|
10 Feb 04 - 11:11 AM (#1113378) Subject: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Scott Ritter, who spent seven years as the UN's chief weaons inspector in Iraq, and opposed the current war and occupation from the beginning, argues that John Kerry was complicit in sending us to war even though he knew there were no WMD. An excerpt: During a visit to Washington in April 2000, when I lobbied senators and representatives for a full review of American policy regarding Iraq, I spoke with John Kerry about what I held to be the hyped-up intelligence regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD. "Put it in writing," Kerry told me, "and send it to me so I can review what you're saying in detail." I did just that, penning a comprehensive article for Arms Control Today, the journal of the Arms Control Association, on the "Case for the Qualitative Disarmament of Iraq." This article, published in June 2000, provided a detailed breakdown of Iraq's WMD capability and made a comprehensive case that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat. I asked the Arms Control Association to send several copies to Sen. Kerry's office but, just to make sure, I sent him one myself. I never heard back from the senator. Two years later, in the buildup toward war that took place in the summer of 2002, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which Kerry sits, convened a hearing on Iraq. At that hearing a parade of witnesses appeared, testifying to the existence of WMD in Iraq. Featured prominently was Khidir Hamza, the self-proclaimed "bombmaker to Saddam," who gave stirring first-hand testimony to the existence of not only nuclear weapons capability, but also chemical and biological weapons as well. Every word of Hamza's testimony has since been proved false. Despite receiving thousands of phone calls, letters and e-mails demanding that dissenting expert opinion, including my own, be aired at the hearing, Sen. Kerry apparently did nothing, allowing a sham hearing to conclude with the finding that there was "no doubt" Saddam Hussein had WMD. Sen. Kerry followed up this performance in October 2002 by voting for the war in Iraq. Today he justifies that vote by noting that he only approved the "threat of war," and that the blame for Iraq rests with President George W. Bush, who failed to assemble adequate international support for the war. But this explanation rings hollow in the face of David Kay's findings that there are no WMD in Iraq. With the stated casus belli shown to be false, John Kerry needs to better explain his role not only in propelling our nation into a war that is rapidly devolving into a quagmire, but more importantly, his perpetuation of the falsehoods that got us there to begin with. There's more to this article, right here. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 12:08 PM (#1113414) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus Nerd, In January 1999, Scott Ritter was party to a Report submitted to the UN Security Council, as was the good Dr. Blix. That Report outlined a damn sight more than a capability although it did address capability and possible ongoing development programmes. I believe I am correct in stating that in the intervening period January 1999 to June 2000, Scott Ritter performed no further inspections in relation to Iraq's WMD Stockpiles, capabilities or development programmes. So by the time he submits his comprehensive article on the "Case for the Qualitative Disarmament of Iraq.", he is running on information that is eighteen months old, eighteen months in which there has been no monitoring or inspection work done at all. So Scott Ritter lobbied Senators and Representatives in the spring of 2000, then went into print outlinging Iraq's capabilities and stating that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat. Fair enough, perfectly reasonable, the man is entitled to his well-informed opinion - but at that time that was all it was, his opinion. Your post above now jumps to the summer of 2002, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which Kerry sits, convened a hearing on Iraq. Now what had happened between Ritter's lobbying in the spring of 2000 and the summer of 2002, that might want the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to re-evaluate Iraq? Ritter's hard information is now three and a half years old, and there are a parade of witnesses appearing and testifying with regard to Iraq's WMD. Iraq's support for foreign terrorist groups is known. What might have caused a change in perspective with regard to Iraq and it's WMD? Your post is a poor attempt at mud-slinging and is totally irrelevant. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 12:21 PM (#1113422) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Peter T. What might have caused a change in perspective? George Bush and his extremists deciding they wanted to go to war for the hell of it. Scott Ritter is an interesting case, but his complaint is hardly "totally irrelevant". yours, Peter T. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 01:32 PM (#1113490) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Teribus, My post is just pointing out what an expert says. If Scott Ritter is "mudslinging" is up to a reader to decide. I'm just pointing out his article. You may think that information three and a half years old is irrelevant. But if I went to Botswana today and observed its military, its economy, etc., and IF I WERE AN EXPERT (which Scott R. is and George W. and John K. are not) I think could make a pretty accurate determination about whether they would have nuclear weapons in 3 1/2 years. I would at least know what kinds of evidence we would expect to see, of goods moving in and out of the country, etc., to make a case for WMD plausible. My opinion would not be irrelevant. You say his evidence was 3 1/2 years old, but you're assuming he had had no access to the UN's subsequent data. I don't imagine you're right about that, but I don't think either of us knows for sure. You say that "there are a parade of witnesses appearing and testifying with regard to Iraq's WMD." But this is the whole point; they were wrong and Ritter was right! Now you say "Ritter's evidence was old, and his opinion was only his opinion." Okay, but his evidence turns out to have led to the proper conclusions, and his opinion was accurate, so maybe someone should have paid attention to him. The issue is not only whether Kerry was justified in making the decisions he made, but whether he was justified in shutting out dissenting expert opinion from the meetings. There is one plausible reason to exclude such evidence: political pressure had been brought to bear on the committee, and its findings were therefore predetermined. Are there other plausible explanations? Possibly. That's why, as Ritter says, "John Kerry needs to better explain his role not only in propelling our nation into a war that is rapidly devolving into a quagmire, but more importantly, his perpetuation of the falsehoods that got us there to begin with." Would you argue that Kerry should NOT explain this? If so, what possible justification could there be in asking a politician NOT to explain himself? |
|
10 Feb 04 - 01:51 PM (#1113503) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the System...which generally gets exactly what it wants...arranged to have an election between a Democrat and a Republican who both are essentially representing the same interests...regardless of what they say in public. That way the System wins regardless of who wins or loses the election. And that is the normal routine in corporate USA. The players who act out the charade, of course, are still very desirous of being the "winner" and garnering the perks and badges of success that come with it...so you can depend on them campaigning hard. No ones likes to lose, not even in a rigged game. The reason teribus objects to the article is simple: he doesn't sympathize or agree with its general viewpoint. He's partisan! It's an emotional reason, seeking rational justifications to brace it up...and that is the case with almost everyone's political opinions. We are all highly subjective creatures, acutely aware of our opponent's subjectivity and logical errors, but loathe to ever admit to our own. Only someone completely unprejudiced from the start is likely to avoid doing that. Where would we find such a person? - LH |
|
10 Feb 04 - 01:57 PM (#1113513) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: DougR I would remind all of you that according to the report made to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the recent head of the WMD search team stated that the team did find evidence that Saddam had the CAPABILITY of producing WMDs. I think Scott Ritter's credibility has diminished considerably since he left the WMD team and wrote his book. DougR |
|
10 Feb 04 - 02:11 PM (#1113526) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd DougR: WMD was purposely established as a neologism because it is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. With ammonia and bleach you can make a minimally effective chemical weapon. With ammonia and bleach and a good lab, you can make one far more effective. So "the ability to produce WMD" is really pretty meaningless. Any government has it. You may think Scott Ritter's credibility is low, but he was right and the administration was wrong about the presence of an imminent threat from Iraq. To me that INCREASES his credibility. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 04:47 PM (#1113574) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: kendall Al Franken is right |
|
10 Feb 04 - 05:17 PM (#1113590) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST What isn't irrelevant is that Ritter was right, and Bush/Blair were wrong. The IAEA--ie Hans Blix--was also right in saying that there was no evidence in Iraq of any of the WMD programs the Bush/Blair administrations were saying existed, prior to the pre-emptive, unprovoked invasion of this sovereign nation. The UN weapons inspectors also said, after Bush/Blair forced them to end their inspections on the eve of the invasion, that is was highly unlikely any WMD would be found in Iraq, because they had been successfully dismantled at the end of Gulf War I. The UN was right. The UN weapons inspectors were right. Scott Ritter was right. The former ambassador to Iraq who challenged the Bush administration's claims was right. Wesley Clark was right--before the war! France and Germany and Russia were right. But we are just supposed to overlook the fact that those who were saying there was not sufficient evidence to support WMDs or Hussein being an imminent military threat, were right and the Bush/Blair administrations were wrong? I don't THINK so. And don't give us that "we went with the best intelligence..." crap. Obviously, they didn't. If they had, they would have used the intelligence the UN was providing. And the French. And the Germans. And the Russians. Turns out we were wrong. Imagine that. Too late now though, isn't it? Halliburton already won the contracts in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 05:27 PM (#1113596) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd And, I may say, Howard Dean was right. If Wesley Clark should drop out of this race, I hope his supporters will consider supporting Dean. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 07:03 PM (#1113640) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST I am willing to admit Ritter was right and Kerry was remiss. Ritter had little to lose and Kerry had everything (careerwise}to lose. So what do we expect? Unswerving integrity from everybody all the time? |
|
10 Feb 04 - 07:16 PM (#1113649) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth Hmmm ! On this basis Anon Guest, every Country, State, Boroiugh and Parish Council has the capability to manufacture Chemical Weapons. Actually if I dug deep in the Kitchen, and the Garden Shed I have no doubt I could find the makings of a lethal chemical cocktail. There are one or two inconvenient facts 1/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I do not boast about my ability to manufacture the same. 2/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not used chemical Weapons against other Countries and my own disidents. 3/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not invaded my neighbours. 4/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not excluded any independant inspectors, nor have I harried or harased any independant inspectors when I was forced to admit them. Gareth. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 07:27 PM (#1113656) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk Yes, Gareth, but we all wait in fear for the moment when you WILL do those terrible things! And on the basis of that perfectly reasonable fear, we are going to mount a massive pre-emptive strike on your miserable lodgings within 30 (count 'em, baby!), 30 days...unless you surrender unconditionally, let us in anyway, and submit to immediate regime change. We know just what sort of evil you are up to, and we aren't going to sit idly by and let you get away with it. 'Fess up now, step down from your position of usurped power over your suffering household, and save yourself a whole lot of pain, buster! :-) (the above is a joke, I hope you understand...) |
|
10 Feb 04 - 07:42 PM (#1113667) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Charley Noble I do think Nerd has a major point, that Kerry was wrong to provide political support for Bush's ultimatum to Saddam. I don't think Kerry is as wrong as Bush is on this issue and I applaude Dean for being on what turns out to have been the correct side; I'm not sure many of us were aware, however, of Dean's assessment at the time. I do recall that the majority of the House Democrats went on record as opposed to the resolution, including Maine's Rep. Tom Allen. Charley Noble |
|
10 Feb 04 - 08:07 PM (#1113671) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST Yes, Kerry was wrong to support the invasion and occupation. But Gareth, the US government was wrong to support Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the 1980s, too. We didn't care about his WMD back when he was fighting Iran. Same with Afghanistan and supporting bin Laden. We supported these terrorists, just like we are now supporting the Pakistan military regime, and their nuclear weapons program proliferating to some of the most despotic regimes in the world--hell--to Bush's "Axis of Evil"!!! What say you to that, eh Gareth? Why didn't we invade Pakistan, and destroy THEIR nuclear weapons program. We KNEW they had nukes. We KNEW they were giving the technology away to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. So instead, we invade a country that doesn't have them, using as our justification the POSSIBILITY that Hussein MIGHT get them. Someday. Even though no one had ANY proof that they had these weapons for the better part of a decade??? How fucking stoooopid do ye think we are there, Gareth? |
|
10 Feb 04 - 08:29 PM (#1113677) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Metchosin Guest 8:07, maybe not Libya, if I recall correctly Libya supposedly got it's bits from Malaysia. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 08:37 PM (#1113684) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Metchosin Oh hell! bomb Canada, it supplied Pakistan with it's first nuclear reactor. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 08:58 PM (#1113695) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST Ah, Metchosin, have you been listening to the news in recent weeks on this? Did you know that the Pakistan fall guy went on TV in Pakistan last week, took the heat off Musharaff and his generals, and formally apologized to the nation for selling the nuclear secrets (probably the worst kept secret in the non-proliferation community) to Libya, Iran, and North Korea? Here is an excerpt from an article on it from today's Boston Globe: "The confession last week by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the founder of Pakistan's nuclear program, that he had provided atomic secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea since the late 1980s was just the latest evidence that the international political and legal framework against proliferation needs to be overhauled. "Dr. Khan is the tip of an iceberg," Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told reporters Thursday. "We still have a lot of work to do. We have to make sure it will not be repeated." ElBaradei and other IAEA officials have hailed recent successes in curtailing Iran's and Libya's nuclear ambitions. But these developments, the officials say, as well as unsuccessful efforts to persuade North Korea to disarm, have exposed weaknesses in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which since 1970 has been the main legal bulwark in international efforts to halt the spread of atomic arms." You might remember Mr. ElBaradei. He was the other guy who worked with Hans Blix in Iraq, who testified to the UN Security Council after Colin Powell last year, and called the Bush/Blair Niger uranium claim bogus, right to Colin Powell's face and in front of the American TV cameras, no less. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 10:50 PM (#1113726) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk I'm pretty disturbed that you've uncovered our (Canada's) perfidious part in plotting on behalf of the Axis of Evil, Metchosin! I guess we are gonna have to get out the big guns now (meaning William Shatner), cos Bush is probably gonna feel obliged to take action against us soon. |
|
10 Feb 04 - 11:43 PM (#1113740) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Metchosin Sure I have Guest, and none of it comes as any surprise to those of us in Canada who have been so adamantly opposed to and publicly demonstrating against, Canada's nuclear policies for the past 40 years or so. Canada sold a 125-megawatt reactor to Pakistan in 1959 and a Candu reactor in 1964. Real bright idea. But when you are enamoured with the technology and want to make a bundle to justify mucking about with it yourself, at horrendous expense of the Canadian taxpayer, you'll sell to anybody and they have. Or in Leher's words, "I just make them go up, who cares where they come down, its not my department, says Werner von Braun". Candu Exports - India and Pakistan As far as information going to Libya via Pakistan, yeah, so is that a surprise too? Why would anyone not believe that the little guys would want to play with the big boy's toys and bits and pieces to make it all a reality still came from Malaysia. The genie has been out of the bottle for a long time. Now if they can just figure out what the Argentinians are really planning to do with theirs.....hmmmmm.... |
|
10 Feb 04 - 11:52 PM (#1113747) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Metchosin I've got my phaser set for stun Little Hawk. The unfortunate thing is that we've got to somehow fix it ourselves, 'cause despite those that are hoping for the Rapture, there ain't anyone who's going to beam us out of here. |
|
11 Feb 04 - 12:02 AM (#1113753) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: LadyJean People are voting for Kerry because they think he can beat Bush. But he flip flopped on the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind. If you don't think the Bush/Rove slime machine won't use that against him! They'll start the negative ads in July. Those ads aren't designed to bring your opponent's supporters into your camp. They're designed to keep people from voting. I'm still working for Dean. I got no hope, but Kerry would be Clinton without the sex. |
|
11 Feb 04 - 01:10 AM (#1113775) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Gareth will hate me for this, but I must point this out. All of the horrible things you accuse Saddam of doing are things we have done in our history, too: 1/Unlike Saddam Hussain I do not boast about my ability to manufacture the same. The US certainly has boasted about our Nuclear arms capability, in WWII and the cold war, and continue to use our nuclear capability to maintain our position of power in the world. Yet we consider it morally outrageous when another country tries to do what we have done. 2/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not used chemical Weapons against other Countries and my own disidents. The US almost certainly used biological weapons (intentionally spread disease) to wipe out some of the Native American population. We have used vastly overpowered weapons against dissidents in places like Waco and West Philadelphia (the police flattened more than a square block because an African-American separatisst group occupied a single house in the 1980s). 3/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not invaded my neighbours. Well, unless we include Mexico, from which we grabbed much of our land. And all the Indian territories, which used to be sovereign neighbors but now are part of the US because we slaughtered all their people and took their land by force. Yeah, Gareth, except for those, none of the many, many countries we have invaded have been neighbors. 4/. Unlike Saddam Hussain I have not excluded any independant inspectors, nor have I harried or harased any independant inspectors when I was forced to admit them. Uh, what do you mean by "independent inspectors?" Do you mean UN inspectors? Are you really one of those people that George Bush convinced that Saddam Hussein excluded the inspectors? The inspectors were allowed in, and mostly were not harried or harrassed. They were to some extent given a runaround on occasion. I know; let's invade their country and kill civilians in retaliation for a slow bureaucracy! In any case, we are in violation of UN resolutions. Guess what? Nobody cares because we're so powerful! But let countries we don't like violate them, and they must comply or be invaded. This is one reason why the world thinks American democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be. We're smug and self-righteous and act superior because we stopped doing certain unsavory things fifty years ago and other countries only stopped doing them twenty years ago. |
|
11 Feb 04 - 01:46 AM (#1113780) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Metchosin wow, a little bit of synchronicity going on, mentioned Tom Lehrer in one of my preceeding posts (of course, I spelled his name wrong) and then checked above the bar a little while ago, and there's a thread up about Tom Lehrer. Haven't thought about his stuff in quite a few years and then twice in one day. |
|
11 Feb 04 - 06:50 AM (#1113897) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus Nerd, As you initiated this thread, I take it that you decided on the title - Yes? You then reproduced the Scott Ritter article - mud-slinging. Reading down through the posts I was amazed at what short memories people have. I asked Nerd a question: "Now what had happened between Ritter's lobbying in the spring of 2000 and the summer of 2002, that might want the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to re-evaluate Iraq?" Does the date 11th September 2001, ring any bells with anyone? Now before we are swamped with loud protestations with regard to Iraq and Saddam having nothing to do with 911 - I clearly state, as I, and officials of your current administration have done since the outset, that Iraq and Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 911. Where that event does come into the picture relates to potential future threat - no-one has come up with any grounds for dispelling the likelyhood that Saddam could provide WMD, or WMD technology and know how to an international terrorist group that could target America. Remember that he, Saddam, was the only international leader in the world to publically applaud those attacks. Having recently been attacked, those charged with the responsibility for the saftey and security of the United States of America, would have been extremely negligent if they had not reviewed all possible future threats, irrespective of from what quarter they might come - And that is precisely what they did. Now in this evaluation of potential threat sources, where would you expect the current administration, US intelligence agencies and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to place Iraq in the order of priorities, given the public statements made by Saddam Hussein - Last, due to the information provided by Scott Ritter? If any of you think that that would have been the correct course to follow, then you are foolish to the extent that it beggars belief. With respect to the working of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which John Kerry sat (i.e. he was not the Chairman, he was not in charge of it), with regard to Iraq, what information did they have to go on in the summer of 2002: - They knew that no inspections, or monitoring activity had been carried out by anyone for three and a half years. - They knew of the unaccounted for stocks of WMD outstanding from the UNSCOM Report of January 1999. By the way, these stocks remain unaccounted for to this day, the fact that they have not been found does not mean that they do not, or did not, exist. - They listened to witness testimony covering the subject of Iraqi WMD capabilities and programmes. The members of that committee were no doubt allowed to question those witnesses. Even with counter arguements made by Scott Ritter, or whoever, I believe that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would have decided in the manner that they eventually did. At the time the list of governments who fully believed that Saddam's Iraq held stockpiles of WMD included, USA; UK; France; Germany; Russia; China, etc, etc. So don't be too hard on Senator Kerry - or George W Bush. Of those countries, the USA was the only one that had been attacked, so it is quite understandable that when it came to threat evaluation their criteria was somewhat different to others. Of the "coalition-of-the-willing", as it came to be called, it is interesting to note that the staunchest allies of the US position were the UK, Italy and Spain, all European countries well acquainted with the results of terrorist activity. Having made the evaluation, what was the USA's next move? They went to the UN, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, the US did not act unilaterally. During the seven months preceeding the war the UN did what it does best, it first prevaricated, then when stung into action it dragged it's heels and failed, once more, to implement the Resolutions it had passed. Having been down that road once before and subsequent to the attacks of 911, that simply was not good enough for the US and their allies - In adopting that point of view they were absolutely right. Also Nerd, your response to the points that Gareth made - i.e. your post 11 Feb 04 - 01:10 AM 1/ So the US boasted about its atomic weapons during WW II - Don't think so, the Manhattan Project was one of the best kept secrets of the Second World War, it had to be, the Germans were too close to obtaining that weapon themselves, knowledge of the progress in the US might have prompted them to accelerate their programme. The Soviets were taken completely by surprise when it was used. After the Second World War the fact that the USA did proclaim its nuclear weapons capability kept the world at peace for damn near fifty years. 2/ Your remorse regarding the past fate of the Native American population is commendable. I suggest you salve your conscience, give whatever property you have to one of their descendents and return to land of your forefathers. I also believe that unlike the Iranians, and the Kurds at Halabja, those "dissidents" in Waco and West Philadelphia were given the opportunity to give themselves up - i.e. they had a choice, Saddam's victims didn't. 3/. Now lets see, the US bought Louisianna from the French, the inhabitants of Texas fought their own war of independence from Mexico then decided to throw in their lot with the US, California did the same. There may have been Indian Nations but there never was a sovereign Indian State. But like I have suggested give it all back and get out of where you obviously believe you have no moral right to reside - If you are not prepared to do that, then don't quote examples from 19th century history as being in any way relevant to 21st century situations. 4/. UNSCOM inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq by the UN in 1998 as they were being harrassed and obstructed, Iraq had withdrawn all co-operation in defiance of the terms they agreed to at Safwan (sp?) at the end of "Desert Storm". UNMOVIC inspectors were withdrawn by the UN on the advice of the US Government in March 2003. On this latter occasion I am pleased to see that you admit that, "They were to some extent given a runaround on occasion", because you see the conditions that those inspectors (UNMOVIC) went into Iraq specifically said that they were to receive the full and pro-active co-operation of the Iraq authorities, failure to do so was to be considered a "material breach" of UNSC Resolution 1441. With regard to your closing remarks in this particular post - By and large, the standing of the United States of America, in the eyes of most of the world over the past fifty years, has been that it is generally regarded as a bastion of democracy and freedom, and has done more to ensure world peace and to relieve suffering in this world than any other country. Don't know how well travelled you are Nerd but I reckon I have toddled round this world about two and a half times over the past forty years. Seen lots of US Care and US Aid Supplies in the form of food, etc, in places that were described by the world's press as being "troubled". In those same places those doing the "troubling" were equipped with AK-47's and rumbling about the countryside in T-54 tanks (no prizes for saying where they came from). To GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 05:17 PM What is Ritter was right about? The WMD that he said were there are still unaccounted for. Now put yourself in the position of Bush/Blair in 2002, do you honestly mean to tell me that you would have ignored the UNSCOM report - if you would what would have been your grounds for doing so? By the way, Dr. Hans Blix has got nothing to do with the IAEA - he never has. But that serves as an indication of your knowledge on the subject and extent of your research into this matter. So there was no evidence in Iraq of any of the WMD programs the Bush/Blair administrations were saying existed. I can recall two instances, found by Dr. Blix's UNMOVIC inspectors, both of which were reported to the UN Security Council. The UNMOVIC inspectors, on their departure from Iraq gave three possible reasons for it being highly unlikely any WMD would be found in Iraq, they were as follows: 1. Because they were too well hidden 2. Because they had been removed 3. Because they had been "unofficially" destroyed at the end of Desert Storm in such a manner that their destruction could not be verified. As to who believed that Iraq possessed WMD in March 2003 we have the following: - UNMOVIC - The United Nations Security Council - USA; UK; France; Germany; Russia; Turkey; Kuwait; Saudi Arabia - The Shia and Kurdish population of Iraq The only difference of opinion between any of the above related to what threat those weapons and Iraq's capability posed. Come on Guest, don't keep it secret, what intelligence was being provided by the UN, the French, the Germans and the Russians? |
