New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hans Blix

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
Well, he believes Saddam. Go figure.
post #2 of 18
Why does he hate America?
post #3 of 18
I think he's european or something...
post #4 of 18
Quote:
mastronikolas the butcher:
I think he's european or something...
Yeah he is from Sweden and we all know Sweden is evil. The country that wasn´t against Hitler in WW2.
post #5 of 18
One word. ABBA.
post #6 of 18
Cool name.
post #7 of 18
Eh.....

What difference does it make what Hans Blix chooses to believe at this point?
He wants to put his faith in Saddam Hussein? Let him.
post #8 of 18
Quote:
The Daimler-Kronos Corporation:
Well, he believes Saddam. Go figure.
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20030214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq" target="_blank">Who Wouldn't: Saddam Hussein Bans all WMD</a>

post #9 of 18
Quote:
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reacted skeptically to Saddam's decree, saying: "If one would want to make believe and pretend that Iraq is a democracy that could pass meaningful laws, it would be 12 years late and 26,000 liters of anthrax short."
post #10 of 18
Hmmmm, Hans Blix is now a household name. He is playing an "important" role on the world stage. He gets TV coverage. And he gets to rub elbows and share fancy dinners and wine with Iraqi officials. Is it any wonder he wants to continue his "inspections".

How's that for skeptical?
post #11 of 18
I'll let the Onion answer that, Stew:

Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance
WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."
post #12 of 18
Y'know, that's a funny article, but for anybody besides the Onion to say Saddam is trying to cooperate is unbelievable. This is the same song and dance we've been doing since 1991. We say "no more," Saddam says up yours, we talk, Saddam nudges just a bit, we say too late, he nudges a little bit more, and we get sick of things and it all goes back to the status quo.

When will some people finally say full cooperation means full cooperation, not conceeding things bit by bit over as long a period of time as possible?
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Stew:
Hmmmm, Hans Blix is now a household name. He is playing an "important" role on the world stage. He gets TV coverage. And he gets to rub elbows and share fancy dinners and wine with Iraqi officials. Is it any wonder he wants to continue his "inspections".

How's that for skeptical?
Cynical. And I bow before the master.
post #14 of 18
Know what's kind of funny? Americans will believe that everyone else involved in this whole affair (Frecnch, Germans, Blix, UN) have alterior motives, but none of you guys could imagaine that Bush just might be in this for some other reason than to free the Iraqi people and destroy his chemical weapons.
post #15 of 18
Quote:
Ned Fats:
Know what's kind of funny? Americans will believe that everyone else involved in this whole affair (Frecnch, Germans, Blix, UN) have alterior motives, but none of you guys could imagaine that Bush just might be in this for some other reason than to free the Iraqi people and destroy his chemical weapons.
i think no one here has said 100% that W has no alterior motives. of course he has them, he's a politician.
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Nelson:
Quote:
Ned Fats:
Know what's kind of funny? Americans will believe that everyone else involved in this whole affair (Frecnch, Germans, Blix, UN) have alterior motives, but none of you guys could imagaine that Bush just might be in this for some other reason than to free the Iraqi people and destroy his chemical weapons.
i think no one here has said 100% that W has no alterior motives. of course he has them, he's a politician.
Really..maybe I'm reading the wrong threads. OK, so you believe there may be alterior motives...what would you guess them to be?
post #17 of 18
Not oil because lets see....

It would be a PR disaster once we took over Iraq and show that we were only after oil.

We woulda done it back during the first war.

We'd go after easier Venezeula.

Bush would not trade agreements with oil companies for the lack of another term as president. Escpecially with his rating right now.

There's Anwar.

You want to talk about ulterior motives go look at what the French and German have going with Iraq. Oh that's right they can't be found unless we overthrow Sad.aam
post #18 of 18
"It would be a PR disaster once we took over Iraq and show that we were only after oil."

Yeah, because every American monitors the amount of oil we get from Iraq. There would no way to tell how it will flow after we take control of their industry. We could just bullshit, or put in a regime that will do whatever we tell them.

"We woulda done it back during the first war."

Actually, our goal was not to invade Iraq in the first war, it would have been totally uncalled for.

"We'd go after easier Venezeula."

Guess you havent been keeping up with current news..but Venezuela is not a place I'd like to mess with right about now.

"Bush would not trade agreements with oil companies for the lack of another term as president. Escpecially with his rating right now."

Well, I guess I have a little more confidence in the president getting elected than you do, because I dont think there is a chance in hell he will lose. Regardless of what goes on.

There's Anwar.

You want to talk about ulterior motives go look at what the French and German have going with Iraq. Oh that's right they can't be found unless we overthrow Sad.aam[/QB][/QUOTE]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse