Am I crazy?

[Ephemeral]

Ignoring isn't the correct solution because it doesn’t work on several levels.

First, simply ignoring doesn't help when someone has been playing in a decent pub for 30 minutes and this bozo enters and starts spamming. Many others start arguing with him, often dropping into spec to do so. So you still get treated to the political yipping AND the once decent game now sucks. Ignoring everyone isn’t the solution. (Yes, it would be nice if everyone ignored him but we all know that isn't going to happen.) Going to another arena doesn’t help often, because he moves from arena to arena disrupting the games.

Second, what would happen if everyone did this? TW would die a slow death as it became filled with ‘commercials’ packed with self-important opinions. This implies that this behavior is not good and what he is doing is not right. This guy doesn’t even care that he is talking to an audience that in large part isn’t even applicable. For example, those who can’t vote because of their age or those who might not even live in the US.

Third, this is not a case where world turmoil is driving an increase in politically based public chat. If someone came in for a day or two and got caught up in political discussions, that is understandable. If anyone feels strongly about some topic and wants to run off at the mouth with it for a few days, I have no problems with that. It is the pattern of recurring abuse that I believe is detrimental to the game. If he is like this now, imagine what is going to happen when the US elections get closer.

So, no…ignoring is not the answer.

Life doesn’t require a ‘rule’ or procedure for every exception. I am not proposing any sweeping rule changes limiting free speech. Perhaps the best approach is for a higher level staff member to speak to this guy and let him know that long-term damage to TW will not be tolerated. If he came on and simply published one or two political messages while he was playing the game, I guess there isn’t much that could be done. But when he comes on 8 times a day, sitting in safe not playing but simply publishing inflammatory macros, popping from arena to arena impacting the games, I say let the staff talk to him and at least try to get him to knock it off. I am at a loss as to why the staff wouldn’t take this approach, perhaps because the behavior spans several days?
Staff simply tells him that it’s ok to voice an opinion about a specific topic but it’s not ok to make it your objective to disrupt the game. Is this so hard? Is TW supposed to be a political forum first, and a space game second?

[death row]

Well, I do agree with you that 'ignoring' isn't always the answer. But I am curious to know, why staff hasn't warned the guy yet? If he does it this excessively--you would think staff would try and put a stop to it.

[Kolar]

Drow the problem I have with this person is not what he is saying but how he goes about expressing him self. I can't even understand most of his answers on what he hopes to accomplish by spamming public arenas. The other problem is that once one person gives a political opinion on just about anything people tend to get defensive and counter it. Being that most of the people in TW are young and most missinformed (its not their fault) they get into a spam fight. Spin doesn't need to say anything more he just hops arenas and starts it over.


The bottom line is we shouldn't need to ignore him and we can't be ignoring every person that he effects because then would take up too much of our time. If you remove to cause there isn't a problem. It's simple but I guess staff doesn't want to get into the whole repressing political opinion, there already getting shit for the way the handle racism problems.

If he even wanted to post his opinion on here I would fine with it because its easy to ignore him. But he has refused all requests to take his political opinions to a forum.

[office]

spin is wrong again!!!!

im tired of these bush bashers... when bush keeps somthing from the public.. its because that might upset bush's plans....

we elected bush
its not up to a republic to know what a leader does!!!

read this trash... id rather go buy a lottery ticket! whats on tv??

www.consortiumnews.com/Print/042103.html

Empire vs. Republic

By Robert Parry
April 21, 2003

George W. Bush’s doctrine of preemptive wars is creating a new deep divide in U.S. politics. On one side, Bush and his backers see the Iraq War as the start of an American global empire built around unparalleled military power. On the other, a scattered grouping of skeptics dig in for what they see as a fight for the soul of the American republic.

The anti-empire side finds itself pinned down, too, by accusations that its opposition to the three-week war was naïve and even disloyal. Plus, it's a disorganized mix of political interests, ranging from old-time conservatives to traditional liberals, from the likes of Pat Buchanan to Howard Dean. Yet as imbalanced as this struggle now appears, both sides agree that it holds in its outcome the future of the American democratic experiment.

The pro-empire side argues that only a militarily assertive United States can address what Bush calls “gathering dangers” facing the nation – even if that means tighter constraints on liberty at home and freer use of U.S. troops abroad. The pro-republic forces say Bush’s imperial strategy is a sham – false security that cedes life-and-death national decisions to the dictates of one man.

