claimed an allied relationship between Saddam and bin Laden when every responsible person knew otherwise.

Liar also created that spin about chemical weapons found? That myth still survives? Even a 'surge capacity' never existed. Sarin and mustard gasses were NOT discovered post-invasion. And yet some spin doctors still promote the lie long after well proven false.

aimeecc - that is reality once we eliminate the spin promoted by Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. No sarin or mustard gas weapons were found. None. Nada. Even the production facilities - the 'surge capacity' - did not exist - in direct opposition to what you have posted. I checked it out long ago. I learned the facts by asking damning questions. Did you? Or did you just believe the first thing you were told? That would make you a perfect target for Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by tw

No sarin or mustard gas weapons were found. None. Nada. Even the production facilities - the 'surge capacity' - did not exist - in direct opposition to what you have posted. I checked it out long ago. I learned the facts by asking damning questions. Did you? Or did you just believe the first thing you were told? That would make you a perfect target for Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

You are the one spinning, so quit the accusations and do a google search. Almost every mainstream media reported on the finds. Or do I have to google for you? Or do you not believe the news? I can't find one mainstream media that claims it was a hoax of any sort. Or do you have your own intelligence agency you get your spin from?

I'm not a Limbaugh fan, can't say I've heard him in years.

Oh what the heck, I'll google for you for news
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081300530.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...aq-sarin_x.htm
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

And don't forget the entire ISG findings, in which you cherry picked.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profil...cal/index.html
Since you cherry pick your points, I will mine. Actually, I leave the majority in

On 30 September 2004 the ISG released its final report on Iraq's WMD programs. Its key findings regarding Iraqi chemical weapons programs were as follows.

Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable.

Iraq's CW program was crippled by the Gulf War and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s. Subsequent changes in the management of key military and civilian organizations, followed by an influx of funding and resources, provided Iraq with the ability to reinvigorate its industrial base.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf War and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions.

Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations.

ISG investigated a series of key pre-OIF indicators involving the possible movement and storage of chemical weapons, focusing on 11 major depots assessed to have possible links to CW. A review of documents, interviews, available reporting, and site exploitations revealed alternate, plausible explanations for activities noted prior to OIF which, at the time, were believed to be CW-related.

[glatt]

From your links:

"Some of them are very corroded. They are probably not usable,"
"the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective.""

If you count these old corroded non-functioning shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war as WMDs, then I guess there were WMDs, but I think they have to work to be counted.

[Happy Monkey]

It's sorta a case of proving tw to be incorrect in one sentence-

"No sarin or mustard gas weapons were found. None. Nada."

- while simultaneously bolstering his argument and supporting the rest of his argument.