There was more then one source.  Curveball was just the main one.  Though they were all considered somewhat unreliable though not totally so.  Additionally he did mention things that were later verfied via photos.  Just those things weren't what he said they were.  

That said, that's a lot more belieable then the whole 0 sources that Snipers came out of the US embassy with american sniper rifles and bullets.

Yes, it will be best for so called "Ukraine" - to let Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Dnepropetrovsk, Mariupol, Nikolaev and Odessa to be where its people want to be - with Russia.

1. Again, nothing really believable, and most people in europe didn't believe it, that's why european leaders didn't use it for justification. European leaders mostly didn't even mention the theory of WMDs. And still, despite the more or less reliable sources - Bush couldn't wait on the result of an official UN-inspection.

2. What? Who said such stuff? You try to ridicule other opinions by making up such stuff. All that is said is, that some people on maidan and some of the police were shot by similar bullets and the new ukrainian government has no interest to investigate. That has some weight, as also Paet and Ashton discussed that (the phone leak was confirmed as legit). And I made fun of the western media, that already sees Yanukowich as the murderer, without any evidence. I don't know what happened, but I don't say I would. I make fun though on the already made up opinion of western press. Because they never lie...

That could happen. Hopefully Putin will not openly fight a decision made by the people. Same for europe, the US and western ukraine, they could also oppose a decision they don't like.

1.  That's because there wasn't any inspections...  Sadam was refusing to let inspectors in.  In general a common belief now is that HE thought he had WMDs.  But didn't.  Not the ones Curveball mentioned mind you, but the ones the US had previously gave him.  

2. Sharu did... 

Did you just not read the entire quote tree to what you were replying to?  I mean, you deleted his statement out of your quote tree reply, did you not look at it beforehand?

"Yes, these snipers was from American Embassy, with NATO rifles and ammo, so its clearly Yanukovitch to blame!"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6125441

So... care to change your position, and agree that the fact that said snipers coming from the US embassy with weapons provided by the US is less believable then the WMD case?

I think, Kasz just didn't know what grotesque is (regarding US embassy)

And also, I'd like to add that snipers was firing NATO style rifles and bullets. Its a lot of evidences of this in Russian internet segment, analyzing holes and bullets (you know, russian ant nato rifles/bullets have differend diameters, and the bullets itself are a bit different).

Of coarse, it proves nothing, since anybody can have access to some nato sniper rifles/ammo.

This west-east stuff will never end.. and it will always be between US and Russia although they are both not really the ideal examples for what they think they stand for anymore. Europe is still the best place to do the battles on so the big boys don't get hurt.
Europe may be involved in "discussions" but they are not part of the "mine is bigger than yours" attitude.

OP question cleared :P

2. OK, didn't see that. I didn't answer to that, I was answering to the western media still blame Yanukovch without evidence.

To be clear here: I don't think Yanukovich or Putin are good guys. I don't believe in black and white, I think it is all black and  black. All politicians involved on either side don't have the interest of the people in their mind.

1. OK, seems we have found someone who bought into Bush's and Blairs claims. Just let me say, that most of continental europe didn't.

And regarding the inspection, you remember wrong. Yes, Saddam Hussein was first against inspection, but gave in. The inspection started, but was interrupted by the war.

"During 2002, President Bush repeatedly warned of military action against Iraq unless inspections were allowed to progress unfettered. In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Iraq reluctantly agreed to new inspections in late 2002. With the cooperation of the Iraqis, a third weapons inspection team in 2003 led by David Kelly viewed and photographed two alleged mobile weapons laboratories which were actually facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons. Shortly before the invasion, Hans Blix the lead weapons inspector, advised the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating with inspections and that the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved in a short period of time if Iraq remained cooperative."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Funny enough, I notice a difference in german and english Wikipedia. The german Wikipedia clearly states in the first sentence, that the war was against international law. The english article does not.

Actually no.  I was always against the Iraq war.  I was shocked congress actually voted for it. 

I just can just accurately evalutate information from which to give percentages.

   I can also say there is more compelling evidence that Thomas Jefferson was half black then that 9/11 was an insiide job... even though I don't believe either to be true.  

and yes.  That was what you were replying to.  You just didn't pay attention to what you were replying to.

As for Hans Blix.  He mostly just said that to stop war.  His previous statements more or less contradicted what he said earlier, the only difference was that it became apparent the US would go to war.

He said in February there were no problems.

Yet he said in his January report he mentions a number of problems even though they had been cooperative in a few areas.  I wouldn't consider it a reason to go to war, but it certaintly is a lot more proof then the above mentioned snipers.   Call like a 7 % chance of Iraqi WMDS vs 2% chance of Snipers coming out of the US  Ukranian embassy to murder people.

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field," he does note a number of problems, including Iraq's refusal to guarantee the safety of proposed U.N. U-2 overflights as well as it insistence on sending helicopters into the no-fly zone to transport the Iraqis who serve as the inspectors minders. In addition, Blix notes "some recent disturbing incidents and harassment."

With regard to cooperation on substance, Blix's report is more negative, noting that Iraq has failed to engage in the "active" cooperation called for in Resolution 1441. He questions Iraqi claims concerning the quality, quantity, and disposition of VX nerve gas produced by Iraq as well as claims that Iraq destroyed 8, 500 liters of anthrax. In addition, he reports that Iraq has tested two missiles in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers."

So again, at least there was SOME meat for Bush and the rest to grab at.

Hell the look at the two UN resolutions that happened right before war.

February 24, 2003: The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor a new Security Council resolution saying "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it by Resolution 1441."
The same day, Russia and France submit a memorandum stating that military force should be a "last resort" and that force should not yet be used because there is "no evidence" that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. The memorandum also says, however, that "inspections…cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm." It further adds that Baghdad's cooperation, although improving, is not "yet fully satisfactory."

The memorandum proposes that the inspectors submit a program of work that lists and clearly defines specific disarmament tasks. Such a report is already required under Resolution 1284, which created UNMOVIC in 1999.

The memorandum also suggests "further measures to strengthen inspections," including increasing staff and bolstering technical capabilities. Additionally, it proposes a new timeline mandating regular reporting to the Security Council about inspectors' progress, as well as a progress report to be submitted 120 days after the program of work is adopted.

Neither measure is adopted.

Would i of gone to war over it?  No.  I wouldn't of even asked for inspectors in the first place based on the intellegence. 

That said, you can see pretty clearly why it was more believable then the American Ambassodor sniper teams claim.

NATO military in Ukraine, Herson. What are they doing there? Moving to Crimea.