Shallow Media

To the pro-republic side, part of the price for empire is the increasingly shallow U.S. news media that largely sanitized the war. Rather than troubling Americans with gruesome images of mangled and dismembered Iraqi bodies, including many children, the cable networks, in particular, edited the war in ways that helped avoid negativity and gave advertisers the feel-good content that plays best around their products.

Fox News may have pioneered this concept of casting the war in the gauzy light of heroic imagery, where Iraqi soldiers were “goons” and interviews with Americans at war were packaged with the Battle Hymn of the Republic as the soundtrack.

But the supposedly less ideological MSNBC may have carried the idea to even greater lengths with Madison-Avenue-style montages of the Iraq war. One showed U.S. troops in heroic postures moving through Iraq. The segment ended with an American boy surrounded by yellow ribbons for his father at war, and the concluding slogan, “Home of the Brave.”

Left out of these “news” montages were any images of death and destruction. For instance, there was no scene of a newly orphaned 12-year-old Iraqi boy waving the stump of what’s left of his arms. No sense either of the unspeakable pain of a father who was injured in a U.S. bombing and was about to learn that his three young daughters, who were the center of his life, were dead.


Cable news also downplayed evidence that many Iraqis, while glad to see Hussein gone, were angered by the U.S. invasion and its aftermath, which brought widespread destruction, arson and looting, including the loss of priceless antiquities of Mesopotamia dating back more than 5,000 years. The reaction to the U.S. occupation has included marches by thousands of Iraqis demanding withdrawal of U.S. troops and calling for an Iran-like Islamic state.



Imperial Plans

The Bush administration, however, has no intention of withdrawing U.S. military forces in the foreseeable future. It wants to use Iraq as a site for military bases that can project American power throughout the Middle East. In effect, the U.S. plan envisions allowing limited Iraqi self-government with American troops stationed nearby, serving in a role similar to Latin American militaries, which set parameters for civilian governments.

American military officials want four bases in Iraq, including one at the international airport outside Baghdad and one near Nasiriya in the south, senior administration officials told the New York Times. “There will be some kind of a long-term defense relationship with a new Iraq, similar to Afghanistan,” one official said. [NYT, April 20, 2003]

Under these plans, Iraq is intended to be an outpost for American imperial reach into the Middle East. Many of Bush’s neo-conservative backers see Iraq as only the first step in a process of asserting U.S. dominance in the region and elsewhere around the globe.

On this pro-empire side, Bush can count a number of important political allies, including many Christian fundamentalists who have an apocalyptic view of the Middle East, some Jewish Americans who see Arab states as a mortal threat to Israel, and many Middle Americans who distrust multilateral organizations and foreigners, from the United Nations to the French.

The conservative news media also has long favored a muscular U.S. approach to the rest of the world, at least when a Republican is in power. Seeing Fox News at the top of the cable-news ratings and Rush Limbaugh-types dominating talk radio, the mainstream media grasps that flag-waving sells, both for the network’s bottom line and for individual news personalities who don’t want to risk their seven-figure salaries by offending today’s power structure.

For that reason, Bush can expect that the unpleasant details of any future imperial adventures won’t get mentioned much. By and large, the American news media has forsaken its historical duty of informing the American people as fully as possible and now sees its primary function as avoiding Vietnam-style negativity that might “endanger” U.S. forces.

Divided Opposition

So there's no reason to think these public-relations strategies will stop working for Bush. With teary-eyed victory celebrations on the horizon and a powerful political machine behind him, he has good reason to feel confident that his high approval ratings won’t dissipate the way his father’s did in 1992.

These anti-imperial groupings also emphasize different points to their backers. For instance, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan argues that neo-conservative ideologues have won over Bush and are pushing strategies that are in the interests of hard-liners in Israel’s Likud Party who oppose ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

“We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests,” Buchanan wrote. “We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris and bellicosity.” [The American Conservative, March 24, 2003, issue]

In contrast, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, one of the few Democratic presidential contenders who opposed Bush’s Iraq War resolution, stresses the damage that Bush is doing to international cooperation needed to protect American long-term interests.

“This unilateral approach to foreign policy is a disaster,” Dean wrote in explaining his opposition to the so-called Bush Doctrine. “All of the challenges facing the United States – from winning the war on terror and containing weapons of mass destruction to building an open world economy and protecting the global environment – can only be met by working with our allies. A renegade, go-it-alone approach will be doomed to failure, because these challenges know no boundaries.”

