[Bond]

Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe

hmm, although i don't agree the US wouldn't go to war simply for oil, i do agree with some of the things you stated gekko, but a lot of it is about opinion. Its easy just to write off Hans Blix as a selfish idiot(to bond) and say its his fault taht nothings been found, but on the other hand, you could also look at the fact that he retired on his own, a little bit ironic if you think that the only reason he didn't find anything was for job security.

Now I respect your opinion on Hans Blix gimpy, but let me please point out a few things you may not know about this "mild-mannered" man. Here are three quotes that I found quite interesting:

"I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media."

Speaks for itself.

"There are people in [the Bush administration] who say they don't care if the UN sinks under the East River...and other crude things."

That's because the UN is a debating society that does not enforce its own laws.

"It's true that the Iraqis misbehaved and had no credibility, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were in the wrong."

That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it Mr. Blix?


Now, you probably don't know about Han Blix's history. During 1981-1997 he was the director general of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). That means he was in charge of overseeing inspections of Iraq's nuclear programs. During his time as director general Iraq was able to hide advanced nuclear weapons development programs from the IAEA. These advanced nuclear weapons development programs were only found AFTER the Gulf War in 1991. Mr. Blix is a hypocritical man who did not want to find any weapons so that he could keep his job, as shown in the past.

Another reason why Bush might have started the war is the simple reason taht his dad tried the same thing, and Bush just wanted to continue his father legacy.

You fail to remember that Bush Senior could have overtaken Iraq in Desert Storm. Instead Saddam signed a treaty, which I'll get to later and the U.S. did not go into Baghdad. That was a mistake if you ask me, we should have dealt with him before. There are many reasons why we went to this war, which have been stated over and over, and over again. If you really want to know them look them up.

I'm probably biased because i'm in canada and am influenced by media here. So that may also be why i believe this entire war (or slaughter) can never be justified.

Every media outlet is biased somehow. Canada is a great country if you ask me. I would be proud of the things that you are doing, such as legalizing gay marriage.


I believe you said something about that Saddam should be able to have weapons to defend his own country, although I can no longer find it in your post so you may have deleted it. But in any case, Saddam was not allowed to have certain weapons, because if he did he would bomb the hell out of the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South. Of course he still had these weapons, which was in direct violation of U.N. laws and the treaty that he signed during the Gulf War.

i am a pacifist, and i referred to Bush being a shady character in morals because of his former affiliations with osama bin laden

That is an extreme opinion that has no factual basis. In other words, you're speaking gibberish.