• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Former UN Inspector Scott Ritter: Iraq Will Crush U.S.

Queasy

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Yes, a Newsmax link but this is interesting and the quotes come from a french news agency. This guy has definitely gone wacky after completing his tour of duty as an inspector.

Scott Ritter: Iraq Will Crush U.S.

"The U.S. is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we cannot win," claims pro-Iraq former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter.

"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad, and for this reason I believe the defeat of the U.S. in this war is inevitable," he told TSF radio in Lisbon, Portugal, according to Agence France-Presse.

"Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for 10 years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost."

Radio star Rush Limbaugh's response: "We don't have the military to beat Iraq? The American people will turn tail and lose? This guy is sick - in more ways than one."
Click to expand...
 
I'm amazed he has time to speak to the media. I thought most of his time consisted of looking for 12 y/o in aol chat rooms.

Can't we just go ahead and kill him, for being a paid operative of Iraq as well as being a pedo?
 
Isn't he the same guy that was accepting thousands of dollars from the Iraqi regime??
Click to expand...

Yep, was also recently busted for trying to entice a minor over the internet.
 
This assmunch has been spouting Anti-U.S. Sentiment for the last two years that I can remember. He went on foxnews the week before we went into Afghanistan and said essentially the same thing.

An Asshole is an asshole no matter how much makeup you put on it to show otherwise...

Scott Ritter is an asshole.
~wnied~
 
Originally posted by: Torghn
Just shows you how unreliable the weapon inspectors are.
Click to expand...

That's the funny part. While he was a weapons inspector, he was an out-spoken critic of Iraq and their attempts to hide WMDs.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Torghn
Just shows you how unreliable the weapon inspectors are.
Click to expand...

That's the funny part. While he was a weapons inspector, he was an out-spoken critic of Iraq and their attempts to hide WMDs.
Click to expand...

Money talks
 
Yeah, he quit in 1998 because Clinton was too easy on Saddam. Now he is being paid to film what basically amounts to Iraqi propoganda........
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Torghn
Just shows you how unreliable the weapon inspectors are.
Click to expand...

That's the funny part. While he was a weapons inspector, he was an out-spoken critic of Iraq and their attempts to hide WMDs.
Click to expand...

Yep, he was all over Iraq a few years ago now he is totally backwards. Apparently they are blackmailing him. It was suggested a while back that they had a tape of him trying to...do something with some Iraqi children... :disgust:
All of the other past inspectors are like... "There is definately stuff in Iraq, its just hidden very well or underground"
 
Originally posted by: Jmman
Isn't he the same guy that was accepting thousands of dollars from the Iraqi regime??
Click to expand...


There was a time when high-priced prostitutes (like Ritter) had some ethics.......

Then again, its 15 minutes of fame and all the money I can get now-a-days!
 
Originally posted by: Jmman
Yeah, he quit in 1998 because Clinton was too easy on Saddam. Now he is being paid to film what basically amounts to Iraqi propoganda........
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...
He was mocked by U.S. senators when he testified on Capitol Hill in the late 1990's that the Iraqi regime was a very grave threat to the United States.
 
What if he's right?

Frankly, we all know his weaknesses and can call him this and that until the cows come home, but he is certainly more knowledgeable in these matters than any of us here. Instead of just flippantly dismissing his words with jingoistic name calling, perhaps we should at least consider whether what he says here is true or why it might be true.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
What if he's right?

Frankly, we all know his weaknesses and can call him this and that until the cows come home, but he is certainly more knowledgeable in these matters than any of us here. Instead of just flippantly dismissing his words with jingoistic name calling, perhaps we should at least consider whether what he says here is true or why it might be true.
Click to expand...

Knowledge regarding WMD != knowledge of military strategy

He isnt talking about Saddam using WMD to drive us out of Iraq, he is saying we cannot take Bagdad.

"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad, and for this reason I believe the defeat of the U.S. in this war is inevitable,"
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
What if he's right?

Frankly, we all know his weaknesses and can call him this and that until the cows come home, but he is certainly more knowledgeable in these matters than any of us here. Instead of just flippantly dismissing his words with jingoistic name calling, perhaps we should at least consider whether what he says here is true or why it might be true.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself on the knowledge question. Some of us do actually know what's going on.
 
Speak for yourself on the knowledge question. Some of us do actually know what's going on.
-----------------
That's right, sandorski, speak for yourself. I would encourage you to say something like:

What if he's right?

Frankly, we all know his weaknesses and can call him this and that until the cows come home, but he is certainly more knowledgeable in these matters than any of us here. Instead of just flippantly dismissing his words with jingoistic name calling, perhaps we should at least consider whether what he says here is true or why it might be true.
--------------
A comment like that would indicate a knowledge of what is going on, the kind of knowledge that trusts no arrogant self assertion of truth, but wants all sides looked at. Such a person would indicate in behavior that they knew what's going on.

 
"What if he's right?"

I'll take that one, Moonie.

Ritter isn't right. He's completely wrong.

The only war the United States has lost in recent history has been Vietnam - and the reason for that was twofold, in my opinion. Firstly, the political will to allow a victory was not present, due to the lack of widespread popular support for the for in the United States. With 70% of the country at recent count supporting the war, this is obviously not an issue. Secondly, we had folks like McNamara running the show. Now he was an intelligent person, to be sure, but he was not qualified to run a war. Again, this is not an issue - Bush is letting the Generals run the show, and Franks and Powell will deliver a victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top