|
11 Feb 04 - 08:30 AM (#1113938) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST Teribus, did you know that most of us never read your stupid blather? Hint: if you don't want to be ignored, stop regurgitating the Cheney/Bush mantra "Have you ever heard of 9/11" and then start the Big Lies rolling. Most people in this forum aren't as easily manipulated by militaristic appeals to faux patriotism as the stupid Bubbas and NASCAR dads. We see the emperors parading around without clothes, and have the guts to say so. Michael Moore's website has a link to this excellent article at the New York Review of Books, that chronicles the abrogation of duty among American journalists in the lead up to the invasion last year. It is a very long article, but meticulously researched. It names names too, something quite rare in this day and age of pack journalism. Here it is: How the press let Bush, Cheney and the rest get away with the lies. |
|
11 Feb 04 - 08:36 AM (#1113943) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST Kerry is a Yankee liberal, and Clinton is a conservative Southern Democrat of the old school sort. I really don't see Kerry as Clinton without the sex at all. That sounds like sound bite silliness from someone supporting a candidate that isn't Kerry. I don't trust Kerry either, but then, the only candidate I do trust is Kucinich, and he has a serious charisma deficit, so you can't exactly get fired up about the guy, no matter how decent his politics are. We've been sending financial contributions to both Kerry and Dean for the better part of the year, and been telling both camps that is what we are doing. I am heartened to see that Kerry has gotten with the anti-war program for the moment. But I don't trust him. However, I most definitely will vote for him to get the Cheney/Bush crooks out. Odd isn't it, that the Democratic electorate is so unified, so psyched, so energized, yet for some reason the punditocracy didn't even have this widespread hatred of the White House occupants on their radar until two weeks ago? Gee, all the polls said Americans just LOVE the job the president is doing... |
|
11 Feb 04 - 09:30 AM (#1114003) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Teribus, You've misunderstood the point of my post. I was saying that the 19th century examples are irrelevant in exactly the same way that calling up examples of things Saddam did while we supported him with money and weapons was irrelevant. He gassed the Kurds! Well, Gareth's sympathy is commendable, but why didn't Gareth say anything WHEN IT HAPPENED instead of years later once Saddam was no longer a CIA "Asset?" And your arguments that sympathy for slaughtered Indians is only appropriate in people willing to go back to the 19th century is exactly what people would expect from you: neither logic nor feeling. |
|
11 Feb 04 - 10:01 AM (#1114035) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus GUEST 11 Feb 04 - 08:30 AM What "us" are you referring to? GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 05:17 PM GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 07:03 PM GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 08:07 PM GUEST 10 Feb 04 - 08:58 PM The same "us", that sees the emperor parading around without clothes, and have the guts to say so, but completely lacks the "guts" to put an identifying suffix to Guest so that those reading this thread can pick out which of the above are your posts. Must be a marked shortage of "guts" among you "us"'s that you have to ration them so. As far as your own post (11 Feb 04 - 08:30 AM) goes you are idiotic enough to clearly state that you (as one of the gutsy "us"'s) can't be bothered to read my post - then have the gall to accuse me of lying. Speaks volumes about you, as does your propensity to quote the contents of Michael Moore's web site as being the font of all truth - you, dear GUEST 11 Feb 04 - 08:30 AM, are just one of the bloody sheep, you wouldn't know an original thought if it jumped up and bit you on the arse. |
|
11 Feb 04 - 10:21 AM (#1114044) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST Take a chill pill, Teri Guest, |
|
11 Feb 04 - 10:23 AM (#1114046) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus Nerd, The point Gareth was making was perfectly clear, while some countries do possess these weapons, their individual track record strongly indicates that they would not employ or misuse use them. Gareth in his post listed Iraq and Saddam Hussein's behaviour with regard to those weapons. In any evaluation of potential threat, that track record becomes highly significant. I don't believe that Saddam Hussein has ever been considered as a "CIA Asset". Sorry about the lack of feeling, but in reading through our posts, not surprisingly, I would tend to say that mine are constructed rationally and logically - in this sort of exercise emotion doesn't come into it. By the bye, if you do want to know who should accept full responsibility for the war, it is bloody obvious - SADDAM HUSSEIN. |
|
11 Feb 04 - 10:26 AM (#1114048) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST In your humble opinion, you mean. Guest |
|
11 Feb 04 - 11:34 AM (#1114102) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Teribus: There was a good deal of illogic in your previous post that I ignored. For example, your defense of our takeover of half of Mexico by pointing out that separate countries (California and Texas) did that, then merged with the US later. But the invaders who established the Texas and California "republics" were white anglo-Americans. So all you're saying is that the US government allowed its citizens to invade and attack other countries independently, then validated those invasions by allowing the countries thus established back into the US. Convenient, but it still amounts to an invasion. There is also inaccuracy: There may have been Indian Nations but there never was a sovereign Indian State. The US signed treaties with Indian nations that made them sovereign states, then violated those treaties later. In the landmark 1832 Worcester V. Georgia decision, for example, the US found that From the commencement of our government Congress has passed acts to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians; which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford that protection which treaties stipulate. All these acts, and especially that of 1802, which is still in force, manifestly consider the several Indian nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guaranteed by the United States. . . . The Cherokee Nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States. In other words, the Cherokee Nation is a separate state, and as such only the government of the United States is of equal stature, and only the Government of the United States can negotiate with them. The fact that we decided these treaties were inconvenient does not mean they were never there. Anyway, on to the next post: while some countries do possess these weapons, their individual track record strongly indicates that they would not employ or misuse use them. That was true of the Soviets, less true of us. We are the only country to have used nuclear weapons, for example. But we constantly acted as if the Soviets were a bigger threat. Now I'm not saying I admire the Stalinist purges or anything, but you have to understand the rest of the world's reluctance to trust America now that we have a doctrine of "pre-emptive war." I don't believe that Saddam Hussein has ever been considered as a "CIA Asset". Indeed he was. He was one of a group of people used by the US to monitor the Qasim regime, and according to many sources was part of the US engineered assassination attempt on Qasim in 1959. According to UPI intelligence reporter Richard Sale (see the article here): According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements. Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account. Darwish said that Saddam's paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attache at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate. The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Hussein was whisked away by us and the Egyptians into Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said. We helped along the Baathist takeover as well. Though we did not initiate the coup, we provided the Baathists with lists of suspected communists, whom they hunted down and killed. We were probably not directly responsible for Hussein coming to power either; he did that in a "Palace Coup." But he maintained friendly relations with the US for years thereafter, receiving aid and comfort that allowed him to gas the Kurds with little more than an angry word from us. He had always considered Kuwait to be part of Iraq in much the same way that that the PRC considers Taiwan to be part of China. When about to invade Kuwait and press his claim, he contacted the US Embassy to make sure we would not object. He met with April Glaspie, and had this conversation (the transcript is Iraqui, but it jibes well with Glaspie's own cable of the event). Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death. U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable? Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this? U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. So we essentially gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait, then reversed our decision days later and decided he was, in the current Bush's words, "a Madman." So the point is, you're wrong about that too. By the way, it's interesting that the only people enthusiastically defending Kerry on this thread are likely to vote for Bush. I worry what this may presage for the general election, when Nader is challenging from the left and unenthusiastic democrats might stay home. |
|
11 Feb 04 - 01:40 PM (#1114189) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus Very good Nerd, very good. California and Texas were "invaded" by white anglo-americans were they? Quite a good proportion of the white europeans in Texas were already there, Scots who having left Scotland and who did not wish to live under British rule in Canada were one rather large group. Regarding your quotes relating to the 1832 Worcester v Georgia decision. You omit to clarify that what you quote is not the wording of a Treaty but the judgement of US Supreme Court Justice Marshall, and it also omits the fact that this judgement did not supercede the terms of the 1830 Indian Removal Act. Next point in which you are attempting to say that the USA was a greater threat to world peace during the "cold war" than the Soviet Union. Of course they did not liberate eastern european countries, ruthlessly crush all opposition parties and supplant the governments of those countries with their own puppet communist regimes. They did not close off the borders of those countries with those countries in europe, fortunate enough to have been liberated from the west. They did not threaten Yugoslavia with invasion for accepting Marshall Aid. They did not try to force the other allied powers out of Berlin. They did not ruthlessly put down a workers strike in Berlin, or a popular uprising in Hungary. They did not invade Czechosolvakia, they did not try to forment trouble anywhere and everywhere in the world that they could. Now I wonder where I actually was where I observed all that going on. By the way, the doctrine of "pre-emptive war" has been an established reality since the USSR acquired nuclear weapons. What has countered that has been the developement of, first, "second strike capability", and second, the principle of "Mutually Assured Destruction". As to whether, or not, Saddam Hussein was ever a "CIA Asset", it is a pity you didn't print the whole article - it is pretty obvious from that article that he Saddam was in the pay of the Egyptians, that the CIA at the time were working with the Egyptians is not disputed, but that is not the same as saying that Saddam Hussein knowingly worked for the CIA . You also fail to point out that once Qasim was overthrown and The Ba'athist faction to which Saddam belonged took power, there were no diplomatic ties with the US between 1967 and mid to late 1980's, the contacts, both diplomatically and militarily, forged with Russia continued throughout that period - so that does not quite equate with Saddam and Iraq maintaining friendly relations with the US for years thereafter. The condemnation of the attack at Halabja were universally condemned by a great number of nations throughout the world, unfortunately playing by the United Nations rules that was just about all anybody could do. As to Kuwait, it has never been part of Iraq, it was never even part of the Caliphate of Baghdad in the days of the Ottoman Empire (It paid taxes to the Caliph of Baghdad for protection, there is a bit of a difference). Even before the start of the First World War, the ruler of Kuwait put Kuwait under the protection of the British. Iraq has signed a number of treaties recognising the sovereignty of Kuwait, which kind of rips apart your contention that he thought Kuwait was part of Iraq (I thought you believed in treaties?). A parallel in the history of Britain, England has always thought of Scotland and wales being theirs, them thinking that, and that being the case are two very different things. Oh, the conversation between Saddam and the US Ambassador (In which Saddam was given the "green light", nudge, nudge, wink, wink). As can be seen from the reaction of that lady's superiors back in Washington - She Fucked Up - and both she and Saddam were told that in no uncertain terms within days of that interview taking place. On that issue I am wrong about damn all. Thanks for the information I didn't know that Nader was running, must admire that lad's stamina - and sense of humour. One thing I did uncover as I was scrambling about, that I was unaware of before and has not been mentioned anywhere else, and this might have been of interest to the current US administration, US intelligence agencies and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In January 1999 UNSCOM reported to the United Nations, in February 1999, Russia signed a contract with Iraq to upgrade Iraq's air force, wonder why they thought they might that doing?? |
|
11 Feb 04 - 01:48 PM (#1114197) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Gareth: Saddam Hussein _didn't_ kick out the inspectors in 1998. They were pulled voluntarily while Clinton was preparing military strikes. And Dubya's (twice-repeated) claim that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in has to rank as the most astounding public hallucination exhibited by a head of state in recent memory. Cheers, -- Arne Langsetmo |
|
11 Feb 04 - 02:37 PM (#1114236) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Peter K (Fionn) Gareth - hmmm. (To quote your favourite word.) What you boast about, or don't, has nothing to do with it. And what's so special about Saddam using chemical weapons against his enemies? What was the US doing in Vietnam? Teribus, could you enlarge on that observation you made near the top: Iraq's support for foreign terrorist groups is known and maybe give one or two sources? (I notice you're still prepared to rely on the BBC when it suits your argument.) And while you're on the subject, could you explain why 9/11 would give the Senate Foreign Relations Committee cause to re-evaluate the relationship with Iraq? Any Al Qaeda activity in Iraq would seem to have come after (and no doubt because of) the US invasion. Saddam and Bin Laden were not exactly buddies, for fairly obvious reasons. |
|
11 Feb 04 - 02:40 PM (#1114237) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: DougR Teribus: pay no attention to Guest. Most of us don't read his/her posts anyway. And there you go again, confusing us folks with facts. DougR |
|
11 Feb 04 - 03:16 PM (#1114269) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST So, let's recap then... Who exactly is allowed to have WMD's? Pakistan lied about their role in all of this, and nobody seems to be seriously thinking of going in to unseat Musharraf. Is it one law for the haves, and one law for the have-nots, I wonder? What do you reckon, DougR? Guest |
|
11 Feb 04 - 04:01 PM (#1114300) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST, the third "...but in reading through our posts, not surprisingly, I would tend to say that mine are constructed rationally and logically..." Talk about having an overbloated opinion of yourself.... They should call you Teribush |
|
11 Feb 04 - 04:44 PM (#1114327) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth Hmmm ! - I think there is a difference between "Agent Orange" - a defoliant, and incapacitating gasses. And for good measure the intent of use. However I see no logic in comparison, two wrongs to not make a right. I am concerned with the spread of WMD's, even "pocket versions", at the present time Pakistan and most other states believd to be inpossesion of these are responsive to diplomatic presure, not an acusation that could have been laid at Saddam Hussain. (And yes I am aware of the now known properties of Agent Orange, that is why good old British Rail stopped using varients as a trackside defoliant. I take it no pedant is going to accuse British Rail of using chemical weapons against it's staff and passengers) |
|
11 Feb 04 - 07:11 PM (#1114444) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth Oooops! - Nerd - I missed it on the first reading - possibly submerged in the blether - Fortunatley your hysteria in another thread prompted me to go back and read again. As a point of record I did protest about the gassing of the Kurds and other dissedents, not that it had any effect on Margret Thatchers support for SH. Indeed Ann Clwyd MP organised several "public meetings" on the subject. Unlike those in the US of A who only took an interest in Iraqui matters when GWB Jnr did one of the few decent things of his life. And I speak as a Welshman, one of those that B***H condemed as the "Enemy Within" Gareth |
|
11 Feb 04 - 08:52 PM (#1114525) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: CarolC According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account. --Nerd As to whether, or not, Saddam Hussein was ever a "CIA Asset", it is a pity you didn't print the whole article - it is pretty obvious from that article that he Saddam was in the pay of the Egyptians, that the CIA at the time were working with the Egyptians is not disputed, but that is not the same as saying that Saddam Hussein knowingly worked for the CIA . --Terribus If it was a US plot, and if he had a CIA handler, I think we can safely say he was working on behalf of, or at the behest of the CIA, regardless of who signed his paycheck. And there you go again, confusing us folks with facts. --DougR I don't think those are facts he's trying to confuse us with there, DougR. |
|
12 Feb 04 - 02:17 AM (#1114637) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST There is an obscure law in England, which permits the killing of Welshmen after midnight, with a bow and arrow within the city walls of Chester. |
|
12 Feb 04 - 03:04 AM (#1114645) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Gareth, Thank you for accusing me of hysteria. I always like it when things remain civil. |
|
12 Feb 04 - 03:22 AM (#1114650) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Now for Teribus; my replies follow excerpts of your statements. California and Texas were "invaded" by white anglo-americans were they? Quite a good proportion of the white europeans in Texas were already there, Scots who having left Scotland and who did not wish to live under British rule in Canada were one rather large group. To claim the republic of Texas was not an Anglo-American establishment is absurd. Almost all the civil and military leaders were American. Sam Houston was born in Virginia, Jim Bowie in Kentucky, James Fannon in Georgia, Ed Burleson in North Carolina, Ben Milam in Kentucky, William Travis in South Carolina, etc., etc. The Texas Declaration of Independence very specifically states that the independent Texans were separating from Mexico in order to "continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America. Funny, but Scotland isn't mentioned in there at all. In other words, they set up the Republic of Texas in order to be Anglo-Americans living under American laws, which is why they allowed themselves to be annexed by the U.S. a mere nine years later. It is true that the Mexicans allowed the Anglo-American settlers initially to come in, settle, and become Mexican. But it turns out they didn't want to be Mexican, they wanted to be American. So they attacked Mexican forces, took over the land, and joined back up with the US. This would be like a group of my friends deciding to "emigrate" to Canada, settling there, then forming an army, starting a war, taking over a bunch of land, and giving it freely to the U.S. as a 51st state. I think the Canadians would consider that an invasion orchestrated by Americans. Regarding your quotes relating to the 1832 Worcester v Georgia decision. You omit to clarify that what you quote is not the wording of a Treaty but the judgement of US Supreme Court Justice Marshall, and it also omits the fact that this judgement did not supercede the terms of the 1830 Indian Removal Act. Huh? When did I say it was the wording of a treaty? I said it was a decision. I also fail to see the relevance of the Removal Act, which was in violation of the very treaties this SC decision upheld. As I said before, just because these treaties had become inconvenient, and were ultimately illegally violated by the US, does not mean they never existed. So to reiterate: In 1832 the Supreme Court found that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign country, and by the way specifically cited a previous 1802 law that was in force BEFORE the Removal Act you mention. Next point in which you are attempting to say that the USA was a greater threat to world peace during the "cold war" than the Soviet Union. Boy, it's annoying when you try to tell people what they're attempting to say. It's a well-known power tactic in verbal jiu jitsu, but I won't fall for it. What I was attempting to say was exactly what I said: that judging by our record of past action, the US was more likely to employ WMD than the USSR. We had used an atomic bomb, the USSR never had. That's a pretty clear record. As to whether, or not, Saddam Hussein was ever a "CIA Asset", it is a pity you didn't print the whole article - it is pretty obvious from that article that he Saddam was in the pay of the Egyptians, that the CIA at the time were working with the Egyptians is not disputed, but that is not the same as saying that Saddam Hussein knowingly worked for the CIA . Irrelevant. I said he was a CIA asset. Asset is a term for anyone from whom the CIA regularly extracts intel, whether they know it or not. Some of our greatest assets are the folks who don't know they are giving us intel: spies whose cover is blown, etc. My point was that, for many years Saddam was being handled and run by the CIA. Many of his successes and those of his party were orchestrated by us. And, the article makes it pretty clear that he DID know of our involvement at some points; for example, when we encouraged him to demand a raise from the Egyptians! Certainly after the Baathist takeover he was aware of our friendly stance toward him, as we supplied intel on the suspected communists so he could have a Stalin-style purge. Thanks, Uncle Sam! If I had said he was an agent, that would have been a different matter. As to Kuwait, it has never been part of Iraq (...) A parallel in the history of Britain, England has always thought of Scotland and wales being theirs, them thinking that, and that being the case are two very different things. Also irrelevant. I was not saying that Saddam's claims on Kuwait were valid, merely that he viewed the matter as a border dispute and that April Glaspie agreed with him. In much the same way, the US doesn't openly intervene in the troubles in Northern Ireland. That doesn't imply that British claims are valid, and it doesn't imply they aren't. Oh, the conversation between Saddam and the US Ambassador (In which Saddam was given the "green light", nudge, nudge, wink, wink). As can be seen from the reaction of that lady's superiors back in Washington - She Fucked Up - and both she and Saddam were told that in no uncertain terms within days of that interview taking place. On that issue I am wrong about damn all. Oops, you put a word in the wrong place. You must have meant to say "I am damn wrong about all." :-) Glaspie said to the head of state of the country to which she was the US ambassador that she had received specific instructions from the US Secretary of State on the matter. I find it hard to believe she was lying. I find it much easier to believe the administration hung her out to dry after it decided to re-classify Saddam as a "madman." Thanks for the information I didn't know that Nader was running, must admire that lad's stamina - and sense of humour. He has not announced this yet, but I suspect he will. One thing I did uncover as I was scrambling about, that I was unaware of before and has not been mentioned anywhere else, and this might have been of interest to the current US administration, US intelligence agencies and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In January 1999 UNSCOM reported to the United Nations, in February 1999, Russia signed a contract with Iraq to upgrade Iraq's air force, wonder why they thought they might that doing?? Wonder what you thought you might that saying?? (sorry, I couldn't resist. But I really don't know what you are trying to imply!) |
|
12 Feb 04 - 06:46 AM (#1114740) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth So Nerd - If Saddam Hussain was a creation of the US of A ? Does that not give the US of A a moral duty to dispose of him ???? Gareth |
|
12 Feb 04 - 06:53 AM (#1114744) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST Got any children, Gareth...?????????????????? |
|
12 Feb 04 - 07:12 AM (#1114748) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus Nerd, In intelligence terms an "Asset" is someone you "own" and control. The article you quoted from clearly shows that Sadam Hussein was an Egyptian asset, who, when it was required, was assisted by the CIA. The US Ambassador in Iraq, was simply that, her country's representative in that country. For her to speak on behalf of her country, on such a matter, she would have had to have been granted plenipotentionary powers, those she certainly did not have, as her mistake was corrected almost immediately by her superiors. Sorry Nerd I was wondering why the Iraqi's might want to have their air force upgraded immediately after the UN inspection teams had been withdrawn. The upgrade if carried out then elevates whatever capability the Iraqi's have from tactical to strategic. The conditions and situation that prompted the US to develope, construct and use the atomic bomb were what? Did they develope it in peacetime then use it to threaten and subjugate another country - No they did not. It was developed during time of war and used in order to force Japan's surrender without there having to be an opposed landing on the Japanese mainland (i.e. in order to save allied lives). It was developed in time of war because as early as 1941 it was known that the Germans were working to develope the same weapon (here the choice was a bit starker, and the motivation greater, get it first or lose the war). If you actually believe that, "judging by our record of past action, the US was more likely to employ WMD than the USSR.", perhaps you could explain why, in the period before the USSR obtained their bomb, they didn't use it when temptation and opportunity presented itself. Peter K, Under Saddam Hussein's leadership Iraq supported the following foreign terrorist groups: - MKO, active in Iran - PLF, active in Palestine/Israel - ALF, active in Palestine/Israel - Abu Nidal Organisation, international - PKK, active in Turkey The support provided included, provision of safe haven, finance, training facilities, arms and explosives, and medical attention. Sources - just Google "Iraq support of terrorist groups". In general there is nothing wrong with the BBC as a news service, in the Gilligan/WMD fiasco, I believe that they, the BBC, were in error. I believe that post 9/11 the US evaluated the potential threat posed by a number of states that were known to sponser terrorist groups in general, not necessarily Al-Qaeda . Why Iraq in particular? Because the disarmament and inspection effort required by the UN had foundered completely, the likelyhood of Saddam Hussein providing material and know how to such groups could not be ignored. |
|
12 Feb 04 - 08:31 AM (#1114792) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST Has Teribus ever actually been to Michael Moore's website? One very good reason to go there, is because the webmaster there provides links to articles on the Internet from a wide variety of sources. The actual article I provide a link to above is actually one published by the New York Review of Books. Perhaps Teribus is not familiar with them, but because the link can be found at Michael Moore's website, has pre-emptively decided that the NYRB must not be a legitimate source of information. Like I said, I think Teribus makes a good NASCAR Bubba. |
|
12 Feb 04 - 08:46 AM (#1114806) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,another guest I think Teribus is a sheep |
|
12 Feb 04 - 09:04 AM (#1114820) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Peter K (Fionn) Thanks Teribus. I don't know aobut all those organisations, but I do know that the Abu Nidal faction (aka Black September) moved out of IRaq more than 20 years ago, having ben there from when it split with the PLO in the mid-70s. (In those days Iraq was a valued trading partner of the west of course.) The MKO which helped secure the downfall of the Shah's regime and now opposes excessive clericalism in Iran, has been virtually moribund in terms of violence/terrorism since the 1980s. It is concerned largely with propaganda and street demos. I'm suprised if there was any significant link between PKK and Saddam given the mutual hostility between them. None of this adds up to case for invading Iraq in response to 9/11. And neither does the feeble last paragraph of your 7.12am post above. The view that the UN process had "foundered completely" was a unilateral opinion on a matter that should have been decided by the UN. It is preposterous that until a fortnight ago Bush and Blair were pleading for more time for the survey group, when they had refused a similar request from Blix and Co. Did they have to invade the place to discover that Iraq is "as big as France"? |