Dean argues that by opposing the Bush Doctrine, the Democratic Party can show the American people that the party stands for principle and, through that, “we may yet rediscover the soul of our Party.” [Common Dreams, April 17, 2003] Buchanan and his America-First conservatives are certainly less concerned about the future of the Democratic Party.

Daunting Challenges

Yet the pro-republic position does have resonance with millions of Americans who understand, at least intuitively, that violence rarely solves real-life problems. Many Americans also share an abhorrence of empire, recognizing that its needs are inimical to the principles of freedom and democracy. Others distrust Bush’s judgment, seeing him as The Man Who Knows Too Little, the character in the Doonesbury cartoon who dons a Roman helmet and declares, “Pox Americus!”

For Bush to be successfully challenged, however, the pro-republic side must undertake a number of initiatives, including investing much more in media – from talk radio and cable/satellite TV to magazines and newspapers. Right now, with few exceptions, that media is limited to Web sites, a few small-circulation magazines and a handful of newspaper columnists, the equivalent of RPGs against Abrams tanks.

Only by building independent media – a difficult task, to be sure – can space be created to delve into the dark history of U.S. policy in the Middle East. And only with an unafraid media can the American people be engaged in a debate about the future of the nation’s democratic ideals at a time of international dangers.

That great debate, which calls for commitment from Americans of all walks of life and across the political spectrum, also must reach beyond the emotionalism, ignorance and jingoism that today are paving the road toward endless international conflict.
......................
GEEZZZZ SPIN... OUR TAX MONEY IS FOR BUSH'S CROWNIES TO USE OUR MILITARY TO GO OFF ON SOME CRAZY SCHEME TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!

[Ephemeral]

Office/Spin
Yes, we will all listen to someone who tries to pass themselves off as someone else. I particularly like your stance on lying and deception, you certainly are the expert on that.
Way to lose what little shread of creditability you might have had.

[office]

SPIN doesnt know anything!!

DAMM LIBERAL AND TRUE CONSERVATIVES... HELL THEY ARE EVEN IN THE BBC.. WHERE IS RUSH OR SAVAGE WHEN U REALLY NEED THEM!!!!!






20 Lies About The War
By Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker
The Independent - UK
7-12-3


1. Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks

A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi's contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none.

2. Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together

Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defence Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links between them. Mr Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq", it added.

Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa'ida members were being sheltered in Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the camp, they found no chemical or biological traces.

3. Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme

The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has "separate intelligence". The Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now "under review".

4. Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons

The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.

5. Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War

Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it was alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be smuggled into the US and used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed out that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had the technology to produce materials with a shelf-life of 12 years, the time between the two wars. All such agents would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness years ago.

6. Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus

Apart from the fact that there has been no sign of these missiles since the invasion, Britain downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in Iraq once the fighting began. It was also revealed that chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus last year, indicating that the Government did not take its own claims seriously.

7. Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox

This allegation was made by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his address to the UN Security Council in February. The following month the UN said there was nothing to support it.

8. US and British claims were supported by the inspectors

According to Jack Straw, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix "pointed out" that Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax. Tony Blair said Iraq's chemical, biological and "indeed the nuclear weapons programme" had been well documented by the UN. Mr Blix's reply? "This is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction," he said last September. "If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons, I would take it to the Security Council." In May this year he added: "I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not."

9. Previous weapons inspections had failed

Tony Blair told this newspaper in March that the UN had "tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully". But in 1999 a Security Council panel concluded: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated." Mr Blair also claimed UN inspectors "found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive biological weapons programme" until his son-in-law defected. In fact the UN got the regime to admit to its biological weapons programme more than a month before the defection.

10. Iraq was obstructing the inspectors

Britain's February "dodgy dossier" claimed inspectors' escorts were "trained to start long arguments" with other Iraqi officials while evidence was being hidden, and inspectors' journeys were monitored and notified ahead to remove surprise. Dr Blix said in February that the UN had conducted more than 400 inspections, all without notice, covering more than 300 sites. "We note that access to sites has so far been without problems

11. Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes

This now-notorious claim was based on a single source, said to be a serving Iraqi military officer. This individual has not been produced since the war, but in any case Tony Blair contradicted the claim in April.


