mkreku

Again, this was just before the war, days after the report: "SPENCER MICHELS: A few days later, at the Security Council, Blix noted several problems with Baghdad's compliance. HANS BLIX: Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Hans said Iraq had mostly complied but also that he wasn't entirely satisfied. Source (again): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east.../blix_2-13.html Hans never said there weren't any WMD's in Iraq. He said that they hadn't found any but he wouldn't be surprised if the US troops found some left-over WMD's. Source (again): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/30/...ain561104.shtml Also, to put this in perspective: Blix had 3 months and 1400 men to find the WMD's. Compare that to the amount of men and the time it has taken the US troops to find those 500 shells. Iraq is a big country, and those empty factories they found have not been proven to be factories for WMD's (they never found any traces of WMD's in them). In fact, some say they were factories for producing powdered milk and that they were empty because of the sanctions: there were simply nothing to produce.

The exact quote was: "Hans is an idiot. Iraq refused to allow inspections for the better part of twelve years, and Hans called that cooperation. Hans says one thing, and the UN security council unanimously said another for twelve years. Who do we believe? Considering that Hans has been proved wrong, it's not a hard call." Being proven wrong must have been what I remember as you claiming he lied. I apologize for the mix-up of words, but let me rephrase the question then: When was Blix proven wrong?

But you still haven't proven your claim that Hans Blix is a liar.. Ok, saw your edit. Yes, he failed to grill Iraq. He admits that too in his book. He isn't as agressive as the americans wished him to be, which is why yhe US government decided to pass him up. I'm not saying he is flawless, but I am saying he is not a liar. He did not comply to anything the Iraqi government wanted him to do though. The Iraqi complied to him.

No, he didn't "write the last paragraph". If you read the report he says there are some small amounts of weapons unaccounted for, but he believed them to have been destroyed 10 years ago. The 500 shells of sarin they found a few weeks ago are probably from that unaccounted batch. Hans never swore that there were no WMD's in Iraq. That is an outright lie. "Speaking publicly for the last time as chief arms inspector a week ago at a meeting in New York, Blix took his parting shot at the Bush administration, saying "It is sort of puzzling that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty about where they are." But later, Blix told me that he feels the U.S. teams may still find banned weapons." Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/30/...ain561104.shtml If you read his book "Disarming Iraq", which is an interesting read, you'll find out that he, himself, thought he would find WMD's in Iraq. He and his crew of 1400 inspectors just didn't find any. By the way, that link you provided and aptly named "Resolutions Legalizing Force in Iraq" isn't about the resolutions. It's Lord Goldsmith's "view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq". It's one man's opinion, not a resolution.

Hans Blix took the job at UNMOVIC, created specifically to disarm Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, in January 2000. The quotes you provided are conveniently not dated, but in reality they are from the year 1991, that is 9 years before Hans Blix started his job in Iraq. So you are blaming him for incidents that took place before he was ever involved? Again, I don't know if you're lying or just misinformed. And I ask again, do you have any facts backing up your claims that Hans Blix is a liar? "What should be remembered is that Blix also was the one who, when the time came with North Korea, it was his inspectors that found that North Korea was violating its rules under the IAEA and discovered their plutonium production." - Walter Pincus, Washington Post Reporter Strange that he could find WMD's in one anti-american nation, but not the other? "Hans insisted that Iraq complied 100%." - EnderWiggin Well, then, this is Gary Milhollin on Hans Blix work in Iraq: "I think his job is to say yes or no; the Iraqis are either cooperating on the disarmaments or they are not. And so far he's avoided taking that position. He's avoided writing that last paragraph." - Gary Milhollin, Wisconsin Project on Arms Control Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east.../blix_2-13.html

I know, in fact I haven't found any credible source of information backing up Michael Moore's claims. But as usual, it's a middle thing between extremes. I've ended up in the middle of Newsweek and Michael Moore by now. Another thing though.. You wrote in another thread that Hans Blix was caught lying (if I remember correctly you called him worse than that) but I haven't been able to find this anywhere. When I searched for Hans Blix lies I ended up here: http://middleeastreference.org.uk/ios030711.html Chief UN inspector of Hans Blix told the Security Council on 14 February 2003 that "Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly ... we note that access to sites has so far been without problems". I'm familiar with Hans Blix since several years back and I've never heard anyone call him a liar. He was chosen to work for the UN (United Nations, where the US are also members, remember?) because of his fairness and ability to stay neutral. Could you direct me to a (non right wing extremist) source of information about this?

The more I read on www.fair.org (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), the more I begin to understand why most americans view the world so entirely different than everyone else in the world. If you're interested in discovering what the small nuances in choice of words have for effect when reporting the news, read this interesting article: http://www.fair.org/extra/0403/pow-tv.html

I don't believe everything Michael Moore says. He's only human after all. But it all depends on your own view of the situation. You can always claim you didn't start a war and that you were provoked to fight. Apparently Newsweek claims USA hasn't started a war during the entire twentieth century. I am not so sure the rest of the world sees it that way. An interesting article on the subject: http://hnn.us/articles/1042.html

I'm eagerly awaiting Fahrenheit 911 as I am sure it will be very interesting. I thought Bowling for Columbine (which is where I got the fact when I claimed the US has started more wars than any other nation in the world during the twentieth century, btw) was entertaining and quite informative. Michael Moore is like a breath of fresh air compared to almost everything else coming out of the US (movie-wise).