|
12 Feb 04 - 11:02 AM (#1114896) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Teribus, you are wrong about the meaning of a CIA "asset," but neither of us will convince the other. The US Ambassador in Iraq, was simply that, her country's representative in that country. For her to speak on behalf of her country, on such a matter, she would have had to have been granted plenipotentionary powers, those she certainly did not have, as her mistake was corrected almost immediately by her superiors. Like I said, she claimed to have had specific instructions from the Secretary of State about what to say. Do you think she was lying? In this circumtance, it doesn't matter if she had plenipotentiary powers or not because she was simply relaying a message from the Secretary. I did not say that her word consituted the official position of the US government, merely that Saddam was allowed to think they did. Sorry Nerd I was wondering why the Iraqi's might want to have their air force upgraded immediately after the UN inspection teams had been withdrawn. The upgrade if carried out then elevates whatever capability the Iraqi's have from tactical to strategic. Why wouldn't they want their air force upgraded? For someone eager to see WMD strategies everywhere, every aluminum tube and trailer house is evidence. But this one wouldn't even count as a "weapons of mass destruction related program activity." Plenty of countries have an air force without using WMD. As to your question of why the US didn't use more Atomic bombs when temptation and opportunity presented themselves...Uh, when do you mean exactly? There are MANY reasons for not using nuclear weapons, primarily that they render the area that is bombed more or less uninhabitable for a good long time. (This became an even bigger problem after "better" bombs were developed) It's not really a very useful weapon except in a situation where you are fighting a long-distance war against an enemy whose country you have no intention of occupying. So there are few situations in which anyone would use it. Would we have used it in Viet Nam? Probably not; we were trying to establish one type of government in place of another type. Would the Soviets have used it in Afghanistan? Probably not. What would they do with a bombed Afghanistan, and how would they deal with the fallout that drifted into the USSR? The US and USSR were both acting as a new form of colonial power, trying to get different countries into our respective economic and political camps. Little good would have come of bombing any of them. That said, you had said that while some countries do possess these weapons, their individual track record strongly indicates that they would not employ or misuse use them. I was simply pointing out that only ONE country had ANY track record of employing nuclear weapons, the United States. |
|
12 Feb 04 - 11:16 AM (#1114904) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Metchosin Teribus, I find it interesting too that you have the PKK on your list, the US supported them as well, guess it just depended on what direction the PKKs weapons were pointing on a given day, those poor buggers couldn't win for loosing. Under various leaders the USA has supported the following foreign terrorist groups: CIA Support of Death Squads Or as Kissinger once stated, "One must not confuse the intelligence business with missionary work." |
|
12 Feb 04 - 01:18 PM (#1114992) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus Peter K, You asked me for information concerning Saddam Husein's support of terrorist organisations. As you have now found out for yourself, evidence of such support, spanning the entire period that Saddam was in power, exists. Are you suggesting, that it would have been advisable for the US to ignore that track record in their evaluation of whether, or not, Saddam would be likely to support such groups in the future? How would you describe the UNSCOM inspection programme between December 1998 and September 2002? Up until such time that the US brought the matter before the Security Council of the United Nations, the fact of the matter was, that in that time no inspections had taken place and Iraq downright refused to allow any inspection team into the country. I think "completly foundered" covers it fairly accurately, I don't think that it would have needed any great decision by the UN to declare what was a blatantly obvious fact. The UN had failed once again, and the only reason the IAEA and UNMOVIC teams were allowed to go back to Iraq was due to pressure applied by the USA and the UK - another fact, one that even the good Dr. Blix has given both countries credit for. |
|
12 Feb 04 - 02:02 PM (#1115018) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,09085623 On T.V the other night, Blix said there was no pressure at all. But while they were in there, there was loads of it. Where are you getting these throwaway statements from, Teribus? |
|
12 Feb 04 - 02:15 PM (#1115029) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST At the time in question according to Teribus, 1998-2002, the UN wasn't planning a pre-emptive invasion of any of the countries refusing inspections by the IAEA, including Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Nor were they planning pre-emptive invasions of the US for the US refusal to allow IAEA inspections. Speaking of throwaway statements, Teribus style. Teribus is a not a critical thinker, he is a party man, who ALWAYS spouts the party line. The party line of right wing militarists everywhere. |
|
12 Feb 04 - 02:32 PM (#1115047) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,another guest "Teribus is a not a critical thinker, he is a party man, who ALWAYS spouts the party line" A sheep, in other words. |
|
12 Feb 04 - 04:19 PM (#1115093) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: CarolC You asked me for information concerning Saddam Husein's support of terrorist organisations. As you have now found out for yourself, evidence of such support, spanning the entire period that Saddam was in power, exists. Are you suggesting, that it would have been advisable for the US to ignore that track record in their evaluation of whether, or not, Saddam would be likely to support such groups in the future? As we have seen, the US, itself, supports terrorist organizations. Do you think the rest of the world should ignore this track record? I don't. Let's have support for the international court and have them examine these practices regardless of who is doing them, whether it's someone like Saddam, or the Bush (or Reagan, or Clinton, etc.) administration. |
|
12 Feb 04 - 04:41 PM (#1115101) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth No I have not got any children, that I know of, but if I had I would feel a lot happier for thier fuiture with Saddan Hussain removed. PS - Those who attack Terribus might consider whose party line they are following - More friends of Saddam Hussain perhaps ? Gareth |
|
13 Feb 04 - 09:48 AM (#1115226) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,09086532 "If Saddam Hussain was a creation of the US of A ? Does that not give the US of A a moral duty to dispose of him ????..." Your children (or future children) would be a creation of yourself, Gareth. Does that give you the moral duty to dispose of them? Any objections, by the way, to CarolC's suggestion? And if you have, why would you have them? |
|
13 Feb 04 - 12:32 PM (#1115293) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth Yes it does. Gareth |
|
13 Feb 04 - 01:27 PM (#1115330) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk I think Saddam has fewer friends than you imagine, Gareth. To oppose American aggression is not to admire or support Saddam Hussein. For you to suggest that it does is a sort of spurious hate propaganda. One hears that sort of thing a lot in political debates. It's a very nasty tactic. |
|
13 Feb 04 - 01:46 PM (#1115338) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,09086532 The guy would dispose of his own children, LH, what do you expect? Next please.... |
|
13 Feb 04 - 06:28 PM (#1115479) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: DougR I, for one, would object to what Carol C. suggests. The U. S. should NEVER allow the World Court to decide ANYTHING remotely connected to the security of the United States. We are a sovereign state and ever will be (unless some of you lefties get your way and I don't think you will). DougR |
|
13 Feb 04 - 07:11 PM (#1115526) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth Well GUEST,09086532 Ask a stupid question, and you get an appropriate answer. Now I will ask you a question. You have a dog. It goes violently rabid, what do you do ?, what is your responsability ?. Or possibly ? You have a child, you are aware that it will grow up into another Pol Pot, Franco, or Saddam Hussain. The Child will not respond to therepy etc. What would you do ? ( And I mention Franco deliberatly ! ) Gareth |
|
13 Feb 04 - 07:24 PM (#1115535) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,09086532 Why not? Is the Court Of Human Rights a bad thing, then? If you were a victim of human rights abuse, would you not be crying to these very organisations for justice? The problem I find with much of the World today; and I'm sure I'll be accused of over-simplification, is the total lack of empathy people have. Right-wingers have a remarkable gift for it It's easy (and comforting) for us to sit in our ivory, 1st World towers, and pass judgement on everything that does not conform to our idea of the World. But the minute your home is broken into, or the second somebody drives into you, you'd be hot on the phone, getting the cops down there pronto. Well, DougR, there are more innocent victims in this World, than the ones that would spring first to your mind (and mine, incidentally). America, of course, has a right to defend it's own security. Every state has. But who should be allowed to get away with murder? What if the State came and took you away some day, or a member of your family, (heaven forbid) confusing you, or them, with somebody else, or laying fantastic charges at your door? This is the empathy I'm talking about, and just because it's not happening to you, does not mean that it doesn't take up the whole day for somebody else. The innocents and victims on all sides have to have a voice. Especially because you(or someone you know)may one day have need of the same avenues of recourse. |
|
13 Feb 04 - 07:30 PM (#1115538) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Don Hakman Michael Moore did a great movie about bombing Canada since the cold war left us without clear cut enemies. Canadian Bacon. |
|
13 Feb 04 - 07:32 PM (#1115540) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,09086532 ... the dog is not my creation, and I would never put my child's life in danger NO MATTER WHAT. But how the hell could anybody pose such a childish hypothesis? What would you do if you knew that you were going to be knocked down by a car tomorrow? Would you believe that nothing really matters anyway, (given the wider scheme of things). Make love, not war, Gareth |
|
13 Feb 04 - 07:45 PM (#1115551) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth The Dog may not be your creation - But its your responsability ! And, of course, you can always put a Photograph on top of your book case "My Son - The Mass Murderer !" Empathy I have, I also have sense of respobsibility. And, Errr ? Who ? was making infant 'skool' debating points ? Gareth |
|
13 Feb 04 - 08:01 PM (#1115558) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,09086532 Rabies = Weapons of Mass Destruction, right? Did I give it to him? No. The responsibility is off me, Gareth. The law determines some things, and human law is different from canine law, anyway. So it's a bad (or childish) comparison, as I said I did not physically inject the poor animal with the virus, and refuse to give him the antidote, to continue your chosen theme. And your sense of responsibility would be better directed to your hypothetical children, instead of on the word of some behavioural psychologist, or fortune teller who would have you doubt your sense of empathy. |
|
13 Feb 04 - 08:08 PM (#1115560) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: CarolC The problem is that every time we take out one of the "monsters" we have created in the past, we create at least one, sometimes many more monsters in the process. It just keeps getting worse. And nothing we do is ever for the purpose of upholding human rights. We only use human rights as an excuse when it helps us to promote agendas that have nothing to do with human rights, and are often in direct opposition to the principles of human rights. |
|
13 Feb 04 - 08:29 PM (#1115578) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST Gareth, you're a fool. Go to bed. |
|
14 Feb 04 - 01:21 AM (#1115667) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd DougR thinks we're a sovereign state and should NEVER let the world court decide anything REMOTELY connected with US security. But we don't have to respect other sovereign states, and we are free to use UN violations as a pretext to attack them. Isn't that the definition of a double standard? Here's another point: those of you who have been defending the war will quite likely vote for Bush. The rest of us may well vote for the Democratic candidate instead. But, given that Kerry is specifically mentioned by Ritter as having purposely perpetuated the administration's falsehoods about WMD, I wonder if some of you will join me in trying to get another Democrat nominated instead? Kerry also supported the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind, and didn't bother to vote on the medicare bill; but now he claims he opposes all three, just as he claims he oppses the war and abhors the falsehoods that Scott Ritter says he helped perpetuate! It's not too late. Kerry has less than a third of the delegates he needs. Whatever the media says about momentum, it's only true if we the voters let it be true. Think about it: the media's constantly harping on "momentum" is a way of saying we don't really have a choice! They want to force voters to pick their favorite candidate and so far they are doing a pretty good job. I'm going to vote for Howard Dean in my primary. Those of you who supported Clark: I know he has endorsed Kerry, and I don't blame him. He obviously HAD to to have any chance of a future in the party, and he will be very good for the party. But you don't have to vote for Kerry. Clark's message was one of an outsider coming in to reform Washington. Dean's the only one left who fits the bill. I realize that I may have to vote for Kerry as the far lesser of two evils in November, but this is the primary season. I don't think the media-driven idea of momentum, or the blatant favoritism of the party insiders, should decide who we vote for now. |
|
14 Feb 04 - 06:23 AM (#1115737) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Peter K (Fionn) Poor Teribus must be reading Gareth's recent posts and thinking that with friends like that, he doesn't need enemies! When I asked Teribus for evidence of Saddam's support for terrorists, he came up with a list that was self-evidently pathetic. In a subsequent post he followed up with this colossal non sequitor: "As you have now found out for yourself, evidence of such support, spanning the entire period that Saddam was in power, exists." So that T'bus has no excuse for misunderstanding me, let me make it clear that I agree with those who have pointed out here that Saddam's record in supporting terrorist organisations fell far short of the records of several other countries, including the US. Furthermore the US had lived with terrorism in the world, even right there in Oklahoma, before 9/11 and knew that 9/11 was quite specifically an Al Qaida crime. To create a so-called "war" against terrorism in general was a ludicrous reaction, and a very fragile thread on which to hang the justification for invading Iraq, which was patently not the worst (or even potentially worst) supporter of terrorist organisations. For one thing, Saddam was hostile to Islamic fundamentalism, both Sunni and Shiite. If there was any rationale in US thinking at that time (which if you take oil out of the equation, there was not) then Saudi Arabia would have been the logical target. Teribus now concedes that his reference to the UN inspection regime foundering "completely," concerned a specific period that ended several months before war was declared. Even in respect of that period of (arguably) perceived threat to world security, he was rather too squeamish to argue that it warranted wholesale invasion by the US, but said merely that it "couldn't be ignored." Was Teribus skirting close to accepting that there can be such a thing as a non-military solution? |
|
14 Feb 04 - 01:50 PM (#1115923) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Frankham At the risk of receiving another flame, I will say this about Kerry. Ritter's statement is simplistic. "But John Kerry seems to share in this culpability, and if he wants to be the next president of the United States, he must first convince the American people that his actions somehow differ from those of the man he seeks to replace." Maybe, maybe not. It depends upon how he interpreted the intelligence given to him at the time. He, however, was not responsible for the unilateral pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Aside from Ritter's accusations, there is no credible evidence to support this view. He may have been confused on the issue. Who wasn't? He is a military guy and this motivates his thinking. I understand that Dean supported the Vietnam War and that Kucinich did not. Does this make Dean an accomplice to the debacle in Vietnam? Frank |
|
14 Feb 04 - 04:05 PM (#1115993) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Don Firth This is a fairly long read, but if anyone wants an insight into John Kerry's feelings about war—or an insight into John Kerry in general—you'll find it HERE. Don Firth |
|
14 Feb 04 - 06:54 PM (#1116051) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth Oh Dear Fionn is demonstarting his stupidity again. Peter - you forgot your intellectual non English quote i the post. Designed to make you look more intelligent than you are. Stick to trying to find a parlimentary seat - If you can !!! Gareth |
|
14 Feb 04 - 07:08 PM (#1116060) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Frank, you needn't fear a flame from me. I think we both thought we were being flamed by the other in that other thread. But as I said when all was done there, I do respect you and your opinions! I think your own response, though, is simplistic in the same way that Ritter's statement is. It's partly true, as you say, that Kerry was not responsible for the unilateral attack on Iraq. He did not give the order, in other words. But then again, it's equally true that he IS responsible for it. If the Congress had not given Bush the authority to do that, Bush would not have been politically in a position to do it. So Kerry didn't pull the trigger, but he gave Bush the gun. As Ritter points out, one of the main issues is that Kerry prevented dissenting expert opinion from being heard by the committee. Being confused about the issue is no excuse not to seek evidence from all sides. If he didn't do so, maybe he wouldn't be such a good president. Finally, a point of evidence: do you have evidence that Dean supported the Vietnam war? I've been involved with his campaign for a year, and I've never heard that. What would that even mean? He was about 19 at the time, and not a politician. He registered for the draft, was drafted, and was listed 4F for a back problem so he couldn't serve. But I don't think he ever went on record supporting the war! |
|
14 Feb 04 - 07:13 PM (#1116065) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth Nerd - I do not know enough to say if Dean did or did not support the war in Viet-Nam. I do know enough to know that if Dean ever made a statement either way, or what may be considered ambiguos the Bush Jnr animals will find it (or invent it) to prove whatever they like. Gareth |
|
14 Feb 04 - 09:59 PM (#1116126) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Gareth, He was 19 years old. He was a private citizen, not a particularly political person, not from a prominent political family, and his words were not being written down by anyone. Good luck finding his comments. I think Frank was probably thinking of very public statements Dean has made about having supported the first Gulf War, which is a very different thing. But I still await evidence to see if Frank is right on this. I suspect there were other reasons for Dean to remain silent about the war too. Dean's brother Charlie disappeared in Laos, and although he was not in the military, he was for some reason listed as MIA by the government. Dean and others in his family suspected that Charlie was a US covert operative of some kind--CIA, etc. They still don't know for sure. The only comments I ever heard Dean make about the war were about his own failing the draft physical and about Charlie. The press looked into the former pretty closely, tried to insinuate draft-dodging, etc. None of it stuck. Political support for the Viet Nam war is not that big a political issue among this generation, I think. All of these candidates were too young for their support to be meaningful. They did not vote in committee or in Congress on the war, etc. If they went out of their way to protest, as Kerry did after he served, that will be on the public record. But if they went about their daily lives, or even if they served as Clark and Kerry did, that does not count as "support." Service may well be an issue, but it has not been for at least twelve years; Clinton beat (WWII Vet) Bush I, then Clinton beat (WWII hero) Bob Dole, and then (Vietnam Vet) Al Gore lost to Bush II. In all these cases, the person who did NOT serve in the war won. Kerry wants to make war service a big issue this year. So did Bush I, Dole, and Gore. It hasn't worked that well recently, but Kerry may be luckier. |
|
15 Feb 04 - 06:22 AM (#1116257) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth Nerd - It aint me who will be looking for those comments, it will be a Republican "Hit Team" Gareth |
|
15 Feb 04 - 07:54 AM (#1116294) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Peter K (Fionn) Nerd, it's well worth following that link provided by Don (for which many thanks, Don). There is indeed a lot to read, but it tells you everything you need to know about Kerry's attitude (at quite a young age, as you have pointed out) to the Vietnam conflict, and to war in general. Gareth. I have repeatedly made clear to you that I have never sought a parliamentary seat and never will. Do you persist in lying about this because lying is in your nature or because you are driven to it by malice? On the evidence of this Mudcat archive, you have spent several months trawling through my posts, and prying into all aspects of my life (you know exactly who I am, though I have not got a clue who you are, despite your hysterical and repeated boasts that "Gareth" is your real name), and making all kinds of imbecile allegations which you have neither withdrawn nor substantiated. Please cite whatever evidence you have uncovered to support your assertion that I have the slightest interest in finding a parliamentary seat, so that Mudcatters can judge for themselves my own assertion that you are a vindictive and cowardly (ie anonymous) liar. I would willingly respond to the other point you addressed to me - "Peter - you forgot your intellectual non English quote i the post. Designed to make you look more intelligent than you are" - but could make no sense of it. |
|
15 Feb 04 - 01:18 PM (#1116421) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: DougR If other nations choose to have the World Court decide issues important to their security, I say, have at it. That's their business. No need to repeat my attitude toward that court I already posted it. DougR |
|
15 Feb 04 - 05:51 PM (#1116560) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert The world is not yet ready for a World Court but will get there as mankind realizes that war and *other* human rights violations is a *luxary* it can no longer afford. And when that day come, contrary to how my pal Dougie feels, the United States, and a health majority of it's citizens, will be eager to sign on. But that won't happen until (and unless) the NASCAR/Budweizer/ CountryMusic generation moves along. Bobert |
|
15 Feb 04 - 07:58 PM (#1116622) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth Ah Fionn, intelectual argument never was your strength. Insults were obviously your forte, rather than argument. ( Sorry forte is a word you would not understand ) (And if any 'Catter doubts this I suggest they spend a little time reading back posts from Fionn) I see you nare now having to return to suggesting I dont exist, or use my real name - Fine, I dare say there are 'Catters around who know me, my Name Gareth Williams, and my address, telephone number etc. and why these details are frequently published on the Internet. The fact that you do not know these speaks volumns for your lack of intelligence and commitment. - Unless you are lying of course! If I have spent more than a few minutes checking "facts" that you have boasted about to try and boost your intellectual ratings - well you make the statements !! I merely expose the more pompus or stupid statements of your own making. Fact ! Quote from a post of yours (I think I'm the only Peter Kirker in the UK.) Now leaving out the mentality of some one who is prepared to spend his time running through electoral rolls and BT search to confirm that his is the only person with that name, I think that might be sufficient evidence that Peter Kirker is being a little less than honest of his denials, or his postings - After all those who claim exclusive knowledge by rehashing "Private Eye" etc., articles might not be as "well informed" insiders as Fionn trys to pass himself off as. BTW I have not bothered to do a search to confims this allegation of "uniqueness" with the 192 search or B Telecom, as stated previously I have better things to do with my limited time. Malice on my part ? No ! To expose a malicious, vindictive fraud calling himself Fionn ? Yes ! Or in words of one sylable Fionn - (So that you can understand) Keep yer posts acu-rate and pol-ite Gareth Gareth I do not spend hours tracking you etc - I've better things to do |
|
15 Feb 04 - 08:55 PM (#1116641) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Peter K (Fionn) There's a first time for everything, and for the first time at Mudcat I have regretted pressing the submit button. If I'd counted to ten my last message would not have been sent, or at least not in those terms. It is unreasonable to demand conciliation in world affairs while pursuing confrontation in a domestic spat. In an earlier post Gareth called me stupid, and I fear the tone of my response proved his point. |
|
15 Feb 04 - 09:10 PM (#1116648) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Okay, you two, now shake hands and get back to bickerin' about issues. And... NO name callin' 'er this ol' hillbilly gonna step in and knock yer danged heads together... Ya' hear? Danged! Can't step away from this joint fir four or three days and the danged cat spittin' starts up... Geeze.... Bobert |
|
15 Feb 04 - 09:18 PM (#1116653) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan One of the better things you have to do, Gareth, obviously does not include contributing anything of moment to the conversations you embroil yourself in. From the limited time I have been reading your drivel, I would put a mental age on you, of about 13. I can plainly see that some of the concepts discussed in these threads go miles over your head, and you contradict yourself continually. I hope I said that politely |
|
15 Feb 04 - 10:19 PM (#1116678) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: DougR It truly pains me to agree with Bobert, but Gareth and Fionn, it seems to me you guys (or girls) could profit from sitting down at a Pub somewhere and having a Guinness and getting to really know one another. I'd do that with Bobert if he was buying of course. DougR |
|
16 Feb 04 - 04:05 AM (#1116771) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus Peter K (Fionn) 14 Feb 04 - 06:23 AM Fionn you asked me for evidence of Saddam's support of terrorists in the past - you got it. Now in your opinion, you deem those organisations as being self-evidently pathetic, but only commented on the ones in his more distant past, as they suited the irrelevant point you were trying, rather poorly to make. I say irrelevant because other countries support for terrorist organisations was not the topic under discussion, the evaluation of whether, or not, Iraq posed a threat was. The declaration of the war on terror, did cause quite a number of countries to review and change their positions - including the US themselves. The entire point of the potential threat evaluation carried out with regard to Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein came down to a number of points: 1. Is the regime hostile to the US - Yes. 2. Has the regime complied with conditions and agreements made with the UN - No. 3. Does this regime still possess WMD and have ongoing development programmes for those WMD - In the light of the UNSCOM Report it must be assumed that they have, it has not been verified that they do not. 4. Has this regime in the past supported terrorist organisations - Yes. 5. Can it be said with any degree of certainty, that the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, will not provide WMD, WMD technology and training to a terrorist organisation that may target the US - No we can not. On the basis of those answers. Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein could only be classified as representing a threat. Immediate actions to reduce that threat: Go to the UN and get this matter of WMD and WMD programmes cleared up. Do this in such a way that Saddam Hussein is made fully aware of the fact that this gets cleared up on this pass - literally this is his last chance. Failure for him to do so will result in direct action being taken by the UN, or failing that, by ourselves (US). But under no circumstances will a continuation of the current status quo be allowed. With regard to exerpience of living with terrorism, Peter K, up until 9/11, the US government and the population of the United States of America didn't know it had been born. The period in which I stated that the UN inspection regime had foundered completely, encompassed the time of departure of UNSCOM and IAEA from Iraq (they had in actual fact been increasingly ineffectual for months before that), up until the time that John Kerry sat on the Seneate Committee to evaluate the threat posed by Iraq (subject of this thread). Do I accept that there, "Was such a thing as a non-military solution?" - Yes, of course there was, Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to adopt those non-military solutions - He chose not to take them - Fact. |