12. The "dodgy dossier"

Last month Alastair Campbell took responsibility for the plagiarism committed by his staff, but stood by the dossier's accuracy, even though it confused two Iraqi intelligence organisations, and said one moved to new headquarters in 1990, two years before it was created.

13. War would be easy


14. Umm Qasr

The fall of Iraq's southernmost city and only port was announced several times before Anglo-American forces gained full control - by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others, and by Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of Britain's defence staff.


15. Basra rebellion

Claims that the Shia Muslim population of Basra, Iraq's second city, had risen against their oppressors were repeated for days, long after it became clear to those there that this was little more than wishful thinking. The defeat of a supposed breakout by Iraqi armour was also announced by military spokesman in no position to know the truth.

16. The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch

Private Jessica Lynch's "rescue" from a hospital in Nasiriya by American special forces was presented as the major "feel-good" story of the war. She was said to have fired back at Iraqi troops until her ammunition ran out, and was taken to hospital suffering bullet and stab wounds. It has since emerged that all her injuries were sustained in a vehicle crash, which left her incapable of firing any shot.

17. Troops would face chemical and biological weapons

As US forces approached Baghdad, there was a rash of reports that they would cross a "red line", within which Republican Guard units were authorised to use chemical weapons. But Lieutenant General James Conway, the leading US marine general in Iraq, conceded afterwards that intelligence reports that chemical weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were wrong.


18. Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD

"I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there ... once we have the co-operation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them," Tony Blair said in April. Numerous similar assurances were issued by other leading figures, who said interrogations would provide the WMD discoveries that searches had failed to supply. But almost all Iraq's leading scientists are in custody, and claims that lingering fears of Saddam Hussein are stilling their tongues are beginning to wear thin.

19. Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis

Tony Blair complained in Parliament that "people falsely claim that we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues, adding that they should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN. Britain should seek a Security Council resolution that would affirm "the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people".

Instead Britain co-sponsored a Security Council resolution that gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust fund.

Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, the resolution continues to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay in compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

20. WMD were found

After repeated false sightings, both Tony Blair and George Bush proclaimed on 30 May that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories. "We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons," said Mr Blair. Mr Bush went further: "Those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons - they're wrong. We found them." It is now almost certain that the vehicles were for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis claimed - and that they were exported by Britain.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=424008

[Tyson Bitbeast]

Re: SPIN doesnt know anything!!

Originally posted by office
DAMM LIBERAL AND TRUE CONSERVATIVES... HELL THEY ARE EVEN IN THE BBC.. WHERE IS RUSH OR SAVAGE WHEN U REALLY NEED THEM!!!!!






20 Lies About The War
By Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker
The Independent - UK
7-12-3


1. Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks

A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi's contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none.

2. Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together

Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defence Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links between them. Mr Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq", it added.

Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa'ida members were being sheltered in Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the camp, they found no chemical or biological traces.

3. Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme

The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has "separate intelligence". The Foreign Office conceded last week that this information is now "under review".

4. Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons

The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.

5. Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War

Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it was alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be smuggled into the US and used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed out that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had the technology to produce materials with a shelf-life of 12 years, the time between the two wars. All such agents would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness years ago.

6. Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus

Apart from the fact that there has been no sign of these missiles since the invasion, Britain downplayed the risk of there being any such weapons in Iraq once the fighting began. It was also revealed that chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus last year, indicating that the Government did not take its own claims seriously.

7. Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox

This allegation was made by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his address to the UN Security Council in February. The following month the UN said there was nothing to support it.

8. US and British claims were supported by the inspectors

According to Jack Straw, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix "pointed out" that Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax. Tony Blair said Iraq's chemical, biological and "indeed the nuclear weapons programme" had been well documented by the UN. Mr Blix's reply? "This is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction," he said last September. "If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons, I would take it to the Security Council." In May this year he added: "I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not."

9. Previous weapons inspections had failed

Tony Blair told this newspaper in March that the UN had "tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully". But in 1999 a Security Council panel concluded: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated." Mr Blair also claimed UN inspectors "found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive biological weapons programme" until his son-in-law defected. In fact the UN got the regime to admit to its biological weapons programme more than a month before the defection.

10. Iraq was obstructing the inspectors

Britain's February "dodgy dossier" claimed inspectors' escorts were "trained to start long arguments" with other Iraqi officials while evidence was being hidden, and inspectors' journeys were monitored and notified ahead to remove surprise. Dr Blix said in February that the UN had conducted more than 400 inspections, all without notice, covering more than 300 sites. "We note that access to sites has so far been without problems

11. Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes

This now-notorious claim was based on a single source, said to be a serving Iraqi military officer. This individual has not been produced since the war, but in any case Tony Blair contradicted the claim in April.