Yeah, me too! It will be a blast to watch! Zlatan, Ljungberg, Larsson against the likes of Cannavaro and Nesta.. Geez! I still consider Italy as having the best football defenders in the world. Will be fun to see if our offensive force can breach that Italian granite wall.

This is interesting. Who, when and where was the automobile invented in the US? I've never heard of this. And yes, the chinese invented the printing press (with cheramic molds!) but it never became known or even popular, mostly because their language is one of the most difficult languages on earth to do in writing. I think that is the reason for Gutenberg getting all the fame..

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. "The very first self-powered road vehicles were powered by steam engines and by that definition Nicolas Joseph Cugnot of France built the first automobile in 1769 - recognized by the British Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Club de France as being the first. So why do so many history books say that the automobile was invented by either Gottlieb Daimler or Karl Benz? It is because both Daimler and Benz invented highly successful and practical gasoline-powered vehicles that ushered in the age of modern automobiles. Daimler and Benz invented cars that looked and worked like the cars we use today. However, it is unfair to say that either man invented "the" automobile." A frenchman invented the first car, but Daimler Benz invented the first mass produced car. Source: http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsgasa.htm About the computer: The first computer ever was designed by a british gentleman called Charles Babbage in 1837. Of course, it wasn't built back then, but it is considered as being the "first computer". If you're talking about the "modern" computer, then it's still a british invention. Check out http://www.computer50.org/ and see what you think.

I use CNN as a main source of information too. News are always filtrated through your mind, and a mind is made up of previous experiences and events, which is why our opinions differ so much in the matter, despite our information coming from the same source. When I search for facts, though, I tend to search for voluntary organizations, help oganizations, and other hopefully neutral observers.

I understand now why you like Bush. Ps. I am from Sweden.

While the US/UK-led military campaigns of the Gulf War in 1991, the bombings of 1998, and 2003 have ended, that is not the end of the story for the people of Iraq. * Iraq was bombed regularly by the US and Britain as part of a no fly zone enforcement during the sanctions regime. * An estimated one million people had died since the sanctions enforced by the UN Security Council after the Gulf War ended. o Most nations wished to lift the sanctions, but the US and UK continued to oppose any such calls. o As this paper shows, the sanctions themselves are illegal and have had gross consequences for the people of Iraq. * The brutal Saddam Hussain, whom the US helped to bring in to power in the 1980s, remained unaffected while the Iraqi people suffered. * Iraq used to have one of the best measures in the world for standards of living. Now it is in the bottom twenty percent. In just 10 years of sanctions. * Basic medicines were not available as children died from treatable diseases. * Even chlorine had been blocked and that is needed for disinfection of water that has already been contaminated from the allied bombing. This quote is taken from http://www.globalissues.org/ Where do you get your facts from?

Ok, I actually posted a link to The Guardian, a huge newspaper in England.. That's one of my sources. Which are your "outlets for reliable news"?

" Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946 I'm sure this won't ring a bell, but I thought it was a funny quote.

You claim they write this nowhere, so where do you get your facts from? Iraq is now a land in chaos, noone goes to school at all and the reason there are still hostility in the area is because the Iraqi people wants the US troops out of their country. The US soldiers expected to be met by the Iraqi people waving little american flags in their hands, but were shocked when they realized the Iraqi people didn't want them there. That's the information I've been given. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...4208767,00.html

I'm also hoping for Kerry. He seems more reasonable, more "democratic" and carries less of a baggage than Bush. The US needs a leader who doesn't see the world as a testing ground for new weapons or a store where you can just walk in and grab whichever resource you need at the moment. A leader that helps strengthen the UN instead of weakening it. Of course, the "democracy" in the US works in mysterious ways. Less than 50% of the people allowed to vote votes, and in the last election, less than 50% voted for Bush.

Where do you get this from?

Do the US own WMD's?

My new avatar is Wasteland's depiction of a true american redneck. They are the funniest people on this planet, I think. Once I was up on this lookout in South Carolina, when I ran into a gang of rednecks. They all had mullets and I just couldn't help myself from laughing out loud. They threw empty beercans at me for that.

No!! We will not let it die! We will make sure it comes back and haunts you in your sleep FOR YEARS TO COME!

Volourn, sorry, but you're wrong as usual. http://redguard.bethsoft.com/ has the following quote: "The Elder Scrolls Adventures: REDGUARD kicks off a brand new series in the award-winning world of The Elder Scrolls. Swashbuckling duels, a handcrafted 3D world and an epic story are all combined in this genre-breaking game." http://www.bethsoft.com/games/games_battlespire.html has the following quote: "Battlespire features the rich fantasy setting of Bethesda's award-winning Elder Scrolls

I agree that Morrowind's story was way too.. nonexistant at times. I remember playing it for the first time and actually forgetting about the whole main story after a few days. By coincidence I walked to the place where I was supposed to go from the beginning.. one week too late. I think Gothic/Gothic 2 struck a good balance between freedom and story. You're always free to go wherever you want (and get killed by level 30 orcs when you're level 1 yourself), but there's still a strong story that's visible to the player at all times. I love this type of game, that doesn't hold your hand AT ALL in the beginning! I was so shocked and angry the first time I started up Gothic 2 and ten minutes later ran into a gigantic orc. It chased me all the way through a forest to the city gates before it killed me in one hit. Then I could lie there in my own pool of blood and watch the city guards go at it. Great fun! Stuff like that (I have lots of stories, but noone will listen. Strange.) and other scary events are stuff I've never experienced in any other RPG.