|
16 Feb 04 - 04:27 AM (#1116779) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus To observations by GUEST, or Guests various, Not a critical thinker!!!!! I believe if you review my posts you will find that I have been highly critical of some of the complete and utter bullshit that has been spouted by some in this forum. On the subject of sheepishness. Must be damn odd sheep - a flock of one - very unusual. Over the past few years let's take a look at what has been achieved by the UN and governments who have followed the kind of advice often voiced on this forum by all those "gutsy" critical free-thinkers. Rwanda - UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act, resulted in the deaths of some 500,000. In short a complete and utter disaster. Bosnia - UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act, resulted in the most widespread and bitter conflict (atrocities and all) seen on the mainland of Europe since 1945. The UN when it did get involved sat back and let the world view the spectacle of 7000 people getting rounded up for execution, in a UN declared safe haven, under the watchful gaze of blue helmeted UN troops charged, specifically, with their protection. In short another complete and utter disaster. Kosovo - UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act, resulted in the forced displacement of around a million people and the deaths of thousands. Fortunately for the ethnic Albanians being murdered in droves and being forced to flee, NATO member states acted independent of the UN. With the lessons of Bosnia fresh in their minds, NATO by-passed the UN, France and Russia (both of whom jumped on the band wagon later), and closed their ears to the peace movement advocates (who were quite prepared to see those Albanians die, rather than compromise their principles). Left to the UN this would have been another unmitigated disaster. Iraq - UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act with regard to UN imposed sanctions and with stated and accepted UN Resolutions, resulted in the situation where some member states felt compelled to act. Almost resulted in the total loss of credibility of the UN as an international body. DRC - UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act, resulted in at least six neighbouring African States adopting the view that the DRC was their own "piggy bank" that they could plunder at will. In doing so they caused the death and forced displacement of thousands. Once stung into action the UN, as it normally does, sent too little, too late. In short another screw-up. Liberia - UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act, resulted in a delay of deploying peace keeper's of nearly three months, and they only got there courtesy of the US. In short another UN screw-up. Unpleasant though it may be, situations, and circumstances do conspire in such a manner that action does have to be taken. That decision, when linked to considerations of any particular country's security, must be taken nationally - because, as can be seen from the examples above, relying on the UN will, on the basis of probability, result in either a complete and utter srcew-up, or a complete and utter unmitigated disaster. |
|
16 Feb 04 - 07:11 AM (#1116846) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Peter K (Fionn) Apologies for further thread drift, but this response to Teribus will not, I hope, be wholly irrelevant. Teribus, I said that the US "had lived with terrorism in the world" pre-9/11." The administration's apparent belief that it could support terrorists when comvenient, safe in the knowledge that terrorism could never touch the US mainland, was misguided and naive. This is not hindsight: I and many others were pointing out, long before 9/11, the absurdity of investing billions in NMD when a nuclear device could be delivered in a container. The bottom line for me is that the Iraq invasion was the first time in my lifetime that my country (the UK) was party to starting a war. If a pre-emptive strike is to have any morality at all, it is surely incumbent on the agressors - in this case the UK and US - to establish that the intelligence on which their belligerence is predicated is accurate beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case it demonstrably was not. Iraq turns out to have been no threat at all, by any reckoning. Saddam had simply been deceiving the world community, for whatever reason (possibly to maintain credibility in the Arab nations). Many Americans have had to wake up to the realisation that the US knows far less about what is going on around the world than it has allowed people to believe. Other leaders have deceived the world Saddam-style, or have attempted to do so, without finding their countries on the receiving end of all-out war. The punishment imposed in this case, which included indiscriminate bombing and thousands of civilian deaths, was inappropriate and disproportionate. However imperfect it may have been thus far (and the US has played its part in any shortcomings) the world forum of sovereign nations is the right body through which to police rogue states. Better, at any rate, than the strongest nation acting unilaterally, and making up the rules as it goes along. |
|
16 Feb 04 - 07:36 AM (#1116867) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: freda underhill Bobert, you are a gentleman. I'll buy you a beer anytime. fred |
|
16 Feb 04 - 08:28 AM (#1116910) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan And of course, now that Libya's all forgiven, what's the first piece of news that breaks? We're going to sell them armaments. |
|
16 Feb 04 - 09:07 AM (#1116942) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus Peter K (Fionn) - 16 Feb 04 - 07:11 AM It has been the belief of numerous administrations in both the USA; USSR and PRC, that they "could support terrorists when convenient, safe in the knowledge that terrorism could never touch" them. Misguided and naive, those beliefs may have been, that does not negate the fact that such beliefs were prevalent. With regard to the United States of America in particular, up until the advent of Al-Qaeda, they had never experienced, or had to encounter, an externally backed terrorist organisation perpetrating terrorist attacks in the US mainland. By the bye, what is/are NMD when they are home?? No Fionn, the bottom line is that the recent action in Iraq was the continuation of UN actions taken in 1990 and early 1991, made necessary by Saddam Hussein's refusal to honour agreements made during negotiations at Safwan that brought about the ceasefire in 1991. Iraq and Saddam Hussein were told that quite bluntly by the US and the UK. Last chance, comply and get it verified beyond doubt that Iraq no longer possesses WMD, or programmes aimed at further development of WMD and associated delivery systems, or action will be taken against you with, or without the UN. Your take on pre-emptive strikes, morality and accuracy of intelligence and reasonable doubt, belong in Camberwick Green. The business of gathering intelligence, the analysis and evaluation of that intelligence have never been exact sciences, nor will they every be. Saddam was given every opportunity to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions, over a period of 12 years. What US action has achieved in Iraq, as it turns out, is that one rather odious regime has been removed from power, and the world at large (and Saddam's erstwhile neighbours in particular) can state that Iraq is no-longer pursuing any WMD programmes and is not developing delivery systems for those weapons. "Other leaders have deceived the world Saddam-style, or have attempted to do so, without finding their countries on the receiving end of all-out war." Really? What ones Fionn? - forget the "attempted-to-do" category, that is a red-herring and you know it. Your abiding faith in, what did you call it - the world forum of sovereign nations - The United Nations, is very touching and also belongs in Camberwick Green. The United Nations could not organise a bottle party in a brewery, if it's very existance depended on it - let alone "police" rogue states. What little success it has achieved to date, in the world, have been those attempts that were led and financed by the USA. |
|
16 Feb 04 - 09:08 AM (#1116944) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan Just looking at Teribus' list again, and lest we be accused of anti-Semetism, it might be an idea to examine the UN's lethargy at tackling all the resolutions they have failed to implement with regard to Israel, over the years. |
|
16 Feb 04 - 09:19 AM (#1116953) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth I think 0986532 posts :- Search Results This page shows you your matches to your search. Click on a particular message to see the info and the body. Then it gets fun. Name Subject Posted 1 09086532 RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war 16-Feb-04 - 09:08 AM 2 09086532 RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money! 16-Feb-04 - 08:40 AM 3 09086532 RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war 16-Feb-04 - 08:28 AM 4 09086532 RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money! 16-Feb-04 - 08:17 AM 5 09086532 RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war 15-Feb-04 - 09:18 PM 6 09086532 RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money! 14-Feb-04 - 07:33 PM 7 09086532 RE: Favourite Parodies 14-Feb-04 - 03:33 PM 8 09086532 RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money! 14-Feb-04 - 11:11 AM 9 09086532 RE: Favourite Parodies 14-Feb-04 - 11:02 AM 10 09086532 RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money! 14-Feb-04 - 10:15 AM 11 09086532 RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money! 14-Feb-04 - 10:00 AM 12 09086532 RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money! 14-Feb-04 - 09:52 AM 13 09086532 RE: BS: Staff Sergeant Slaughter 14-Feb-04 - 09:51 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speak for themselves - Politly of course ! Gareth |
|
16 Feb 04 - 10:33 AM (#1116971) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan It is something yours find hard to do, Gary. Tells us your views on what Carol C suggested, instead. And you can be a polit as you like |
|
16 Feb 04 - 11:02 AM (#1117000) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan .... nice bit of diligent research, all the same |
|
16 Feb 04 - 11:23 AM (#1117009) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobjack Post number 100. I thank you. You have made an old Guinea Pig very happy. |
|
16 Feb 04 - 12:19 PM (#1117056) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Peter K (Fionn) Welcome, belatedly, to Mudcat, 09086532. As you have only been posting for a couple of days (though I realise you might have been lurking for much longer), you might not know yet that you can look up anyone's history of posts simply by clicking on the name wherever it appears over a post. So be careful what you say! (I might be a bit biased here, but your posts seem to have been very constructive so far....) Teribus, depending what age you are, you may live to regret your faith in a system of justice that is administered by the playground bully, because the US is unlikely to hold on to that status for much longer. Your last post included this: "Other leaders have deceived the world Saddam-style, or have attempted to do so, without finding their countries on the receiving end of all-out war." Really? What ones Fionn? With no particular effort I can bring to mind pre-WW2 Germany, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, USA, USSR, UK... oh, I expect the list is endless. |
|
16 Feb 04 - 12:40 PM (#1117077) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Kerry's own answer to "Are you responsible for some of the costs of the war" in the debate last night was prime Kerry. He would not answer the question. But he did offer this: While saying that he had been an instrument of American foreign policy in Vietnam, he said, "I carried that M16!" But I understand that as a naval officer of his era, he would rarely if ever have carried an M16, the M14 Carbine and the sidearm being his standard weapons. (I was told this by a Naval vet of that era, but don't have the expertise myself. Can anyone here confirm or deny?) If true, why did he say that? Probably because the iconic image of American soldiers in Vietnam is of grunts carrying M16s, and he wants to be remembered that way. More importantly, why would he not answer the question the way Senator John Edwards did following him, agreeing that as an individual supporting authorization, he bore some responsibility for the costs of the war? Because Kerry knows he is partly responsible, but cannot admit it. In order for Kerry to win in the general election, his whole candidacy must be based on not taking responsibility for his votes, for the war, for Patriot Act, etc. "It's Bush who is to blame for the war," he will have to insist. "I just voted to give him the power to invade Iraq at a time when it was obvious he would do so! But don't blame me!" In the same way, Kerry actually said last night that the only problem with the USA Patriot Act was John Ashcroft. As if giving a different right-wing Attorney General the right to arrest American citizens without charges and hold them without lawyers and violate all their constitutional rights would have been okay. It's just Ashcroft that's a bad guy. He's shifting the blame, as he must. He didn't get called on it. In fact, last night he got his ass kissed by the moderators, who seemed to ask Kerry every his opinion on every other candidate's questions. "And Senator Kerry, what do YOU think of Reverend Sharpton's answer?" Will Kerry's evasive answers work in the General Election, when Big Media will be on Bush's side? We'll see. |
|
16 Feb 04 - 01:24 PM (#1117100) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan Thank you Peter K, and yes I realised eventually what clicking on one's user name did (thought it would launch Outlook Express, at first) But as far as the rationale of some of the obviously pro-war contributors here, I find that it is often the case with such people, they will not use the same yardsticks to measure the flip side of their argument. As for as who is the better Democratic candidate, I think it is probably much of a muchness, as they are all anti Bush. The one who will extract their soldiers from the occupied territories if elected, will have my approval, though. I think I would sleep better in my bed at night, knowing that my Government was involved in adressing the underlying issues regarding the upsurge of international terrorism, rather than trying to beat everybody into submission. |
|
17 Feb 04 - 05:27 AM (#1117575) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus Well Peter K (Fionn), The era I have grown up and lived through has to a great extent relied heavily on "the playground bully", as you describe the United States of America, for the peace and prosperity the world has enjoyed. For much of that time, the USSR did as much as it could to ignite the fires of international tension, in order to undermine the economies and political resolve of the West. Without any shadow of a doubt in my mind "the playground bully" of that particular period known as the "cold war" was definitely Soviet Russia aided and abetted by her satellites. I would be very interested in hearing your arguements supporting your prediction relating to the status of the United States in the near to intermediate future ("much longer"). For quite some time now, there has not been a single country in the world that would attempt to "take on" the US, there is not a single power in the world capable of projecting that power. That power and capability, odd though it may seem to you, and to those who hold views similar to your own, is what the United Nations strongly relies upon, and has done since it's inception. Your examples, proferred without much effort, of: "Other leaders have deceived the world Saddam-style, or have attempted to do so, without finding their countries on the receiving end of all-out war." 1. pre-WW2 Germany - the "without finding their countries on the receiving end of all-out war" rider sort of makes your qualifying prefix ridiculous. Germany, deliberately re-armed, in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles, and through it's actions did find itself on the receiving end of an all-out war. Forget the attempted-to-do-so examples, they actually work against the point you were originally trying to make and as such are irrelevant. 2. North Korea - Encouraged by the USSR and backed by China, opportunistically launched an unprovoked attack on South Korea - and found itself on the receiving end of an all-out war. Continued support from Soviet Russia, allowed NK to throw up massive mine-fields and acres of barbed-wire fences to hide behind and sulk, while the rest of the region got on with life. With the collapse of Soviet Russia, and the loss of support which for years had shored up a bankrupt regime, NK resorted to regional black-mail. That is what it is doing now, and having learned the lessons from past experience it's neighbours are not prepared to play it North Korea's way. If North Korea, at present, was to be regarded as a threat, it is very much as an indirect threat. 3. Israel - Odd choice this, because Israel has not, to my knowledge, tried to deceive anyone, Saddam Hussein style, or otherwise. Israel has also never threatened any of its neighbours. It has responded to threats of those attempting to do what Saddam Hussein attempted to do, but they all found themselves on the receiving end of as near to an all-out war as you could get. Limited by Israeli reluctance to target the civilian centres of population of its enemies and by UN intervention to get the sides back to the negotiating table. 4. Pakistan - They have had resorted to aggressive use of force three times in disputes with India. No Saddam style deception involved. 5. USA - ??, possibly with "Star Wars Initiative", which was a purely defensive system. 6. USSR - On this one I would tend to agree in part with. The threat that they, the USSR, posed in the latter days of the "cold war" was a bluff. That was the reason Russia attempted to prevent the UN action against Saddam in 1991. In their time the Soviets exported arms to any that wanted them, these were "export" versions of their own weapons and weapon systems. They were inferior to what equipped their own forces. The one exception was the integrated air defence system that they sold to the Saddam Hussein. The Soviets had for years told their own population that the air defence system protecting the Soviet Union was the best in the world. With the commencement of hostilities in 1991, that myth was blown apart, very publically and that particular lie could no longer be sustained. For the previous two decades Russia, had been unable to compete technologically with the US in terms of it's military capability, after "Desert Storm" they realised that there was no point in trying. During the "cold war" the existence of the capability enjoyed by the US by virtue of it's strike carriers, came close to bankrupting Soviet Russia five times - they never succeeded in finding any means to counter the threat to their ambitions posed by the existence of those ships. 7. UK - ?? All "pint-sized, penny-packet stuff" would best describe the armed forces of the UK in terms of size. In terms of quality and effectiveness, they are still rated amongst the best in the world. I cannot think of any situation where the UK has used Saddam style deception to further any goal of the UK Government. The criteria you have used to compile your list seems to be rather odd to say the least, little wonder that with a bit of effort the list could indeed be endless - totally meaningless and irrelevant on examination, but endless. |
|
17 Feb 04 - 09:31 AM (#1117687) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST For your information, Teribus, The Pakis have sold the world's neuclear secrets to all and sundry. Whether or not this is Saddam style deception, is not really the issue. They're still our 'friends', though. Makes you feel all warm and brotherly inside, doesn't it? |
|
17 Feb 04 - 10:13 AM (#1117718) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus For your information, GUEST (17 Feb 04 - 09:31 AM), a Pakistani national sold details on the Pakistani Governments nuclear weapons programme. That particular individual sold those secrets to a couple of fairly unsavoury places (Libya; Iran and North Korea if memory serves me correctly). Which is a bit of a difference from your: "The Pakis have sold the world's neuclear secrets to all and sundry." |
|
17 Feb 04 - 10:40 AM (#1117737) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd True, Teribus, but the individual was one of the government's top nuclear scientists, and he was immediately pardoned when the crme came out. Doesn't that sound just a little suspicious to you? Can't you admit even the possibility that the US is supporting a regime that supports terrorism? GUEST, where I come from, Paki was a derogatory term. I'm sure you meant "a Pakistani government insider." |
|
17 Feb 04 - 10:57 AM (#1117751) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Peter K (Fionn) Teribus, Pakistan (India too for that matter) developed WMD in secrecy. So did Israel. Have you forgotten Vanunu? I haven't. And you're a bit wide of the mark with pre-war Germany too. I think most people would regard Germany as the agressor in the 1930s. There was certainly no hint of pre-emptive action by the UK and US and their allies. In fact the US might never have got involved (notwithstanding the best efforts of an outstanding president) except that it found itself on the receiving end. That is to say, - Germany declared war on the US. The simple fact is, Teribus, that most countries practice to deceive. That's what state secrets are all about. And Britain has more than its fair share of those. Far more than the US for instance. And no regime on earth would take kindly to the humiliations imposed on Iraq - needlessly as it turns out, because having been shot to pieces in the first gulf war, the country was no more a threat than many another. (And any prospects for becoming a threat were severely hampered by santions and by coalition control of Iraqi airspace.) As for the limits of US dominance, the country will destabilise as empires usually do. Administrations will not be able to play on pupular fears for ever, so the population is unlikely to remain endlessly biddable. (Right now, Bush could claim that extermination of the blacks is necessary for a safe future, and plwnty would fall in with that as a matter of national security.) There are already signs of a north-south divide re-opening. As the US economy is overtaken by China's (and eventually by the EU's too, perhaps) America's insane investment in weaponry will be put in question; people will question that half the working population is in prison (as it will be on present trends), and in Yeats' phrase, mere anarchy will be loosed upon the nation. At any rate, that's what my crystal ball shows. I expect yours shows a land flowing with milk and honey. |
|
17 Feb 04 - 11:20 AM (#1117768) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Rapparee Kerry? Did they find WMDs in Tralee or something? |
|
17 Feb 04 - 12:23 PM (#1117823) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Well, Rapaire, there IS a suspicious-looking Winnebago in Killarney. and an aluminum tube in Ballybunion. Let's check with Colin Powell and see what HE thinks... |
|
17 Feb 04 - 05:54 PM (#1118021) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,TIA I got some lovely yellow cake in a shop in Dingle. |
|
17 Feb 04 - 11:50 PM (#1118149) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan I've seen it written a few times, up the thread: "Saddam Style Deception" What exactly is that? Is it where Saddam says he has no weapons, and the inspectors go in and prove him correct? On 24 February 2001, during a trip to Cairo, Egypt, Colin Powell told the Media that Saddam "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." And Preident Musharaff of Pakistan has just announced that he will not let the Atomic Energy Commission come in and inspect their Plants. He also confirmed that the Government of Pakistan will continue to develop and expand their nuclear arsenal, and that he was totally unaware of the actions of the above mentioned official. So that would seem to be that! There is one question I would like Teribus (indeed, all of us) to ponder on, and that is, is it OK for us to do entirely as we see fit, when we see fit? Sooner or later the propaganda machine has to implode under the weight of all its un-matched cross-references and conflicting moral standpoints. And Kerry wins Wisconsin... |
|
18 Feb 04 - 11:32 AM (#1118459) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Teribus Well Fionn, Most countries develope most things to do with their their military in secret. Most companies also conduct their research and development in secret. What was different with Iraq was that following the ceasefire negotiated at Safwan, Iraq made a number of commitments to the international community - They did not honour one single one of them. Instead of co-operating pro-actively and fully as they had agreed to do, they did everything in their power to hinder the UN inspection teams and conceal as much as possible in relation to their WMD and WMD programmes. Please note, that that is not my opinion but, the opinion of the UNSCOM inspectors who were conducting the inspections in Iraq at the time - I have no reason to doubt their word or the veracity of their claims. Now a parallel does exist between Saddam's Iraq and Hitler's pre-war Germany. Both countries, as a direct result of cease-fire agreements, were prohibited from having certain weapons. In the case of Germany, in the 1930's the other European powers chose to go the route that many in this forum have advised with regard to Iraq in 2002/2003 and the result was what is commonly called the Second World War. In the case of Iraq, the United States of America and the United Kingdom acted as those same European powers should have done with respect to Germany in the mid-1930's. With regard to Iraq, I am still totally convinced that that was the right thing to do. Reading back through the periods involved Saddam Hussein's Iraq (1980 - 2003) was a damn sight more agressive than Hitler's Germany (1933 - 1939). "And no regime on earth would take kindly to the humiliations imposed on Iraq - needlessly as it turns out, because having been shot to pieces in the first gulf war, the country was no more a threat than many another." What humiliations are you talking about Peter? The subject matter of the various UNSC Resolutions relating to Iraq perhaps? - That the regime was to renounce the manufacture, use and further development of weapons of mass destruction that they had previously used on their own population and against their neighbours. - That the regime had to destroy such weapons, stocks, delivery systems under UN supervision in order that their destruction could be checked and verified. - That all material relating to development programmes for WMD and WMD weapons systems be surrendered to the UN and that all such programmes be dismantled under UN Supervision in order that it could be verified. - That the regime was to clean up its act with regard to human rights, by ceasing to oppress ethnic and religious groups within it's borders. - That the regime was to stop supporting terrorist groups - That the regime was to compensate, from future oil revenues, the neighbouring state it had just invaded and plundered. - That the regime was to release and return 605 foreign nationals, the regime had abducted/kidnapped during their brief stay in Kuwait. Fortunately most regimes in the world are not evil enough to have such charges laid at their door. Even the hint of such criticism would have most regimes/governments breaking their backs to ensure they got a clean bill of health. You could be sure that the matter would at least be discussed as a matter of urgency. In the case of Iraq - not a murmer, no action at all to address the criticisms, they did however manage to sell $2-3 billion in illegal oil exports and buy 384 rocket motors inspite of the UN's sanctions. The UN were no better in pushing those issues - but then, their dictum has always been, "anything for the easy life". 09086532, Re: Colin Powell 24 Feb 2001: Look at the question he was asked and his complete answer, then remember he was talking to the press: QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions? SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves. We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue." The issues were the no-fly zones and UN sanctions, what did you expect him to say - that both were totally ineffective? Also remember the date, i.e., pre-9/11. He clearly believes that the Iraqi regime still harboured ambitions in relation to acquiring WMD. |
|
18 Feb 04 - 01:41 PM (#1118549) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Peter K (Fionn) Two simple points, Teribus. First, you claim to be quoting the UNSCOM inspectorate where you say: "They (Saddam's regime) did everything in their power to hinder the UN inspection teams and conceal as much as possible in relation to their WMD." UNSCOM never went so far as to say Iraq had got WMD - only that Saddam had failed to provide verification of destroying them. As for him producing or developing any post-1991, Scott Ritter has been scathing about that, and Kay recently said the US admin had put insufficient weight on Iraq's lack of capability - this resulting from the damaged infrastructure and fractured chains of command, and from Saddam's erratic leadership. Second, in conceding a parallel between Germany and Iraq, which you had previously dismissed, you observe that both countries had been prhibited under their surrender/cease-fire terms from having specified weapons. But that is where the similarity ended. Germany defied the terms and acquired prohibited weapons; Iraq did not. Incidentally it is nonsense to equate the aggression of Iraq under Saddam with Germany's in the period 1933-39, not least because much of Saddam's aggression was encouraged by the playground bully (your ultimate arbiter), right up to (and even including, by some accounts) his invasion of Kuwait. Hitler's was in defiance of such opinion - albeit funded to a significant degree by American capital. |