12. The "dodgy dossier"

Last month Alastair Campbell took responsibility for the plagiarism committed by his staff, but stood by the dossier's accuracy, even though it confused two Iraqi intelligence organisations, and said one moved to new headquarters in 1990, two years before it was created.

13. War would be easy


14. Umm Qasr

The fall of Iraq's southernmost city and only port was announced several times before Anglo-American forces gained full control - by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others, and by Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of Britain's defence staff.


15. Basra rebellion

Claims that the Shia Muslim population of Basra, Iraq's second city, had risen against their oppressors were repeated for days, long after it became clear to those there that this was little more than wishful thinking. The defeat of a supposed breakout by Iraqi armour was also announced by military spokesman in no position to know the truth.

16. The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch

Private Jessica Lynch's "rescue" from a hospital in Nasiriya by American special forces was presented as the major "feel-good" story of the war. She was said to have fired back at Iraqi troops until her ammunition ran out, and was taken to hospital suffering bullet and stab wounds. It has since emerged that all her injuries were sustained in a vehicle crash, which left her incapable of firing any shot.

17. Troops would face chemical and biological weapons

As US forces approached Baghdad, there was a rash of reports that they would cross a "red line", within which Republican Guard units were authorised to use chemical weapons. But Lieutenant General James Conway, the leading US marine general in Iraq, conceded afterwards that intelligence reports that chemical weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were wrong.


18. Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD

"I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there ... once we have the co-operation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them," Tony Blair said in April. Numerous similar assurances were issued by other leading figures, who said interrogations would provide the WMD discoveries that searches had failed to supply. But almost all Iraq's leading scientists are in custody, and claims that lingering fears of Saddam Hussein are stilling their tongues are beginning to wear thin.

19. Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis

Tony Blair complained in Parliament that "people falsely claim that we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues, adding that they should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN. Britain should seek a Security Council resolution that would affirm "the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people".

Instead Britain co-sponsored a Security Council resolution that gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust fund.

Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, the resolution continues to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay in compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

20. WMD were found

After repeated false sightings, both Tony Blair and George Bush proclaimed on 30 May that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories. "We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons," said Mr Blair. Mr Bush went further: "Those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons - they're wrong. We found them." It is now almost certain that the vehicles were for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis claimed - and that they were exported by Britain.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=424008

Have you ever seen a naked man ride a horse?

-Tyson

[Troll King]

Quoting him was unnecessary and nearly as annoying.

[Galleleo]

I think this spin dude is getting those lines from newspapers or some website to sound interesting, but when you do ask a question about what he is really saying he wont be able to answer the question therefore he will just use one of his other macros, ignoring you. so in other words he doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about and is just demanding attetion.

[Troll King]

Saw something worse the other night. Someone named Free Kobe was doing his own version of Spinsanity, and the worst part was that he wasn't very good at it. While Spin is annoying, at least he has some logic to his words, even if they aren't his own.

[Vehicle]

FREE KOBE!

[Ephemeral]

Originally posted by Under Dog
FREE KOBE!

Under Doggie and Troll,
Actually, you guys raise a good point. Spin is absolutely correct when he says Bush is responsible for all this stuff....

Without question, bush is responsible for the Kobe debacle! (19 y.o. bush anyway).

[Tigerex]

Thread moved to General Discussion

[Mandagorian]

Whatever happened to crazy, what you can't be crazy anymore? Do we eliminate crazy from the dictionary? When I was a kid they use to seperate the crazy kids from everybody else. When I was kid the crazy kids went to school on a little ass bus, they had a classroom at the end of the school and they use to get out of school at 2:30 just incase they went crazy they would only hurt other crazy kids.

[Ephemeral]

Moderator,

Please close this thread, it has turned into something that it wasn’t intended to be.
It was intended to be an intelligent discussion about a disruption in TW and possible solutions. Now, it is a fanatical spamfest.

I believe the rules for the forum read as;
2. No Spam
3. No Disgusting/Porn pictures, including links.
5. When posting pics, please keep the screen and file size reasonable.
6. Keep your fights in Trash Talk forums

Feel free to implement anyone of these rules in regards to the current Spin/office posts.