|
18 Feb 04 - 02:31 PM (#1118579) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST Incidentally it is nonsense to equate the aggression of Iraq under Saddam with Germany's in the period 1933-39, not least because much of Saddam's aggression was encouraged by the playground bully (your ultimate arbiter), right up to (and even including, by some accounts) his invasion of Kuwait. Hitler's was in defiance of such opinion - albeit funded to a significant degree by American capital Actually Fionn, it was called appeasement. Gareth |
|
18 Feb 04 - 04:13 PM (#1118640) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: CarolC Actually Fionn, it was called appeasement. I think better terms in the context of Iraq would be "war profiteering" and the use of Saddam as a "proxy warmonger" by the US. |
|
18 Feb 04 - 04:26 PM (#1118651) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Teribus OK, Peter K (Fionn), It appears that you take at face value the UNSCOM statement that Saddam's regime, " did everything in their power to hinder the UN inspection teams and conceal as much as possible in relation to their WMD." If not then please provide the evidence from UNSCOM that statement is in any way inaccurate. The UNSCOM claims regarding what they believed were still in existence is perfectly clear. Their (UNSCOM's) grounds for stating those figures were based entirely on Iraqi documentation, i.e., what was produced, what munitions had been produced, what munitions had been expended, and there was a shortfall, an alarming shortfall when those figures were compared. On December 7th 2002, Iraq presented its full and complete declaration to the UNSC, the immediate response of the affable Dr. Blix was that he simply did not believe it - that is a matter of record. To this day that shortfall is still unaccounted for, about six months after Saddam had been removed from power, the good Dr. Blix comes out with the statement that "on the ballance of probability" Iraq did destroy those those stocks of WMD materials, precursors and munitions. Unfortunately back in March 2003, "on the balance of probability" didn't quite fulfil the requirement - since signing the cease-fire agreement at Safwan in 1991, "on the balance of probability" has never fulfilled the requirement clearly stated by the United Nations. On the subject of Scott Ritter, take a bloody good look at his reasons for resigning - it was because the UN did not support the efforts of the UNSCOM team as stringently, and as forcefully, as they should have done. Forget what Kay has recently said - that is 20 x 20 hindsight. In this discussion you must base any arguement on what were the probabilities based on the available information at the time. On the second of your points, you offered up Germany, sorry pre-war Germany, as an example of someone employing Saddam like deception without being confronted by an all-out war. As I said previously your "pre-war" qualification makes your example ridiculous, that was my reason for rejecting your example. Hitler in Germany was appeased, he was given the benefit of the doubt, as many people here apparently would have been all to prepared to give to the Ba'athist regime in Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, he finally, and totally unexpectly found that he had over-stepped the mark and found himself in an "all-out war", and by Christ at what a cost. If either Britain, or France, had acted against Hitler in 1936, the way that the USA and the UK acted against Saddam Hussein in 2002, then the Second World War would not have happened. As Gareth so rightly pointed out, due to the policy of appeasement, the Second World War came to pass, because of people who think like you, and many others on this forum. People who are always prepared to take the easy option, the same people who are always the first to cast blame when the situation blows up in their faces and they, all of a sudden find themselves threatened. Your statement: "Germany defied the terms and acquired prohibited weapons; Iraq did not." I challenge you to prove it. I say they did and were working towards enhancing their capability. My grounds for making that statement are provided by what the UNMOVIC inspection teams found, and what the Iraqi's said they did not have and were not doing. Now you have made some pretty definitive statements - Damn well prove them. On the, "nonsense to equate the aggression of Iraq under Saddam with Germany's in the period 1933-39, not least because much of Saddam's aggression was encouraged by the playground bully (your ultimate arbiter), right up to (and even including, by some accounts) his invasion of Kuwait." Let's take a look at both, shall we? Taking Adolf Hitler first: 1933 - Came to power, not elected, he was selected Chancellor of Germany by the President, Hindenburg (his third choice candidate by the way). 1934 - Night of the long knives, Hitler gets rid of potential trouble inside his own Party 1933 -1936 Basically rebuilt Germany, very popular move on the part of the German population. He is secretly rearming, U-boat Captains are being trained in Italy, Pilots, aircrew and tank crews are being trained in Russia. 1936 - Hitler re-occupies the Rhineland, French take the view, "Well hell it is German after all" and do nothing - Nobody killed, nobody drownded, if fact nothin' to laugh at at all. Harmless, the guy got away with it - secretly it was the most gut wrenching decision he took in his life, if memoires are anything to go by - but he had got away with it. 1938 - Spring Austria joins the Reich, no bloody invasion, no wall-to-wall corpses. Having seen what Hitler had done for Germany, with massive unemployment and their finances looked after by the "League of Nations", most Austrians welcomed it. 1938 - Sudetenland, previously German, and the only part of Czechoslovakia that had any heavy industry (that was why it was split from Germany to give this fake country some form of economic base). Czechs fold, again no blood-shed, Poland and Hungary get in on the act too and grab bits of Czechoslovakia until there is not enough left to bother governing, so Hitler takes that over as well. Minor stramash diplomatically, Hitler actually wants his war in the west now, but Chamberlin and Deladier refuse to co-operate and give him what he wants. 1939 - Poland, Hitler tries to re-unify East Prussia with the rest of Germany. To do this he has to take the "Polish Corridor", another piece of Germany stripped away, according to President Wilson's Plan, at Versailles, to make another phony state economically viable. Unfortunately those appeasers, who up until now have been so accommodating, dig their heels in and declare war on Germany. Up until now Fionn, the butcher's bill has been absolutely minimal. Now lets see how Saddam took things on: 1979 - Saddam stages his internal coup - upwards of 600 Ba'ath Party members executed 1980 - Kicks off the Iran/Iraq, because his Foreign Minister and his chiel negotiator at the UN say that Iran is prepared to negotiate to settle the Iran/Iraq dispute relating to the Shat-al-Arab water-way. saddam takes this as a sign of weakness and launches an unprovoked attack on Iran. 1980 - 1988 Iran/Iraq War, totally unnecessary millions die. UN as ever powerless and ineffectual as it predecessor, the League of Nations. 1988 - 1990 Saddam re-arms with the help of Russia, France and China. 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait and is outrightly condemned by thwe UN. USA leads the efforts to form a UN coalition to take action to liberate Kuwait. Saddam defies all efforts to negotiate or withdraw from Kuwait. 1991 - "Desert Shield" & "Desert Storm" liberate Kuwait, significant loss of life. Saddam survives at Safwan, to ride another day. How's the comparison so far Peter? By the time Hitler was brought to book he had killed hundreds, by the time Saddam had got there he had invaded two countries, killed millions and had caused a staggering amount of damage to infrastructure and the environment. Who did you say was the greater aggressor? I know who my money is on - it's like betting on last years "Grand National". |
|
18 Feb 04 - 06:19 PM (#1118710) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan "what did you expect him to say - that both were totally ineffective?" I expect him to tell the truth, Teribus. Are you suggesting that every thing that was said pre 9/11 was designed to hoodwink the public, and that after that date, everybody decided to come clean? How do we know, in that case, that everything that has been said since is the truth. In a court of law, the defendant that would mislead so, would be charged with perjury, and the 'new' evidence would be deemed inadmissable. And Powell took an oath, just like Bush did We should expect our leaders to tell the truth. Isn't that what all this hoo ha is about in the first place? Do you regularly vote for people who keep telling you lies all the time? I'm surprised, incidentally, that you would let slip something like "remember he was talking to the press" The press is normally our only way of knowing what goes on in the world. Surely you are not telling us that you condone the public being lied to, whenever it suits our politicians to do so? By the way, I never knew that Hitler had been brought to book. I heard that he massacred at least 6 million people, and occupied many lands, before he committed suicide. Unless you believe that he ended his days in Argentina (in which case, he was never brought to book). He certainly was a greater aggressor to England, than Saddam was. I never read in any newspaper of an Iraqi version of the Battle of Britain. Maybe there was, and Powell didn't tell the Press. I see, though, that we are repeating things that have already been covered, Teribus; I think the whole World accepts at this point, that the 'Allies' 'helped' Saddam up until at least the end of the Iran/Iraq war. Nothing much changed in Iraq post 9/11. Certainly not Al Quaeda-wise. We know that idealogically Saddam and Bin Laden were as far apart as they could possibly be in the Muslim World. They may have had a common enemy in America, but each kept their own counsel on the matter, and Iraq was no more a threat to the internal security of the USA, than it was pre 9/11. Post 9/11, the USA was understandably put on a war footing, and the attack in Afghanistan was, in my opinion, an understandable reaction. But 9/11 was a watershed for Al Quaeda, only, and Saddam Hussein, repulsive as the man is, was guilty of threatening only his own people. Like many other repulsive regimes the USA still chooses to support and arm. And that we turn a blind eye to. |
|
18 Feb 04 - 06:57 PM (#1118739) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,gareth - to lazy to log in But 9/11 was a watershed for Al Quaeda, only, and Saddam Hussein, repulsive as the man is, was guilty of threatening only his own people I think that statement speaks for itself. I am confident that there is many a Kurd,Marsh Arab, Quwati, or Iranian who might disagree with that. Gareth |
|
18 Feb 04 - 07:04 PM (#1118746) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan Post 9/11, Gareth, he was only a threat to his own people, and indeed, that would include the unfortunate Kurds and Marsh Arabs. I wasn't aware that he was planning another invasion of Kuwait, or of attacking Iran. Something else that Powell wasn't telling us, eh? |
|
18 Feb 04 - 07:10 PM (#1118750) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan ..., and for a guy that would put his own child down, if he got it into his head that the kid would grow up to be a mass-murderer, I find that your concern feeble. |
|
18 Feb 04 - 07:21 PM (#1118758) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Gareth The Kurds and Marsh Arabs might disagree that they are part of Iraq. If SH's intentions were peacable - Why the big Army ? It seems your mental age can not cope with satire. A fault frequently noted in the "Peace at Any Price Brigade". Gareth |
|
18 Feb 04 - 07:39 PM (#1118777) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan "The Kurds and Marsh Arabs might disagree that they are part of Iraq So you reckon he wasn't a threat to his own people then, if Kurds, Marsh Arabs, Kuwaitis and Iranians, are all removed from the equation? As for satire, I can only go by what you write, and you seemed engaged enough to go through with the argument: ie. 13 Feb 04 - 12:32 PM 'Yes it does' "If SH's intentions were peacable - Why the big Army ?" Ahhh, I see. So we invaded Iraq because Saddam had a big army? The plot thickens..... |
|
18 Feb 04 - 08:03 PM (#1118785) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,GUEST, Bobert i disguise Well, gol danged... Saddam was a bad man. Shoot we should have attacked him a long time ago. Like when we were in middle of supplyong him with weapons of mass destruction. Then we would have had at least a clue when the danged things were... Ahhhh, what ever happened to that pre-emption argrument anyway. I ain't heard that one gettin' even a spin around the block, let alone out of the garage, these days.... I thought that was the entire reason fir attacking Iraq??? Silly me... Now it's Saddam was a bad, bad man.. Well, what's the point... There are no shortage of bad, bad men ruling countries in the world. We gonna attack all their countries? And while we're back on the subject of attacking folks, ahhh, is Saddam dead? No? Hmmmmm? How many Iraqis and Americans who were'nt bad, bad men, women and children are dead instead. Hmmmmmm? Like, lots, that's how many... No one has answered the question that I've asked until I'm blue in the face from askin'. If Saddam was the problem, why not just assasinate him, rather than kill a bunch of other non-Saddam other folks? If anyone has an aswer to this question, I'd sure appreciate it. Heck, I'd probably accept "My dog ate my homework" as a start... It scares me to live in a country (the US) that has so many folks who have lost all abilities to, ahhh, think on their own.... But that's another story (kind of...). Bobert |
|
18 Feb 04 - 08:31 PM (#1118795) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,TIA "It seems your mental age can not cope with satire. A fault frequently noted in the "Peace at Any Price Brigade". Gareth" Hmm. I was on the receiving end of a similarly smug comment myself several months ago, and I've seen others since. Not saying you're not smart my good fellow, but every time you wittily tell someone who disagrees with you that they are not, the charge rings increasingly hollow. BTW, would it be fair to classify you as a member of the "Saddam Gone at Any Price Brigade"? |
|
18 Feb 04 - 08:55 PM (#1118802) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan I actually questioned his capacities first, TIA. Mainly because he seemed to be attacking others' intellectual abilities, while his own arguments (such as they are) were meandering all over the place.... Gareth would seem to be a member of the 'Anybody Gone At Any Price (as long as it is not me) Brigade' |
|
18 Feb 04 - 09:59 PM (#1118828) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Teribus Bobert, The question you have been asking, until you are blue in the face, has been answered on numerous occasions. Assassinating Saddam Hussein and leaving the Ba'athist regime in power would not have achieved anything. In fact if memory serves me right, one person pointed out that the assassination of Saddam, would probably lead to the succession of his son, who by all accounts would have been a damn sight worse. 09086532 18 Feb 04 - 06:19 PM For starters - don't quote out of context. The press conference question quoted was by a reporter from the Egyptian press. The question sought to determine US sensitivity to Egyptian and Arab concerns related to the no-fly zones and to the ongoing UN sanctions. The answer given was meant to reasure the press that the measures were being taken to protect life and to contain a regime that had attacked two of its neighbours. "I expect him to tell the truth, Teribus." - And you always tell the truth do you - What a special person you are. "Are you suggesting that every thing that was said pre 9/11 was designed to hoodwink the public, and that after that date, everybody decided to come clean?" - No I am not. "In a court of law, etc, etc," - Obvious point Colin Powell was not in a court of law, he was in a press conference. "And Powell took an oath, just like Bush did. We should expect our leaders to tell the truth." - First bit of that: The oaths, that the Secretary of State and the President took, mention upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States of America, nothing there about being compelled by that oath to tell the truth at all times. In fact, in certain circumstances, being compelled to tell the truth at all times might mean that you could not possibly uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. "Isn't that what all this hoo ha is about in the first place?" - No it is not. "Do you regularly vote for people who keep telling you lies all the time?" - I do not know for a fact that the people I vote for do, "keep telling me lies all the time", so the most honest answer to that is that I do not know - by the bye, nor does anybody else. But if I ever met anyone who told me that they had never told a lie in their life, I would know that, sure as eggs are eggs, I was looking at a liar. "remember he was talking to the press" - Can't see why that should surprise you. You can't have had much experience dealing with the press, from personal experience, I would advise anybody to be very circumspect with regard to talking to the press, particularly if the press were hostile (as they were in the situation that C. Powell found himself in). "The press is normally our only way of knowing what goes on in the world." - Poor you, I would advise that you find some alternative sources, and use a bit of common-sense and judgement. "Surely you are not telling us that you condone the public being lied to, whenever it suits our politicians to do so?" - What makes you think that it is only politicians that lie to the public? On "Hitler being brought to book", on reflection " brought up short" (i.e. was faced with his all-out war) would probably have been a better expression. Between becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and the start of World War Two, Hitler showed no aggression towards the UK at all, besides that was not the point being contested. But just out of interest I can think of at least two occasions when the UK was called upon to come to the aid of Kuwait when the latter was threatened by the Iraqi Ba'athist regime, on both occasions Iraq backed down. 09, little secret for you - The 'Allies' also 'helped' Iran during the same conflict. "Nothing much changed in Iraq post 9/11." True, Saddam Hussein applauded the perpetrators of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, while the US Government carried out a threat evaluation of hostile regimes and places where international terrorist groups might acquire WMD that could be used against America. As to Iraq being, " no more a threat to the internal security of the USA, than it was pre 9/11." That is correct, it was potentially a threat before 9/11 and remained a threat after 9/11. Only after 9/11 the US correctly evaluated that threat. I had no idea that the USA was on a war footing!! Any idea what that phrase actually means, 09? Don't think you do. 9/11 was also a watershed for Saddam Hussein, post-9/11 the US was no longer prepared to let him thumb his nose at the UN. Certain outstanding items had to be resolved - they now have been. What "other repulsive regimes" does "the USA still choose to support and arm." that you, "turn a blind eye to." I get the distinct impression that you are either very young, very inexperienced in life and very naive. |
|
19 Feb 04 - 09:21 AM (#1119096) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan "Saddam has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." I really don't know how much more in context that could be, Teribus. What were we suppoed to think, when he said that? What were we supposed to think when he plagarised the work of that student, and the US regime boldly stood up and told us that there was in fact a capability there? Oh, that's only Colin speaking in tongues, again? American presidents have been impeached for less, such is the seriousness of their Oath of Office. So the Allies helped Iran too? Well there you go, Te. Subterfuge at all levels. Now we're actually getting somewhere.... "I do not know for a fact that the people I vote for do, "keep telling me lies all the time", so the most honest answer to that is that I do not know" So what you are saying that you don't really know whether the WMD claims were truthful or not. .... getting even further.... "I get the distinct impression that you are either very young, very inexperienced in life and very naive." Well, I am not, Te. And with insight and discernment like that, the rest of your suppositions mean even less to me, now. |
|
19 Feb 04 - 11:05 AM (#1119183) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: CarolC 09, little secret for you - The 'Allies' also 'helped' Iran during the same conflict. That's a hell of a good point. I guess the "Allies" thought they would get a little "twofer" there (two for the price of one). ...Destabilize the governments of two countries at the same time, and then when both are in shambles, go on in and take control of their oil. It's quite ingenious, really. I guess they're having to wait a little longer to get Iran's oil than they hoped, but since Iran is next on the agenda (along with Syria), they shouldn't have to wait too much longer. |
|
19 Feb 04 - 12:18 PM (#1119248) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Teribus Colin Powell stated at a Press Conference in Egypt on 24th February 2001, now at this point there had been no UN presence and no inspection effort for 26 months: "Saddam has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell made a statement to the UN Security Council on 7th March 2003, relating to the 167 page UNMOVIC/IAEA report submitted to the Security Council by Dr. Blix and Dr. AlBaradei, by this time UNMOVIC and the IAEA had resumed inspections in Iraq and had been there for about four months, on 7th December Iraq had delivered their full and complete declaration to the UN as required by 1441: "The point is that this document conclusively shows that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture these kinds of weapons, that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture not only chemical but biological weapons, and that Iraq had and still has literally tens of thousands of delivery systems, including increasingly capable and dangerous unmanned aerial vehicles." You've never changed your mind about something in the course of two years? Certainly looks like Colin Powell had changed his mind. Attention to detail 09086532: The work was plagiarised from a post-graduate student (not a student), whose work, undertaken some ten/eleven years previously, in the immediate aftermath of "Desert Storm", from Iraqi Security Service documents (lots and lots of them). Related to deception tactics, concealment techniques and dissemination of misinformation by Iraq's Security Services. The author himself came out in print to say that in 2002 his work was still relevant. During the Iran/Iraq War, which the UN was powerless to prevent, lots of countries helped both sides, because lots of countries wanted neither side to win. The best result from the point of view of the world in general was a stalemate. The help was not given because either side was "liked", it was not given because various countries regarded either leader as being "their" man. It was done purely and simply to maintain the status quo - which would have been the result of UN intervention in accordance with its Charter. In your experience do people keep telling you lies ALL the time? - Strange world you live in. But when you asked me a rather general question about the people I might vote for, you now vector in on something quite specific - WMD - "So what you are saying that you don't really know whether the WMD claims were truthful or not." I believe I have already answered that - UNSCOM reported the array of WMD that they knew existed - they had hard evidence of that - but which now were "missing" and "couldn't be accounted for". I have not one single reason to believe that they lied to me or the Security Council of the United Nations. Having read the JIC Dossier, read and listened to reports from the international media, having listened to interviews, particularly one where Richard Cobbold went to great lengths to explain exactly how the JIC works which was very enlightening. Conclusions of the various committees set up to investigate matters relating to the JIC Dossier. Lots of people have looked into it - all have come up with the same result. I definitely do not feel that I was "lied to" by any member of the British Government. My impression of you is based entirely on what you write: The burning indignation - "I expect him to tell the truth," Plus - " And Powell took an oath, just like Bush did We should expect our leaders to tell the truth." Priceless! absolutely Priceless!!! Pure Camberwick Green |
|
19 Feb 04 - 12:57 PM (#1119278) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Well, T, yer guy ain't gonna like it when I tell him that his latest PR spin fir attacking Iraq ain't holdin' up to yer scrutiny. So let me see if I got this right. Your latest reason fir attacking Iraq goes something like: *We attacked Iraq because it was controlled by the Ba'thists....* Is this yer final answer, T-Bird? Check one Yes ____ No _____ Bobert |
|
19 Feb 04 - 03:55 PM (#1119402) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Teribus Hi there Bobert, you ol' blue faced thing you!! You see, your question was answered but you just do not listen to the answer. Going back to those halcyon days of Bill Clinton's administration, the US has been in favour of REGIME change in Iraq. You keep bangin' on about "Why didn't we just kill Saddam - Dan Rather got to within four feet of him - Why couldn't we just take him out" Because Bobert of the visage bleu, Saddam on his jack does not equate to REGIME CHANGE, especially when, after being "taken out" he leaves behind a successor who was ten times more mental and unstable than himself. Question answered???? |
|
19 Feb 04 - 04:01 PM (#1119406) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Metchosin Teribus, may I take it from your posts that your eyes are brown? |
|
19 Feb 04 - 04:09 PM (#1119408) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Teribus Oh, by the bye, CarolC, Your take on things with regard to the Iran/Iraq War is wrong. I would like to say that I await the coming to pass of your prediction with 'bated breath, but I'd only end up like Ol' Bobert there - Blue in the face - so I hope you will forgive if I just don't bother, 'cos it just ain't goin' to happen. Mind you what we will see unfold over the next couple of days in Iran should prove interesting enough. |
|
19 Feb 04 - 04:15 PM (#1119416) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Nerd Well, CarolC, now that we have Iraq's oil we won't need Iran's for years, so like T, I'm not holding my breath. Unlike T, I wouldn't put money on US-backed regime change in Iran never happening for the sake of oil. |
|
19 Feb 04 - 04:56 PM (#1119451) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth My arguments are constant chums - perhaps you might like to look back at yours in a month or two and see if they hold. But be warned - I warn once, then bite ! Gareth |
|
19 Feb 04 - 05:50 PM (#1119518) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: CarolC Alrighty then. Shall we start taking bets? Iran and Syrian will become targets of "regime change" within two years of the next US presidential election. That's my bet. |
|
19 Feb 04 - 07:25 PM (#1119587) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Metchosin Teribus, after wading through all the back and forth, going back again to the excerpt from your original post: Where that event does come into the picture relates to potential future threat - no-one has come up with any grounds for dispelling the likelyhood that Saddam could provide WMD, or WMD technology and know how to an international terrorist group that could target America. Remember that he, Saddam, was the only international leader in the world to publically applaud those attacks. notwithstanding Powell's comment to the media regarding lack of threat posed by Iraq to his immediate neighbours, due to the presence of no fly zones and sanctions, re conventional weapons- I would still like to ask for the following questions: When does a potential future threat that likely could provide WMD cross over to a point where, another nation decides it has the right unilaterally to attack that "potential future threat" which "likely could provide WMDs" to terrorist organizations? Could it be when the other nation's leader has the stupidity and gaul to rub hypothetical salt into the wounds of the US? Is that why the US declared war on Iraq? You may wish to disregard it, but as far as passing on "know-how regarding WMDs" to terrorist organizations" or "rogue states" there are a number of just as likely candidates as Iraq was and yes, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Iran and member states of the former USSR come to mind. Does this give the right to the US and others to unilaterally go in and blast them because of their "potential"? I have still not seen anything, to date, that would disabuse me of the idea, that the reasons that the US chose to hammer Iraq with it's military might was America's need for a scapegoat after 9/11 to show others it's might, it's wish to illiminate administrations of states which are not sympathetic to western economic interests, particularly in the middle east and it's shortsighted perception that Iraq would be an easier target and less politically messy as they were militarily already geared up to do so and it would not be hard to get people on side because Hussein is considered such an "evil man". And just because I sometimes like to answer some of my own: Does this make continental US or Europe safer from terrorist attacks? Perhaps, but I'm not convinced. Is it turning out to be messy? Yup Are the UK and the US going to bring a secular democracy to Iraq in a suitcase on a tank? I wouldn't bet on it. Does it assure a kinder and gentler administration in Iraq? Not necessarily Is it going to secure the US oil supply in the middle east? I wouldn't bet on that either, control of others is usually an enterprize in futility. In fact, I might harbour a guess, but I wouldn't bet on a lot of things, particularly in the world of politics. But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane, In proving foresight may be vain: The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy! |
|
19 Feb 04 - 07:34 PM (#1119597) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Gareth Does this make continental US or Europe safer from terrorist attacks? Perhaps, but I'm not convinced. Is it turning out to be messy? Yup Are the UK and the US going to bring a secular democracy to Iraq in a suitcase on a tank? I wouldn't bet on it. Does it assure a kinder and gentler administration in Iraq? Not necessarily Is it going to secure the US oil supply in the middle east? I wouldn't bet on that either, control of others is usually an enterprize in futility. May I congratulate Metchosin on an objective comment. Such a change from the knee jerk anti Bush/Blair 'erberts who infest the internet. But - and my comments - At least with the regime change, and the elimination of SH there is a possibility of a better future for the Iraqui people, and the rest of the Geographical Area. Gareth |
|
19 Feb 04 - 11:37 PM (#1119784) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim McCallan A Post Grad is a student, Teribus. I know. I have been one, periodically. You are not pointing out a detail, here. You are jumping at shadows. Whether he reckons the information was still valid or not, would and should Naiveté was never my forte, Teribus. I am not so blind that I cannot see when In that television interview, to which I referred in an earlier post, the Invoking the Colin Powell defence, Hans Blix, like every other person of He and his workers knew the situation on the ground. These fantastic claims I have great respect for Dr. Blix. I would have had great respect for Dr. We have 'liberated' a country that could well become a greater threat than And what, in real terms, has been accomplished? I am not a scaremonger in the I do actually have more hope for Iran. Perhaps it wont happen for them this And now America won't send back all of the British prisoners on Guantanamo. You may believe that I live in Camberwick Green. And you may right. But it is
… and Gareth…. Knock yourself out, ol' buddy. I wish you hours of fun over |
|
20 Feb 04 - 01:49 PM (#1119952) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Well stop the danged press!!! Fir the first time that I can remember Teribus answered a question directly and its a good thing that he did. Why? Well, I'll tell ya' why. We can forget the following: 1. When are you gonna believe that Saddam is the threat? When the mushroom cloud is overhead? 2. Irag had direct ties to Al Quida. 3. Iraq has been trying to buy enriched uranium so that it can build a nuclear weapon. 4. Iraq has sophisticated drones that can spead chemical and biological weapons. 5. Iraq has WMD and can deploy them on us in 45 minutes. 6. Iraq has aluminum tubes for making nuclear weapons. 7. Saddam gassed his own people. 8. Saddam is a bad man. 9. Saddam is gonna give WMD to terrorist groups. and 10. The Clinton folks left us orders to attack Iraq... Yep, Catfolkers, you can throw all those reasons out the window. No reason to clutter up your minds with old outdated information when one reason, according to T-Bird fits all: Ready? We attacked Iraq *only* to get the Ba'thist out of power!!! There, isn't life simplier now? And, BTW, the coolaid is free so partake liberally (pun intended). Bobert |
|
24 Feb 05 - 05:49 AM (#1419358) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:US Attack on Iran June 2005 From: freda underhill Scott Ritter Says US Attack on Iran Planned for June By Mark Jensen Saturday, 19 February 2005 United for Peace of Pierce County (WA) Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq. Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations. The principal theme of Scott Ritter's talk was Americans' duty to protect the U.S. Constitution by taking action to bring an end to the illegal war in Iraq. But in passing, the former UNSCOM weapons inspector stunned his listeners with two pronouncements. Ritter said plans for a June attack on Iran have been submitted to President George W. Bush, and that the president has approved them. He also asserted that knowledgeable sources say U.S.officials "cooked" the results of the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq. On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism. The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called "a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom," were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%. Asked by UFPPC's Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine -- an obvious allusion to/ New Yorker/ reporter Seymour M. Hersh. On Jan. 17, the/ New Yorker/ posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (/New Yorker/, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. . . .Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military's war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. . . . The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans' negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act." Scott Ritter said that although the peace movement failed to stop the war in Iraq, it had a chance to stop the expansion of the war to other nations like Iran and Syria. He held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 07:22 AM (#1419428) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,TIA And yesterday, Bush told the Europeans that the idea that we would attack Iran is ridiculous, but that "all options were on the table." Even for Bush, that is breathtaking - in once sentence saying "we would never attack, but we might attack". |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:06 AM (#1419456) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Well, Scott Ritter turned out to be 100% correct in his assessments of Iraq's military capabilities before the run to Bush invading Iraq so if Scott Ritter says that Bush has signed off on invading Iran, he most likely has. Bush never met a new war not worth starting. He will go down in history right along his pal, Adoplf. He is a madman in both respects: he is mad, as in angry, and mad, as in nuts... Irs good to see Scott get at least a little press time. The media tatoally ignored him last time around and I guess most of the media will do the same for Bush's next war... Thanks fir refreshing this thread, freda... Seeing "Teribus's" name brought back memories but. hey, mybe Bush will reassign him back to Mudcat to argue endlessly the pros of invading Iran... Bobert |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:08 AM (#1419459) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Bobert, The sound from the Left asking Iran to stop it's nuclear program is truely deafening........ |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:23 AM (#1419468) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert bb, No, the relentlessness of drum pounding hawks who think war is fun is truely deafening... If yer so gung-ho, take yer gung-ho butt on fown to the nearest recruiting office and sign up... |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:26 AM (#1419471) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Amos Bruce: I am curious to know what intelligence you have indicating that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability. A |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:49 AM (#1419484) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Amos, I am interested in knowing what intelligence you have that the US is planning and attack on Iran. You seem far more willing to give the Iranians the benefit of the douubt, even though THEY have claimed the capability, than you are the US, who have stated they are not planning to attack, but reserve the right to do so IF Iran refuses to comply with it's UN required obligations. Blatent predjudice on your part. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:50 AM (#1419486) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce As for Bobert, I would rather see a tactical strike now than a full scale exchange of WMD that you seem to be encouraging. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:56 AM (#1419490) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Or are you saying that the request to stop the Iranian nuclear program, which they HAD agreed with the UN to do, is a warlike thing? So, it would be peacelike to encourage every country to have nuclear weapons, and threaten their enimies? Is THAT what the Left really believes? I find that hard to swallow, but with Bobert, who can tell? |
|
24 Feb 05 - 09:14 AM (#1419504) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Here we go again... Same scare lies... |
|
24 Feb 05 - 09:21 AM (#1419510) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Jim Tailor "scare lies"? Sounded like reasonable questions to me. Well reasoned syllogism, and BB seems to have a point with Amos' interesting choice of whom to believe. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 09:40 AM (#1419534) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert If you 'll back track a few posts back, Jim, to my last post before this thread went dormant, you may just get a peek into the world of us who are very leary when George Bush talks... Bobert |
|
24 Feb 05 - 10:23 AM (#1419582) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Amos 1. I did not say anything about Bush signing off on a plan to attack Iran, Bruce. Apparently Scott Ritter did. I did not say I believed him. 2. If the President of the UNited States says he is not going to unilaterally invade a country, and later does so, who am I to question his wisdom? He must know more than I do, right? It's not lying, it political realism and flexibility. Right? 3. Did Iran claim to have the nuclear weapons capability? I must have missed that. Can you point me to such an article or announcement somewhere? My prejudice is toward the facts, which as far as I know so far are that Iran has developed part way towards a nuclear energy program. If there is reason for them not to do so, I would like to know what it is. If there is reason to believe they intend to turn off that path and instead develop nuclear weapons, I would like to know what that reason is. If you have facts concerning nuclear weapons in Iran, I would like to hear them, because it is perfectly possible you know stuff I do not. Do you think everything which uses the word "nuclear" is automatically a WMD? Maybe that is the kind of thinking that got us all confused about Iraq, huh? Let us cleave to facts as much as we can here. A |
|
24 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM (#1419964) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Frank Do you trust Bush with nuclear weapons? If I were Iran, I wouldn't. What's more, if I were any other country in the world, I wouldn't. I can see why these countries would stockpile theirs as a deterrant to an invasion by Bush. I'm not saying that any of this is sane but there seems to be a reasonable explanation why there is no effort to curtail a legitimate dismantling of nuclear weapons. Bush has already gone against the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. His attitude is simply this: Mine is bigger than yours. Frank |
|
24 Feb 05 - 04:30 PM (#1419987) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Beyond that, Frank, I am very concerned about the Depratment of Energy getting a lot of dough to develope smaller and better nuclear weapons, such as the bunker buster... What this clearly says about Bush and his neocon buddies is that they want this weapon so they can use it on people... Forgit the idea of having a feea round as a deterant... They are ready to escalate their wae making to nuclear levels. This is insane. Absolutely insane... Sure, he and his pal can bomb anyone they want into submission but at some point in time they are not going to be able to control the situation on the ground. Think Iraq here... Like how many countries can we afford to occupy before we are finacially spent. The USSR went down because it couldn'r pull it off. Now we have Cowboy Bush, with a life's worth of failed businesses and not much knowledge of history thinking that he wants to give it a try... But worse than that, the old time Republicans are just so happy to have someone in power who calls himself a Republican that they have completely forgotten the Republicanism??? Like go figure??? Richrad Nixon is turning over in his grave... And fir all you Bush-heads out there. I was on the money on my predictions about Iraq during the run-up to war and I'm on the money again. Yer guy has a personality disorder. He just loves starting wars. Loves it. I I'm beginning to think that you followers do, too... This is the most insane foriegn policy in our history... All it is going to do is bring about is world chaos and the eventual collapse of the United States... Insane!!! Bobert |
|
24 Feb 05 - 04:32 PM (#1419988) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk From the point of view OF Iran, an eventual USA attack seems very probable (regardless of whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not). Under such circumstances, would it not be probable that they would want to have nuclear weapons as an effective deterrent against attack? Very probable, I would think. "By opposing an enemy, you give it strength." Lao-Tsu By threatenind someone constantly, you make it very likely that he will arm himself as potently as he is capable of arming himself. The USA already HAS the World's biggest stockpile of Nukes, and has already proven itself to be a "rogue nation" ten times over. Why would its declared targets in the World not seek an effective deterrent against being the next one to be attacked? That they would do so is virtually inevitable. The USA colluded with and armed Iraq in the 1980's to wage an eight-year war against Iran, which killed vast numbers of people. The USA has illegally invaded Iraq under false pretences and invaded Afghanistan under flimsy pretences over what should have been an international police matter, not a war, and the USA has Iran surrounded. The Iranians would have to be just plain stupid not to develop a nuclear deterrent now...if they were capable of it at all. No one is going to help them but themselves. They stand alone and surrounded. They have already BEEN attacked heavily in recent times. And they are human beings, just like you are. What would you do, in their shoes? You would try to prepare to defend yourself. I get the impression that Iranians are not really seen as human beings by the people who are urging an attack on that country. Israel has nukes, lots of them...but it's never been publicly admitted to. Apparently, Israelis are considered to be equal human beings, and can have nukes if they want to...but Iraqis and Iranians are not really seen as human beings. They're seen as just vermin, to be exterminated if they show signs of even attempting to play on an even field. That is the unspoken statement I hear in what people say every day. That is the implicit assumption. It is like what Hitler assumed about the Jews. And the Iranians and Iraqis know it. Can you imagine how they feel about it? Very angry, that's how. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 05:49 PM (#1420049) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Frank Right Bobert, I don't think you can blame Kerry for starting the war but I have been disillusioned by his position of supporting it. It doesn't add up. The old Kerry is the guy I liked and voted for but the new Kerry is the one I don't understand. What happened to "How can you ask a man...........?" Little Hawk, absolutely! Bush has turned the world into an armed camp. Nerd, Scott Ritter is a maligned hero whose information is more valid than what has come from the FBI, CIA or any government agency that is controlled or ignored by this White House. Teribus, Even the 911 Commission Report that has been released as well as the part that has been suppressed by the Bush Administration doesn't justify a pre-emptive occupation of Iraq. If WMD's were so easilly built by aggressors, the US would have been hit with them long ago. Frank |
|
24 Feb 05 - 07:05 PM (#1420124) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce LH, So you feel that is it ok for a country that has threatened the annihilation of another country JUST BECAUSE it exists to be deserving of violating it's treaty commitments and continuing with a nuclear program, againsts all UN pleas? Thank you for revealling that you are in favor of the destruction of the Mideast as a habitat for life. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 07:11 PM (#1420126) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Sounds like bb is talkin' about the US of A to me, LH... |
|
24 Feb 05 - 07:13 PM (#1420127) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Sounds like Bobert is talking out of his ass, to me. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 07:14 PM (#1420130) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce But I guess if we give him a choice between a few thousand killed and millions, he will opt for the largest number of killed and injured, just as a matter of principle. Got to blame the US , you know. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 07:21 PM (#1420142) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Frank, give me a year, 30 pounds of thorium, and about $50k for parts, and I could build a 30-60 KT nuke. No problem at all. Lots easier than an internal combustion engine. So long as I don't care about surviving long after making it. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 07:58 PM (#1420180) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Yeah, bb, and you were one of the folks who believed Condi Rice's "mushroom cloud" and Bush's "We could be a attacked in as little as 45 minutes" story???... Talk about talkin' from one's posterior, pal, after the last fiasco I would think you, and yer buddies, would have pulled up your pants by now... But keep firin' them lies... but would ya please take 'um down wind? They don't smell any better than the last time... Nasty... Bobert |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:01 PM (#1420183) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Bobert, YOU have stated "you were one of the folks who believed Condi Rice's "mushroom cloud" and Bush's "We could be a attacked in as little as 45 minutes" story???..." I said that there was, FROM THE INFORMATION KNOWN AT THE TIME, a real danger that Iraq was capable of WMD ( INCLUDING biological and chemical, which you ignore that they ALREADY had used) If you insist on defining what I believe in spite of what I say, then blame me for believing it, you are a real shit for brains. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:34 PM (#1420197) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Amos Bruce: You do that to others frequently, in case you haven't noticed. You define others' points of view for them according to some twisty idea of your own and then mock them for having an idea they never claimed to have. You did it in this thread with that crap about the Mideast up thread. I do hope you get over your mad, Bruce. Peace. A |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:47 PM (#1420205) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Peace is devoutly to be wished for- the problem is that I do not see that allowing Iran to continue a program it is obligated by UN treaty to end will allow for any peace in the region. You seem (IMO) to differ in the assessment of the situation. And if my comments are "crap", why is it you ( collectively) insist on ad hominim arguements instead of addressing the facts I am bringing up? Could it be that since you can't fault the facts, you have to attack the messanger? |
|
24 Feb 05 - 08:52 PM (#1420206) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce LH Israel has NOT stated that it has the goal of the total destruction of Iran or any other country. Iran, among other Arab nations, HAS made that statement about Israel. Or do you think the Iranians are lying about their goal? |
|
24 Feb 05 - 09:25 PM (#1420222) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Problem with you, bb, is that the information *was* there the last time. There were plenty of folks with lots of information, which your hero silenced, your hero's media silenced and that you *flat out* didn't want to hear. Just like now! Youi don't want to hear anything that will deprive you of yer nationalistic right to blow up other folks. Fine. Go enlist... But you won't. Why. Because you like gettin' yer jollies watchin' it on TV. Knock yerself out but in the final accounting, you *will be* judged for the war monger you are. Just like yer hero... If you want outta the prison of narrow mindedness that you have built around you there are alot more sources of news than Fox and the Big Three. But you feel all smug and comfy in yer little prison... "Sealed dead in my armor..." That song was about you... And don't give me that right winged mantra that we on the other side don't listen to the right wing side becauswe one can't escape it. It's everywhere you look. You and yer war mongin' world criminals have taken over 99% of every media outlet on the planet so please save us that little mindless rebuttal, thank you... Bobert |
|
24 Feb 05 - 09:35 PM (#1420229) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Sorry, Bobert. I disagree with your assessment of the facts of the matter. Too bad you can't discuss THEM, instead of your delusions. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 10:15 PM (#1420247) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert You have no interest in discussing *facts*, bb, but reiterating the Bush PR talking points, which bear little resemblence to fact... When you and yet kind are willing to admit that yer guy was trugger happy the last time around, did everything in it's power to discredit folks who actually had *facts* that went against the PR for war, then we can satrt to talk about this time around... As long as, given the mountain of evidence that yer guy was in way too much of a hurry last time around, then there is nuthin' that my side has to offer you this time... If you want continue to believe any and everything that comes outta George Bushe's mouth then as far as I am concerned: Discussion over with yer ignorant, nationalistic self 'cause yer mind is like a parachute bag with a pad lock on it... Yeah, if that's all you wanta discuss then leave me out 'cuase that ain't no discussion but a bb lecture of PR talking points that have nuthin' to do with fact... Bobert |
|
24 Feb 05 - 10:24 PM (#1420251) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Bobert, The only one around here that is "believe(ing) any and everything that comes outta George Bushe's mouth " seems to be you. Stop telling me what I think. You obviously do not wish to discuss facts, but your self-centered little view of the world. As well meaning as you try to be in regards to killing, you are far more responsible, with your lack of concern with the real world, than Bush is for the next nuclear war. Hope it makes you happy to help cause millions of deaths. |
|
24 Feb 05 - 10:42 PM (#1420266) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert And then bb woke up.... Millions of deaths, bb? Really? Would you like to present your evidence this time before going off and kill off a 100,000 innocent people? Yeah, show us the evidence. Oh, you ain't got any? But you want us to just, ahhhhhhh, believe you? Yeah right. Get me once, shame on you. Get me twice, shame on me... PRESENT YOUR CASE FIR WAR IN IRAN... ..or shut the heck up... We don't believe stuff like "Ohhhhh, millions are gonna die iF we don't attack _______________!!!!" That's bull... PRESENT YOUR CASE!!! Facts acceptable... Note: Until I hear something from you that is factual, I'll ignore any more of your posts jst like I have in past you have shown to be nuthin' but an shill who doesn't know anything about anything... So if you got the facts, then let the discussion begin... But you don't... ...so, most likely, good bye to you, part 2... Bobert |
|
24 Feb 05 - 10:55 PM (#1420276) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Bobert: "We don't believe stuff like "Ohhhhh, millions are gonna die iF we don't attack _______________!!!!" YOU are saying that, not me. I am saying Why is it that the Left is not asking Iran to comply with it's UN OBLIGATIONS before there are consequences? You don't seem capable of answering that. Fact: IRAN has stated that it will develop a nuclear capability in violation of it's UN agreements. Fact: IRAN has stated that it will destroy the state of Israel. Fact: The Israelis will not let themselves be destroyed just to make you happy. By NOT pushing IRAN toward honoring it's treaty obligations, YOU are encouraging a (probably) nuclear war. But that seems ok with you, as long as you can blame the US... |
|
24 Feb 05 - 11:04 PM (#1420286) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Would you mind posting your sources... |
|
24 Feb 05 - 11:05 PM (#1420287) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Amos BB: There is no left left. Who is this "Left" that "should be" asking Iran to do something? Last I saw the election was When you say a "nuclear capability" in the post just above do you mean energy production? Or do you mean weapons? A |
|
24 Feb 05 - 11:13 PM (#1420293) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm http://www.cfr.org/background/iran_nuclear.php http://fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/ http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/countries/country.asp?ID=2&country=Iran |
|
24 Feb 05 - 11:15 PM (#1420295) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Department of *ENERGY* is now into makin' designer nukes...Wonder who was in those secret meetings with Dick Cheney when the naytional "erergy policy* was written. But we'll never know since the White House is using "Executive Priviledge" to prevent the public from ever knowing... But we do know that the oil companies have never had it so good and Buish and his boys will have a nice little bunker buster nuke that they very much plan on using... Bobert |
|
25 Feb 05 - 12:59 AM (#1420312) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk Bearded Bruce, I understand exactly how you must see it, but from where I see it you are living in a reality bubble that is as far out of touch with reality as the first Pope was who decided to declare himself infallible... You actually believe the USA stands for liberty and freedom, don't you? Very few people outside the USA are under that splendid illusion any longer, but they weren't brainwashed by American TV all their lives, and that's why... Your intentions are good, but I think you have little or no idea how your country is seen outside its own borders. I am well aware that some religious fanatics in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and every other Muslim country would like to see Israel destroyed. There are such fanatics, yes. There are similar religious fanatics in the USA also, and in Israel, and you can quote their hateful statements anytime you choose to look them up. I do not judge another whole nation on the basis of the statements of a tiny group of noisy psychotics in its midst. The USA has already proven to be a far greater threat to Muslim populations than Iran could possibly be to either the USA or Israel. It is ludicrous to imagine that Iran would lob a nuke at Israel when they would be committing national suicide by so doing...and they know it! That's realpolitik. Israel can blow Iran up 50 times over. Iran will not launch a nuke at Israel under such circumstances, but will certainly indulge in inflammatory rhetoric to pander to its own angry civilian population. That also is realpolitik....and it isn't just Iran that does that sort of thing. All aggressive and fearful regimes do it. The USA does it. No country on Earth spends more time threatening other people than the USA. I'm sure Iran's government would dearly love to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth...just like Israel would dearly love to see present-day Iran wiped off the face of the Earth. Their intentions toward one another are obvious. But realpolitik makes it clear that that is NOT going to happen. It's not feasible in either case, and for the Iranians it would plainly be totally suicidal. Ergo...they are not going to do it. It doesn't friggin' matter what they say about it. They can't do it without being destroyed themselves. Therefore, they won't do it. At the end of the day they, like everyone else, want to be left standing...not exterminated. |
|
25 Feb 05 - 01:07 AM (#1420319) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Amos Excerpt from the CFR link above: "Will this issue be resolved diplomatically? It appears so, if Iran follows through with its pledges to cooperate with the IAEA and opens all of its nuclear facilities to international inspectors. If Iran continues to violate its agreements, however, sanctions or other punishments could follow. According to the Bush administration, a unilateral military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is not currently under consideration. -- by Sharon Otterman, staff writer, cfr.org" Thanks for the online links, BB. Nerve-wracking stuff, huh? I really wish we had a trustworthy person in the White House. I do not say that to needle you, but because with his history of altering truth it is really hard to know which of his statements to believe at any point in time. A |
|
25 Feb 05 - 01:12 AM (#1420324) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk What you are observing is not any serious or real threat from Iran toward anyone...but merely the next planned media propaganda campaign to prepare the American public to support the next cynical oil war. And none of this is done to protect Americans or Israelis. None of it. In the long run it will hugely endanger Americans and Israelis...and kill many, many other people. Most of them will be poor people who just happen to be "in the way". |
|
25 Feb 05 - 05:55 AM (#1420446) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce LH, We disagree. "but merely the next planned media propaganda campaign to prepare the American public to support the next cynical oil war. " By whose media? "TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran's most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only". "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran. Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani's speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State. "It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator." THIS IS FROM IRANIAN SOURCES. Are you so blinded by your anti-american predjudice that you think Bush controls the IRANIAN press? Amos, I can say that we probably agree as to the desired goal, but differ as to how it might be accomplished. Does this really justify your (previous) constant ad hominim attacks on myself, and all others that disagree with your particular view of the best means to maintain a peaceful world? |
|
25 Feb 05 - 06:02 AM (#1420452) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Amos, ""Will this issue be resolved diplomatically? It appears so, if Iran follows through with its pledges to cooperate with the IAEA and opens all of its nuclear facilities to international inspectors. If Iran continues to violate its agreements, however, sanctions or other punishments could follow. According to the Bush administration, a unilateral military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is not currently under consideration." AND where is the public outcry for this to happen? All I hear about is how evil Bush is trying to start a war- MAYBE if there was even a small voice crying for the Iranians to comply with their obligations, there might be a chance for peace- BUT you (collectively) seem ONLY to want to blame the US for what (IMO) is the responsibility of the Iranians. |
|
25 Feb 05 - 06:14 AM (#1420466) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: freda underhill well, bruce, you are proof that Bush was successful when he proposed the idea of the "pre-emptive strike" being justified. He got you. |
|
25 Feb 05 - 06:21 AM (#1420473) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Freda, Can I ask when YOU have ever pointed out that IRAN should comply with it's obligations? I hear a deafening silence for the rest of the world to bother trying to deal with it- BUT you seem happy to criticise the US. "If Iran continues to violate its agreements, however, sanctions or other punishments could follow. According to the Bush administration, a unilateral military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is not currently under consideration." What part of this do you not understand? WHERE do you come off saying I have said we should have a pre-emptive strike? It MAY be justified- I cannot rule out ANY course of action that would prevent a major nuclear exchange. |
|
25 Feb 05 - 07:02 AM (#1420496) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: freda underhill excerpts.. from TEARING UP THE RULES: The Illegality of Invading Iraq March 2003; The Center for Economic and Social Rights Emergency Campaign on Iraq www.cesr.org/iraq "Every country in the world is bound by principles of law developed over centuries to govern international relations. International law was significantly strengthened through the creation and universal acceptance of the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions over 50 years ago 1 Under Article 1(1) of the UN Charter, the world organization's central purpose is "to bring about by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." 1 Similarly, Article 2(3) obligates member states to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means," while Article 2(4) provides that: All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. It is beyond dispute that these provisions, and the Charter as a whole, impose a general prohibition on the use of force to resolve conflicts in international relations. The Security Council and General Assembly have consistently reaffirmed this legal principle.20 The prohibition against force is binding on all states not only through the Charter but as a peremptory norm in customary international law, so fundamental that "no derogation is permitted." It is, in short, the cornerstone of the collective security system established by the U.N. to prevent any recurrence of the horrors of World War II. Only two exceptions, specified in the Charter and supplemented by customary international law, permit the lawful use of force. First is the right of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack, under Article 51. Second is the specific authorization of force by the Security Council as a last resort to maintain international peace and security, under Chapter VII. Preventive war is unequivocally illegal. In 1946, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg rejected Germany's argument that it had been compelled to attack Norway and Denmark in selfdefense to prevent a future Allied invasion. The Tribunal concluded that these attacks violated customary law limits on self-defense and instead constituted wars of aggression whose prohibition was demanded by the conscience of the world.4 As the Tribunal stated: To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. Nuremberg's condemnation of preventive war was incorporated into the U.N. Charter, affirmed by the General Assembly, and accepted by the Security Council.36 In 1978, the U.S. mobilized the Security Council to condemn Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia and overthrow of the violently repressive Khmer Rouge regime, terming it a breach of Charter and an act of aggression in violation of international law. Similarly, in 1981, the Council unanimously condemned Israel's "preventive" attack against an Iraqi nuclear plant as a "clear violation of the Charter of the UN and the norms of international conduct." A Council member explained the consensus: The concept of preventive war, which for many years served as a justification for the abuses of powerful States, since it left to their discretion to define what constituted a threat to them, was definitively abolished by the Charter of the U.N. The German argument in favor of preventive war was judged and condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal, and German leaders held individually accountable as war criminals. Any return to this doctrine by powerful states such as the U.S. and U.K. would undermine world public order, and in the process encourage states and non-state actors alike to launch unilateral acts of aggression unconstrained by longstanding principles of international law. humanitarian intervention. Source: CESR Report, "Unsanctioned Suffering: Human Rights Violations Under Sanctions (May 1996), www.cesr/iraq. |
|
25 Feb 05 - 07:04 AM (#1420498) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: freda underhill The point has probably best been made in a speech by Sir Thomas More, written by playwright Robert Bolt, in A Man for All Seasons. More turns to his former confidant Will Roper who has become a vigilante in the name of justice and asks: And when the last law was cut down and the devil turned around on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast – man's laws, not God's – and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? www.cesr.org/iraq |
|
25 Feb 05 - 07:28 AM (#1420510) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce And will you ask IRAN to comply with the law as to it's UN obligations? I am waiting. |
|
25 Feb 05 - 07:38 AM (#1420520) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: freda underhill bruce, if you had read or comprehended what I just posted, and thought about what was said at the Nuremberg Tribunal, you would realise that it is just as irrelevant for the US, me or you to ask that question of Iran, as it would be for any of us to question the US over its nuclear stockpiles. a country has sovereignty over itself. other countries come when invited, and behave like nice guests. Nuremberg - doesnt that word resonate for you somehow - the Nuremberg excuse? I repeat: To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. Nuremberg's condemnation of preventive war was incorporated into the U.N. Charter, affirmed by the General Assembly, and accepted by the Security Council.36 In 1978, the U.S. mobilized the Security Council to condemn Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia and overthrow of the violently repressive Khmer Rouge regime, terming it a breach of Charter and an act of aggression in violation of international law. QED. |
|
25 Feb 05 - 09:26 AM (#1420633) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert First of all, bb, none of the articles that you posted (make that NONE) support your statement "So you feel that it is ok for a country that has threatened the annilation of another country JUST BECAUSE it exists". Your words in your 24Feb, 7:05 post. Rafsanjani does not speak for Iran. And no one from the so-called left here has made any statement, quite the conrrary, that would support YOUR ASSERTION that anyone here is "in favor of the destruction of the Mideast as a habitat for human life." Again your words, pal. Not anyone elses. This is why it is impossible to *discuss* anything with you because you just make stuff up and assume that everyone will just believe your fabrications... Just like the "millions" of folks *might* die. You were the first to make any reference to the "millions" in you 24Feb, 7:14 post when you wrote, "But I guess if we give him the choice between a few thousand killed and millions, he will opt for the laergest number..." These are youe words, pal, not mine. Not Amos's. Not LH's. But yours. You own them. Not us. So when I throw your words right back at you you won't even take responsibilty for them in your Feb24, 10:55 post in telling me "You (meaning me) are saying that, not me..." See, bb, this isn't just about differences of opinions here but about integrity. I've brought this up a couple of other times but, IMO, you remind me very much of Bush. You will say whatever you want irregardless of *truth*. Now that wouldn't be so bad if you were confining your mythologies to world events but you don't stop there. You extend it to others here in Mudville. It's really a rather irritaing little personality disorder, bb, that just show to me that you must feel you are playing a weak hand. It's bad enough to fabricate world events but downright shamefull to state that someone else here said something that they, ahhhh, didn't say... Just like I did last year when you were making up stuff and telling folks I had said them them when I hadn't, I think I'll just go back to ignoring you. You aren't worthy or capable of discussing anything. Peace, Bobert |
|
25 Feb 05 - 11:40 AM (#1420739) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk You'be been duped by a lifetime of propaganda, BB, into automatically seeing certain people in the World as "bad guys" if your government says they are. Iran is no threat to the USA, but the USA is gearing up to attack Iran, in my opinion. The USA is not doing it to protect Israel! I laugh at the notion of that. The USA protects no one and nothing except its corporate profits. The USA would flush Israel down the toilet in an instant if Israel stood in the way of its corporate profits...but Israel does not stand in the way. Iran presently stands in the way, because: 1. It has a lot of oil. 2. It is not a USA puppet yet. 3. It is on an important potential oil shipping route from the Caspian region. 4. It's the latest convenient "enemy" of choice for a regime that wants continual war or threat of war, though in truth Iran is not really an enemy at all. What it is, is a small country that has already been persecuted severely in the recent past by the USA, and has had the nerve to kick out an American-backed dictator (the Shah) and remain defiantly independent of American policy. None of the above means I admire Iran's government or its religious fanatics. I don't admire them in the least. But I recognize their right to govern themselves as a sovereign nation and to shoot their own mouths off in an idiotic and aggressive fashion if they so desire...just the way American evangelists and politicians do all the time. Every nation has that right as a given. It's not illegal to make inflammatory statements. What no nation has the right to do is to launch pre-emptive wars on other countries that have launched no direct physical attack on them. |
|
25 Feb 05 - 06:00 PM (#1421074) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: freda underhill Apart from the pre-emptive reason for starting the war, another "excuse" the US has been throwing around in the last couple of years is Humanitarian (note: the Sudan). Hey, this country is suffering, we should go in and bomb the hell out of it, put in a puppet regime and suck all the oil out, for humanitarian reasons, of course. the only reason for an invasion is when many countries from the UN do it as a peace keeping mission, with mutual agreement. under Article 51 .. the specific authorization of force by the Security Council as a last resort to maintain international peace and security, under Chapter VII. and yep, bb, talk about your opinions, but when you put a lot of false words into other people's mouths, thats bigotry, arrogance, and offensive. |
|
25 Feb 05 - 06:07 PM (#1421083) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk It's tough defending fascism, Freda. :-) It takes nerve, gall, and/or a really strong streak of naivete or innocence. There are always plenty of loyal supporters in the ranks of any blatant military aggressor, and they should not be thought of as bad people...just poorly informed people. |
|
25 Feb 05 - 06:15 PM (#1421094) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: freda underhill yeh, i regretted sending that post with the last line. sorry bruce! I can listen to your opinions with patience, but not to what feels like a misrepresentation of others opinions! |
|
25 Feb 05 - 06:24 PM (#1421102) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert I agree, LH... I don't think bb is a bad person, just dishonest and, like you say, "poorly informed"... But being a fellow man, yeah, I love him. Just don't *have* to interact with him... You know, I would have more respect for Bush and his blind followers if they would just come clean and say, "Hey, we're attacking these countries for their oil.." Yeah, that would at leasr be honest. But to keep thowing childish rationales and lies at us is arrogant... Mean while the NASCAR/Budwieser/CountryMusic crowd watches Stroker Ace drive a dumb car round, and round, and round, and round, and round.... Give me a break and... Beam my boney butt up... Bobert |
|
25 Feb 05 - 11:53 PM (#1421230) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk Well, we may disagree with BB on politics, but he sure as hell can write good sonnets (check out the "post last" thread). |
|
26 Feb 05 - 12:32 AM (#1421249) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Yeah, the boy ain't half bad, LH... Sniff... ...'fer a brainwashed kinda feller. Iz writ a few o' them sonnets myself but they ain't gonna be nailed up in one the Catbox walls, nope, you ain't gonna have that to pin on me, but on the little that BB posted is good... ..fir a knothaed, that is... |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:07 AM (#1422937) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Bobert, "You and yer war mongin' world criminals have taken over 99% of every media outlet on the planet so please save us that little mindless rebuttal, thank you..." It would be interesting if you were to post the source of this delusion. Amos, in presenting the "popular" view of Bush has been able to find well under 1% comments that favor Bush. Even though about half the country voted for him. The June 7 2004 USNews &World report presents the FACTS of a Pew Research center study showing the LIBERAL bias of journalists and news executives. Perhaps you can present some figures to justify your statement? "If you want outta the prison of narrow mindedness that you have built around you there are alot more sources of news than Fox and the Big Three. But you feel all smug and comfy in yer little prison..." For your information, I don't normally watch TV, except for tapes and DVDs. I have seen probably 12 hours in the last year, mostly CNN Headline news. I have never watched Fox, and get most of my information from WTOP on the way to/from work ( CBS News). I read the Washington Post, and look at CNN.com for most information. "You will say whatever you want irregardless of *truth*. " See the above comment, and talk to me about truth- You seem to like to make blanket indicments of people without trying to get the facts. "And no one from the so-called left here has made any statement, quite the conrrary, that would support YOUR ASSERTION that anyone here is "in favor of the destruction of the Mideast as a habitat for human life." " The policies that the Left has been pursueing in regards to Iran, the Middle East, and WMD are, IMO , ones that lead to further conflict and use of those WMD. Sorry if I am interpreting what is being said as if the people talking mean it. " just dishonest and, like you say, "poorly informed"..." I think I may safely say that this applies as much to you, if not more so, than to me. Perhaps you should consider if YOU have been brainwashed. I resent you calling me dishonest. If you mean that I have been poorly informed as to the "correct" opinions required here, perhaps I am. Live with it. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 01:43 PM (#1423052) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert It is dishonest to misquote people, bb. I gave several examples of where you have done this on this thread. Like I siad, I couldn't care less if you want to get into Bushite PR mythology but when you start posting stuff that none of us on the other side have said because you would very much *liked* for us to say, BUT DIDN'T SAY, that is dishonest... Sure, it might get you a short lived debating point until it is brought to your attention, YET AGAIN, that you are inventing arguments that those on the other side haven't made... That's why I'm just gonna go back to ignoring you... It is impossible to discuss anything with a person who routinely misquotes other folks because you spend so much effort just policing the discussion. Great diversionary tactic on your part... But I see where you got it... I listen to C-SPAN radio now and then and one Bushite after another does the same thing... Caller A : "I'm so sick of these baby killing, homo loving Democrats calling in complaining about our President. (spit)... Caller B : "These Democrats is what is wrong with this country. Yeah, they'd rather have Saddam as out president. (spit)... You may not see yourself in either of these callers but the folks who you have misquoted here in Mudville sure do... See ya... Peace Bobert |
|
28 Feb 05 - 01:47 PM (#1423054) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce 200! |
|
28 Feb 05 - 02:01 PM (#1423068) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Donuel With Ashcroft gone, Goss has taken up the wolf call. 2 weeks ago Goss said "Its not if but when we will be attacked by nuclear and biological weapons." |
|
28 Feb 05 - 02:27 PM (#1423100) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert The only two countries that could even mount an attack and possibly only loose 90% of it people within' a couple of hours are Russia and China. The rest would loose 99.99% of their people within two hours! I can't believe that the Bush folks continue to make this case that countries with very weak armies would even give a second thought to attacking the US... What we are seeing is that with the Bush foriegn policy of "Stomp Heavily and Whack Anyone You Want" that folks are trying to figure out ways to deter being invaded... If the tables werte turned the US would be doing the very same thing... What is needed here are some assurances from the US that it doesn't plan on whacking people. That would be a good start toward a saner planet but, no, what we have are preconditions after preconditions on the US's part. That's not diplomacy. That's ultimatum. Bad policy for a 21st century world... And to think that Bush *had* an opportunity after 9/11 to change the way people go about solving conflict but he blew it big time... Bobert |
|
28 Feb 05 - 02:54 PM (#1423121) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Bobert, Try reading my post. Peace BB |
|
28 Feb 05 - 05:29 PM (#1423292) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Bobert, "fir a knothaed, that is... " Well, I can only claim to be smarter than Gore- since Kerry would not release his test scores. The only reference I could find was a score of 1190 on his SATs, but no real confidence in that number.. Bush Verbal 566 SAT Verbal Score 566 (of 800) Ver 625 (of 800) Gore SAT Math Score 640 (of 800) 730 (of 800) |
|
28 Feb 05 - 05:32 PM (#1423296) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Sorry about that- bad formatting- Kerry rumoured total 1190, not confirmed, not released by him. Bush Verbal 566 Math 640 Gore Verbal 625 Math 730 BB Verbal 690 Math 760 I know I have no chance at all to compete with such intellects as Bobert or Amos.... |
|
28 Feb 05 - 05:33 PM (#1423297) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk I think there is a very high probability of a terrorist attack on the USA involving either a nuclear or a biological weapon. In fact, I think it's only a matter of time. Virtually inevitable. The trouble is, the main cause of that attack will be: the reaction of some angry 3rd World people to the past few decades of US foreign policy and especially to military actions taken since 911. If it happens, it will most likely be a clandestine attack by a secret cell, not an action by a national government. But the USA will find a national government to blame for it...most likely one that is parked on some valuable strategic real estate. And that will bring forth further tragedy and further retaliation against the USA. The USA, like Imperial Rome or Soviet Russia or any other conquering empire in history, is the author of its own misfortunes. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 06:01 PM (#1423323) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert A very well educated doctor was driving past a mental hospital when the lug nuts came off is wheel and then, of course, the wheel came off. He pulled over and was scratching his head as to what do do when he looked up and there on the other side of the chain link fence was one of "patients". "Hey, I know what you can do, sir?, said the patient. "Yeah, what?" inquired the well educated doctor. "Well, sir, you can take one lug nut off each of the other wheels and rebolt yer wheel back on with them. That will get you to town..." The learned doctor got a puzzeled look on his face, looked eyeball to eyeball with the patient and asked "Heck, if you are smart why are you doing in there?" to which the patient replied... "Heck, I may be nuts but I ain't stupid..." Bobert p.s. Bobert's SAT's... Fair... Nuthin' to write home about but better than most of the kids with a D+ average in high school did... Actually, I couldn't read much of anything until about the 9th grade when my folks scrounged up enuff dough to send me to the George Washington University Reading Clinic... Drove all me grade school teachers nuts... They thought I was sandbaggin', cause I was articulate and the best visual artist in the school... They hadn't even coined the term lexdexia at that point... But ya. know what? I couldn't care less about SAT's... It's about what folks do with their lives and how they act that counts... God don't care either... St. Peter ain't gonna have no clip board at the Pearly gate's with folks IQ's 'er SAT scores on it... |
|
28 Feb 05 - 06:08 PM (#1423328) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk Well, it's a whole lot more important to be good-hearted than to have a big I.Q. Some antisocial people are brilliant, after all, but they're still no boon to society. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 06:15 PM (#1423335) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,TIA According to Billy Crystal "...9/11 is also his SAT score..." |
|
28 Feb 05 - 09:20 PM (#1423483) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST LH, "Well, it's a whole lot more important to be good-hearted than to have a big I.Q. Some antisocial people are brilliant, after all, but they're still no boon to society. " Agreed- so why is there such an effort on the part of some posters to say that Bush and any who might agree with even one point of his are such stupid, subhuman idiots? Is it too much to ask them to address what they think he is doing wrong, instead of making ad hominum arguments? Once upon a time I thought there might be room here for civilised discussion and the airing of different viewpoints, so that I might better understand what those who did not agree withg me were thinking. I have found that ANYONE who deviates from the liberal-defined Order of things is subject to personal attacks, insults, and ridicule. Seems that the Left here is even better at that than the Bush administration is in the real world- but that does not stop the comnplaints about Bush attempting it, NOR the attempts here to do so. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 09:24 PM (#1423485) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST I suppose that wasn't an ad hominem argument |
|
28 Feb 05 - 09:32 PM (#1423486) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST Nope. It was not. It was a statement of what I see, here and in other threads. How would you call it ad hominum? Are you stating there are NOT complaints about Bush attacking those who do not agree with his world view? Or are you stating that the liberals here are not making even more malicious attacks on those that deviate from their viewpoint? |
|
28 Feb 05 - 09:33 PM (#1423487) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST correction to the last line... ... that SOME of the liberals here... |
|
28 Feb 05 - 09:38 PM (#1423491) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST That's better. Certainly better than 'ANYONE' (which is ad hominem) |
|
28 Feb 05 - 09:43 PM (#1423496) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST " It was a statement of what I see, here and in other threads. How would you call it ad hominum?" Definition of ad hominem: 'Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason' |
|
28 Feb 05 - 10:07 PM (#1423509) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Well, GUEST, you pick the topic and I couldn't care less what it is. You take the Buds administration's Point-of-View (POV) and given his propensity to give into big money, I'll take the other side... Heck, everywhere I look all I can see is how Boss Hog is tuniing the show and Bush is just Boss Hog's puppet... Yeah, you pick the issue, start a new thread entitled "Bush is right on this one" and I'll be there... Pick any friggin' thing that has helped all of the country... I'll be looking for your thread... Meanwhile, if you want to continue yer little chest pounding here on this thread, knock yerself out... Oh, and BTW, most folks who are folks singers don't like yer guy too much so if yer lookin' for folks with whom you will agree, Google in Chamber of Commerace, 'er Young Republicans. Folkies don't like mean people... Bobert |
|
28 Feb 05 - 10:31 PM (#1423514) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST I have found far more "mean" liberals here than I have conservatives- you have us outnumbered, so I guess you are in charge. Just like Bush is in the real world. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 10:39 PM (#1423519) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert No, GUEST, you just think we're mean because we don't agree with you and Bush about letting Boiss Hog call all the shots... You were the one who said that those of us on the other side think you and yer buddies are subhuman... Now, start yer own thread and we'll see. Heck, I'm willing to discuss anything you want to talk about. I am fully capable of discussing ideas, issues and policies. I have had good training since I deal with conservatives every day of my life and, believe it or not, work with conservatives in a few of the programs I am involved with... Conservatives ain't bad folks. Blind followers are... Bobert |
|
28 Feb 05 - 10:42 PM (#1423521) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce "You were the one who said that those of us on the other side think you and yer buddies are subhuman..." You mean you HAVEN'T read the posts that your friends have put up here? |
|
28 Feb 05 - 10:43 PM (#1423523) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert (Still ignoring bb's ignorance...) |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:05 PM (#1423531) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Bobert: "Rafsanjani does not speak for Iran." "TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran's most influential >>>>ruling <<<< cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only". "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran. D. Prager Dec 30, 2003 If you want to understand the Middle East conflict, Iran has just provided all you need to know. A massive earthquake kills between 20,000 and 40,000 Iranians, and the government of Iran announces that help is welcome from every country in the world . . . except Israel. This little-reported news item is of great significance. It begs commentary. Israel not only has the world's most experienced crews in quickly finding survivors in bombed out buildings, it is also a mere two-hour flight from Iran. In other words, no country in the world would come close to Israel in its ability to save Iranian lives quickly. But none of this means anything to the rulers of Iran. The Islamic government of Iran has announced to the world that it is better for fellow countrymen and fellow Muslims -- men, women and children -- to die buried under rubble than to be saved by a Jew from Israel. That is how deep the hatred of Israel and Jews is in much of the Muslim world. Hundreds of millions of Muslims -- Arab and non-Arab, Sunni and Shi'a -- hate Israel more than they love life. Leaders of the Palestinian terror organization Hamas repeatedly state, "We love death more than the Jews love life." And now, Iran announces that it is better for a Muslim to asphyxiate under the earth than be rescued by a Jew from Israel. Naive Westerners -- which includes most academics, intellectuals, members of the international news media, and nearly all others on the Left -- refuse to acknowledge the uniqueness of the Arab/Muslim hatred of Israel and Jews. Yet, there is no hatred in the world analogous to it. Not since the Nazi hatred of Jews has humanity witnessed such hate. That is why finding survivors from earthquakes, creating a Palestinian state and life itself are all far less important in much of the Islamic and Arab worlds than killing Jews and destroying the little Jewish state. That is why Arab newspapers run articles by Arab professors describing how Jews butcher non-Jewish children to use their blood for holiday meals. That is why Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad could get a standing ovation from the heads of every Muslim country when he told them "the Jews rule the world by proxy." That is why Palestinian parents celebrate the suicide terror of their sons -- the joy of killing Israeli families far outweighs the pain of the death of their child. Western naifs like to believe platitudes such as "Deep down, all people are really the same," "All people want peace," and the great untruth of multiculturalism that no culture is morally superior to another. That is why they choose not to face the truth about the Nazi-like hatred that permeates the Arab/Muslim world and the consequent moral gulf that exists between it and Israel. It shatters too many of their illusions. Surely the Iranian refusal of rescuers from the Jewish state ought to help all these people acknowledge the unique hatred that is at the root of the Arab-Israeli dispute and recognize that it is therefore a conflict unlike any other on earth. So, too, the immediate and sincere Israeli offer of rescuers to Iran should make the moral gulf between Israel and its enemies as clear as day. Despite the fact that Iran is the greatest backer of anti-Israel (and anti-American) terror and despite the fact that Iran repeatedly declares that Israel must be annihilated (in other words, seeks a second Jewish Holocaust), Israel offered to send its people to save Iranian lives. The two reactions -- Iran's preference for Iranian deaths to Israeli help and the Jewish state's instinctive offer to help save Iranian lives -- ought to be enough anyone needs to understand the source of the Middle East conflict. But they won't. Because those who are anti-Israel or "evenhanded" are not so because of the facts, but despite them. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:10 PM (#1423534) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert (bb's interpretation of world affairs... Like if Jerry Falwell were to give a speech in Germany the German's would believe that Jerry Falwell was speaking for the United States governemnt...) (still somewhat ignoring bb's ignorance) |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:14 PM (#1423536) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce No, Bobert, like if Cheney or Rice were to give a speech. Or are you saying that the clerics are not the rulers of Iran? If not, who is? |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:31 PM (#1423542) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce (älç´ äk´bär häsh´emç räf&180;sänjän´ç) (Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani) , 1934-, Iranian religious and political leader, president of Iran (1989-97). A Shiite clergyman and supporter of Ayotallah Khomeini , Rafsanjani was imprisoned several times during the 1960s and 70s for his political activities. After the ouster of the Shah (see Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi ), Rafsanjani helped found the Islamic Republican party and built his political power base as speaker of the parliament (1980-89). From 1988 to 1989 he was also acting commander in chief of the armed forces. In 1989, Rafsanjani was elected president, receiving some 95% of the vote. A pragmatic conservative, he sought to revive Iran's badly flagging economy on free-market principles and moved to improve relations with the West, reestablish Iran as a regional power, and gradually reopen the country to foreign investment. He was reelected in 1993 with two thirds of the vote but was barred from seeking a third term in the 1997 elections. In 2000 he was narrowly elected to parliament, but he soon resigned his seat. In a rare and exclusive interview in Tehran Sunday, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president and the consensus frontrunner in June's presidential elections, talked with USA TODAY's Barbara Slavin about U.S.-Iranian relations, al-Qaeda, and Iran's alleged nuclear bomb program. Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said that the United States cannot stop Iran from pursuing nuclear technology and warned against choosing a military "adventure" in the country. "The Persian Gulf is not a region where they can have fireworks and Iran is not a country where they can come for an adventure," Rafsanjani told Muslim worshippers after Friday prayers. and from Reuters Feb 11, 2005 — TEHRAN (Reuters) - Washington will not stop Iran pursuing nuclear technology and should not attempt a military "adventure" in the country, an influential cleric said on Friday. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has exhorted Iran to give up what she says is a nuclear weapons program. U.S. officials have stressed diplomacy but not ruled out an attack against atomic sites, which Iran insists are to meet booming demand for electricity. Rafsanjani: 'US should Follow Peaceful Approach with Iran' Anadolu News Agency ^ | Friday 11, 2005 Posted on 02/11/2005 5:02:23 PM PST by F14 Pilot Former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ali Akbar Hasimi Rafsancani, has said American officials should follow a peaceful path with Iran. Rafsanjani Warns U.S. Against 'Adventures' in Iran Fri Feb 11, 2:21 PM ET World - Reuters By Christian Oliver TEHRAN (Reuters) - An influential Iranian cleric, in a new blast against Tehran's arch-enemy, told Washington on Friday it cannot stop Iran pursuing nuclear technology and should not attempt a military "adventure" in the country With the electoral battle between Iran's conservatives and reformists for the control of the Sixth Majlis (Parliament) escalating during the run-up to the poll on 18 February, attention is turning increasingly to the role of Hojatalislam Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The attention is well-deserved. Besides being >>>>> one of the two seniormost politicians <<<<<<< - the other being Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, the Supreme Leader - in the country, Rafsanjani has a reputation for mediating successfully between competing factions. Sure sounds like he is speaking for Iran to me. But I guess Bobert knows so much more than me I should just accept anything he says as the Bobert-given truth, and not bother trying to find out reality. Every year, in a tradition introduced by the late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomenei, Iran marks World Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day on the last Friday of the month of Ramadan to show its solidarity with the Palestinian people. Former Iranian president and >>>>"Expediency Council" Chairman Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani <<<< gave the Al-Quds Day sermon on December 14, 2001 at Tehran University, which was attended by thousands of worshippers. In the sermon, he addressed solving the problem of Israel with nuclear weapons. http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32502 |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:34 PM (#1423543) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert (Still ignoring bb's copy and paste ingnorance...) |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:37 PM (#1423547) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Bobert: You made a statement "Rafsanjani does not speak for Iran" I have shown that YOUR statement is false. If you choose to ignore it, fine- but don't bother telling us you have anything worth saying. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:59 PM (#1423556) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert (Hmmmmm? Chief of State: Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khameni Head of governemnet: President (Ali) Mohammad Khatami-Ardakaini...) (Now whoes statements have been shown to be false???) (Going back to ignoring bb's ignorant postings...) |
|
01 Mar 05 - 12:05 AM (#1423558) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce >>>>"Expediency Council" Chairman Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani <<<< >>>>> one of the two seniormost politicians <<<<<<< |
|
01 Mar 05 - 12:51 AM (#1423565) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Ah but ... does he speak for Iran? |
|
01 Mar 05 - 12:55 AM (#1423567) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Does Rice speak for the US? |
|
01 Mar 05 - 01:45 AM (#1423578) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk Gosh! Why not tell us what you really think about how bad Iranians are, BB. :-) Man, I am trembling in my little booties when I think how awful they are, after reading your stuff. Maybe...we should just kill them all? Would we be safe then? (Okay, I'm not serious about that...just in case someone misses the satirical intention.) I guess they like Israelis about as much as Israelis like them. I can't imagine either one of them accepting disaster relief from the other. I can't imagine Israelis going into Iran at this juncture in history to help in disaster relief. It's inconceivable, given the present level of feeling toward Israelis in that part of the World. The part I don't get is...can you not see at least some reason why Muslims in the Middle East would be angry at Israel? Just a smidgin of a reason since 1948 till now? If you can't...how come???? What if the Armenians, a group who were massacred en masse at one time, had gotten together in 1945-48 and decided to carve themselves out a new homeland somewhere in the World? What if they had a 3,000 year old holy book that suggested that Mexico was once their promised land in an ancient time. What if they had gone to Mexico and Guatemala in the late 40's, and by terrorism and war carved themselves out an enclave on the Yucatan peninsula, driving out most of the local Mexicans and taking their land. Would the Mexicans have gotten mad and tried repeatedly to take it back. YOU BETCHA! What if the Soviet Union had backed the Armenians to the hilt ever since then with high tech weapons and financial assistance, and the Armenians had had the benefit of European education and sophistication plus Soviet aid, and had used it to repeatedly pulverize and dominate the forces of Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and the whole general area? What if after each conflict the Armenians had siezed further chunks of Latin American land and started moving settlers in. How do you think most Latin Americans would feel about the new Armenian country in their midst? Would they like it? Would they feel like being good buddies and having the Armenians come in and help with their earthquake damage. I don't think so. Why can you not see the tremendous grievances that have built up in the Arab World in the last 57 years, and have at least some understanding for it? I'm not justifying suicide attackers. I'm not suggesting the destruction of Israel. I'm simply suggesting that their are two sides to this dispute and you only give emotional recognition to one side. I believe that is because you don't truly look upon the other side as fully human. I get that impression quite strongly. I agree that the Arabs are directing a Nazi-like hatred toward Jews. I see also that the Jews have been directing a Nazi-like hatred toward the Arabs for a long time, accompanied by a sense of innate cultural, racial and religious superiority. They are both doing it. They are both being like Nazis in their hatred and contempt for one another. You seem to only see one of them doing it. Both sides in the Arab-Israeli dispute are under the false impression that they are doing "God's will", I'm sure. I regard it as one set of zenophobic fanatics railing against another set of zenophobic fanatics, and making public statements to whip up their most loyal followers. (however, I am not in that sense judging the individual man in the street in Iran or Israel, I'm speaking of the leadership of both countries). I don't have any particular fondness for the Ayatollahs or for religious fanatics of any stripe...Muslim, Christian, Jewish or whatever the heck it is. I regard them all as potentially quite dangerous. Real spirituality doesn't follow any religion exclusively, and it respects the good in all religions. That is something the organized religions themselves need desperately to look into... Guest - I'm not a liberal. There are plenty of things I disagree about with those who are what is usually termed as the classic "liberal". I'm a radical, if you want to give me a label. I am happy to expose hypocrisy regardless of whether it's parading around on the Right or the Left side of an issue. I have no party affiliation nor religious affiliation nor knee-jerk loyalty to any predefined pressure group out there. Overly strong tribal identity defeats individual thought. So does overly strong partisan loyalty. It's called "being a sheep". |
|
01 Mar 05 - 01:54 AM (#1423582) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce LH, I have no problems with Iranians, it is the current religious government of Iran that I find to be a threat to peace and the existance of the state of Israel. I DO NOT see Israel talking about the total destruction of any Arab state- I see several Arab nations saying they would accept serious damage in order to remove Israel from existence. There IS a difference in degree. I seem to recall it was the UN that formed Israel, out of the collective guilt of WW II. So perhaps you need to include that as another example of why we should not let the UN determine our actions- Look at what a job they have done! ( sarcasm) |
|
01 Mar 05 - 02:22 AM (#1423592) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Fred.. Condi and co were 'democratically elected', Rafsanjani wasn't, I would imagine Subtle difference there, bb. Has Khameni ever come out and said this? There's loudmouths in every administration, as I'm sure you well know. They don't always follow the party line. No reason to kill 100 000 people |
|
01 Mar 05 - 02:28 AM (#1423594) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce When he was president, he was elected. His present position is appointed. So, if Bush does not say something, but Rice does, you will give that administration the benefit of the doubt you give the Iranians? And no reason not to comply with UN obligations, either. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 02:36 AM (#1423595) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk Israel has no particular reason to seek the destruction of some Arab state. The Arabs did not arrive from Europe and take over land belonging to local people in Palestine. Accordingly, why would Israel take such a position? They were the foreigners who came in there, not the Arabs. It is the Ashkenazim (European Jews) who advanced the political cause of Zionism, went to Palestine, and carved out a state for themselves by violence. That was a foreign invasion, similar to the hypothetical fictional scenario I described with the Armenians in Mexico. Such an action is pretty damn hard to justify by any rationale. It's not surprising that a lot of Arabs regard Israel's existence as illegitimate and unacceptable. It's acceptable to me, though, because it's an accomplished fact now, and people should learn to live together instead of killing and terrorizing one another, but I frankly think that the U.N. was badly mistaken in encouraging the creation of Israel in 1948, and yes, I think they did it mainly out of collective guilt for having abandoned the Jews in the 30's and 40's. That was a bad decision, and it was made at the expense of the Palestinians, who were sacrificed on the altar of western guilt for the Holocaust. It's too late now to reverse it. Somehow, Palestinians and Israelis and Arabs must find a way to forgive the past and live together in peace. Or...they will just keep killing each other. You tell me which way is the better choice. One thing for sure...you can't succeed in killing ALL of the "other guys", so I suggest getting along with each other instead. It's an idea with merit. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 02:52 AM (#1423596) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Living together in peace is a far better solution- but it requires BOTH sides to stop killing. If that happens, and others in the region like the Iranians do not attack Israel, there might be a chance for peace. So why not tell the IRANIANS that they should stop threatening Israel? |
|
01 Mar 05 - 04:11 AM (#1423629) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Fred..., but that's not important I'll just copy and paste this again, bb, so as you can read it again. I believe I answered your question... Here goes.... Ready? Condi and co were 'democratically elected', Rafsanjani wasn't, I would imagine Subtle difference there, bb. Has Khameni ever come out and said this? There's loudmouths in every administration, as I'm sure you well know. They don't always follow the party line. No reason to kill 100 000 people Fred..., but that's not important |
|
01 Mar 05 - 05:16 AM (#1423651) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Fred, I'll just copy and paste this again, Fred, so as you can read it again. I believe I answered your question... Here goes.... Ready? "Condi and co were 'democratically elected', Rafsanjani wasn't, I would imagine Subtle difference there, bb." When he was president, he was elected. His present position is appointed. "Has Khameni ever come out and said this?" (by this, I guess you mean did the president of Iran make the statements that are referred to) So, if Bush does not say something, but Rice does, you will give that administration the benefit of the doubt you give the Iranians? "There's loudmouths in every administration, as I'm sure you well know. They don't always follow the party line. No reason to kill 100 000 people" And no reason not to comply with UN obligations, either. This could waste a lot of space- would you like to explain why you felt it was needed? |
|
01 Mar 05 - 05:23 AM (#1423653) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Maybe I am being too subtle. When the number two man in a religious dictatorship makes statements about what his country will or will not do, I think it might possibly, perhaps, IMO, be reasonable to assume that this represents the policy of that state, in the absence of any negation by any other government spokesperson. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 05:25 AM (#1423654) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce And Rice WAS appointed, and confirmed by the Senate, NOT elected. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 05:40 AM (#1423665) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST "I DO NOT see Israel talking about the total destruction of any Arab state- I see several Arab nations saying they would accept serious damage in order to remove Israel from existence." - bb Tuesday 1 March 2005 Telegraph.co.uk 'America would back Israel attack on Iran'By Francis Harris in Washington(Filed: 18/02/2005) President George W Bush added a new twist to the international tension over Iran's nuclear programme last night by pledging to support Israel if it tries to destroy the Islamic regime's capacity to make an atomic bomb. Asked whether he would back Israel if it raided Teheran's nuclear facilities, Mr Bush first expressed cautious solidarity with European efforts, led by Britain, France and Germany, to negotiate with Iran. But he quickly qualified himself, adding that all nations should be concerned about whether Iran could make nuclear weapons. "Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened." His comments appeared to be a departure from the administration's line that there are no plans to attack at present and that Washington backs European diplomatic efforts. The remarks may have reflected Mr Bush's personal thinking on an issue causing deep concern in Washington. Israel, meanwhile, has given warning about Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that an Iranian bomb might be only six months away and that such a weapon would pose a grave risk to its security. Mr Bush repeated the reasons for America's anxiety: "Remember, this all started when we found [Iran] enriching uranium in an undeclared fashion, and it happened because somebody told on them." Iran's influential former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, speaking yesterday after meeting the Syrian prime minister, Mohammad Naji al-Otari, said his country needed to create a powerful alliance with Syria, Iraq and other Arab countries. Mr Rafsanjani, widely expected to run in Iran's June presidential elections, said the region must "stay completely vigilant vis-a-vis the US and Israeli plots". |
|
01 Mar 05 - 05:45 AM (#1423667) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Fred..., but that's not important Subtle as a kick in the stones, bb "When the number two man in a religious dictatorship makes statements about what his country will or will not do, I think it might possibly, perhaps, IMO, be reasonable to assume that this represents the policy of that state, in the absence of any negation by any other government spokesperson" There's a thread currently on the go by Bobertsky, entitled 1 = 2. I think you could introduce a different angle to it... There's too much 'reasonable assuming' going on in your head for my liking, bb. Could you reasonably assume that the USA could pull the invasion of Iran off on its own, as it swore it could do in Iraq? My main question to you is... can there actually be a number 2 in any kind of a dictatorship, be it religious or secular? |
|
01 Mar 05 - 05:56 AM (#1423669) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: freda underhill hi Fred.... but that's not important! it's important to me that catters know that you are not me (i get called fred a lot these days).... but i guess that might not be important to you! fred(a) |
|
01 Mar 05 - 06:14 AM (#1423677) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Fred Overhill Would that suffice, freda? Fred..., but that's not important (I could also call myself: 'Fred..., not "freda Fred"..., just in case anyone thought it might be important') :-) |
|
01 Mar 05 - 06:46 AM (#1423696) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: freda underhill I's rather be over the hill than under the hill any day! thanks, fred!! |
|
01 Mar 05 - 06:54 AM (#1423703) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Fred..., but that's not important Let's hope we don't have to run for them... If bb could have his way, that could well be the case. We would have a head start, though ;-) |
|
01 Mar 05 - 07:08 AM (#1423717) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: beardedbruce Not my way, my fear. Take a look at the religious leadership in Iran- they are not really a dictatorship per se. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 07:08 AM (#1423718) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: freda underhill ;-D ! |
|
01 Mar 05 - 07:39 AM (#1423735) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Fred..., but that's not important "...they are not really a dictatorship per se" You're a funny guy, alright, bb |
|
31 Jan 10 - 08:39 PM (#2826885) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Sawzaw Ex-U.N. nuclear weapons inspector Scott Ritter charged in child-sex sting NY DAILY NEWS January 14th 2010 Ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter was nabbed in a online child-sex sting, accused of engaging in a graphic chat with undercover cop posing as a 15-year-old girl. It was the second time Ritter, 48, of upstate Delmar, was caught in a kiddie sex dragnet. In 2001, he blamed his troubles on a vast right-wing conspiracy, and the charges were later dismissed. On Thursday, Ritter was keeping his mouth shut. "I told you guys I'm not going to say anything, so please just go away," said the staunch critic of the Bush administration's push toward war with Iraq. Monroe County detectives busted Ritter after they traced his explicit online chat through a cell phone number he gave a Barrett Township, Pa., undercover cop posing as underaged teen named "Emily" on the Web. Detectives said Ritter was allegedly trolling chat rooms for jail bait last February when he came upon Emily's profile photo and asked for more pictures, according to an affidavit obtained by the Pocono Record. Ritter, the married father of twin teen daughters, allegedly turned on his Web-cam and fondled himself on camera. Cops have photos of the perverted act. He was arrested in November and released on $25,000 bail. In a 2003 TV interview Ritter admitted he had faced online child-sex charges in New York in 2001, but claimed the case was trumped up to silence his criticism of the Iraq war. He served as a UN weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998 before resigning. |
|
31 Jan 10 - 09:18 PM (#2826909) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Always attack the messenger... No matter how long it takes find something... Anything... Just keep throwing suff until something sticks... Shame on you, Sawz... You should have started another thread... Your bad... B~! |
|
01 Feb 10 - 12:22 PM (#2827336) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Stringsinger Somehow, I would trust Scott Ritter's opinion over that of Teribus who also has an "opinion". Sawzaw will also adopt the misinformation given by tabloids. It's amazing how uninformed information finds its way to these threads. The idea that police stings in this country are not directed toward political dissidents is naive. Grow up. BTW Kerry was responsible for not taking an active stand on Iraq. He gained the flip-flop moniker for this. |
|
01 Feb 10 - 12:28 PM (#2827344) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: GUEST,Stringsinger "When the number two man in a religious dictatorship makes statements about what his country will or will not do, I think it might possibly, perhaps, IMO, be reasonable to assume that this represents the policy of that state, in the absence of any negation by any other government spokesperson." So says BB. When Cheney speaks for Bush, then we can assume that he is the "spokesperson" for the US government. Could it be that the US is a "dictatorship" in that case? |
|
01 Feb 10 - 06:19 PM (#2827638) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk It's quite possible that a man CAN be a credible witness on political events and CAN expose political lies...and may STILL be someone who has a weakness for something like child pornography. The one does not serve as an automatic cancellation of the other. If Scott Ritter was right in his testimony about Iraq and the Bush administration, it is completely irrelevant whether or not he has character flaws in some other private area of his life. And it's also possible that they framed him. |
|
01 Feb 10 - 06:33 PM (#2827646) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Bobert Ya' know, I didn't hear the rigthies complainin' too much about Senator "Wide Stance" or Governor "ApplilacianTrailerHiker" or any of these other Repubs who have been caught doin' waht the preacher man said not to do... How do you spell hypocrisy??? |
|
01 Feb 10 - 06:53 PM (#2827660) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: mousethief P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N ? O..O =o= |
|
01 Feb 10 - 11:05 PM (#2827821) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Little Hawk I'd spell it "opportunism". ;-) They care not for the truth, but only for "victory", and a chance to hurt the opposition. Of course, their version of "the truth" is all their own, so they probably imagine that they DO care for the truth. |
|
02 Feb 10 - 04:00 AM (#2827923) Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war From: Teribus Is this the same Scott Ritter who helped write the UNSCOM report to the UN Security Council that was delivered in January 1999. The report that solely indicates the discrepencies in the Iraqi records that provided the information on what Iraq may have possessed that appeared verbatum in the so-called "Dodgy Dossier" of September 2002. The Scott Ritter who came out with this on 31st August 1998 on the Online News Hour Show: I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons program. Now correct me if I am wrong here but between August 1998 and November 2002 Scott Ritter never returned to Iraq and in that period there were no UN weapons inspections. Ritter resigned from the United Nations Special Commission on August 26, 1998. In his letter of resignation, Ritter said the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's decision earlier that month to suspend co-operation with the inspection team made a mockery of the disarmament work. Ritter later said, in an interview, that he resigned from his role as a United Nations weapons inspector over inconsistencies between United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154 and how it was implemented. The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that were not being complying with. On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq." Now then Stingsinger, you said: Somehow, I would trust Scott Ritter's opinion over that of Teribus who also has an "opinion". Only thing is I have not changed my view point, I have not changed my opinion, reading the above it would appear that Scott Ritter and myself are on the same page. More on Scott Ritter after leaving UNSCOM: 1. In 1999, Ritter wrote Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All in which he reiterated his claim that Iraq had obstructed the work of inspectors and attempted to hide and preserve essential elements for restarting WMD programs at a later date. 2. In the same book, Ritter criticized the current U.S. policy of containment in the absence of inspections as inadequate to prevent Iraq's re-acquisition of WMD's in the long term. 3. Ritter promoted a conciliatory approach toward Iraq in the 2000 documentary In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq, which he wrote and directed. The film tells the history of the UNSCOM investigations through interviews and video footage of inspection missions. In the film, Ritter argues that Iraq is a "defanged tiger" and that the inspections were successful in eliminating significant Iraqi WMD capabilities. OK then Stringsinger, the man has not been to Iraq for two years, neither has anybody else. What has caused him to change his mind?? What new information did he have and where did he get it from?? Why would the source of this new information give it to a private citizen as opposed to UNSCOM who at that time still existed?? Who would you have given the information to?? I sure as hell know who I would have given it to in order for it to have the most beneficial effect. Ritter's Iraq War Predictions "The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win... We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable... Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost," Didn't quite pan out that way did it Stringsinger. On Iraq's lack of WMD in 2002: In the interview, Ritter responds to the question of whether he believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction: 1. There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. 2. We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. 3. If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple. 4. As of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. Excuse me but WTF happened to: I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their developing of nuclear weapons program. - Scott Ritter |