Scott Ritter: US plans June attack on Iran , US "cooked" Jan 30 Elections

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond
The ONLY way, IMO, that Ritter or Hirsh can be wrong is if the drugged out alcoholic in the White House changes his mind.

At this point I'd take just about ANYONE'S word over Bush's.

Of course because there is no way these two upstanding individuals can be wrong. Has to be somebody else fault.

You're almost all wrong. 😉

The point isn't these two upstanding individuals being right, although they are. The point is that Bush is a chronic liar. He's lied so often and been wrong so many times only a fool would expect anything different at this point.

 

[ntdz]

This guy is an IDIOT. Come June 21st we are gonna be saying "he's just one of those conspiracy theory liberals."

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: ntdz
This guy is an IDIOT. Come June 21st we are gonna be saying "he's just one of those conspiracy theory liberals."

Just like all those "conspiracy theory liberals" who were wrong about Iraq, right?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BBond

The ONLY way, IMO, that Ritter or Hirsh can be wrong is if the drugged out alcoholic in the White House changes his mind.

Dude Nixin hasn't been President for over 30 years! If you are saying that the Dub is a drugged out alcoholic then you are just being an idiot. There are plenty of things IMO to knock him for but being a Substance abuser isn't one of them..as far as we know.

 

[yllus]

Exclusive: Scott Ritter in His Own Words

Scott Ritter was the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, when he resigned claiming President Clinton was too easy on Saddam. Now he says the dictator doesn't seem to have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that trying to oust Saddam is "extremely dangerous." TIME's Massimo Calabresi asked the voluble former marine about his recent private trip to Baghdad, Jane Fonda, and accusations he's a spy for Israel, Iraq or Russia.

In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?

I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.

Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left?

I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this. The question is, has someone found that what Iraq has done goes beyond simple sanctions violations? We have tremendous capabilities to detect any effort by Iraq to obtain prohibited capability. The fact that no one has shown that he has acquired that capability doesn't necessarily translate into incompetence on the part of the intelligence community. It may mean that he hasn't done anything.

You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children ? toddlers up to pre-adolescents ? whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

I threw in that last question for perspective. He didn't want to depose Saddam even if the guy did have prison camps for children. Interesting guy.

 

[Steeplerot]

It figures you cowards are willing to trash a veteran marine for your twisted agenda.
"You support the war -facts and soldiers be damned!" republican types are possibly bigger hypocrites then the administration you support.
see pigeonhawks

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: yllus
Exclusive: Scott Ritter in His Own Words

Scott Ritter was the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, when he resigned claiming President Clinton was too easy on Saddam. Now he says the dictator doesn't seem to have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that trying to oust Saddam is "extremely dangerous." TIME's Massimo Calabresi asked the voluble former marine about his recent private trip to Baghdad, Jane Fonda, and accusations he's a spy for Israel, Iraq or Russia.

In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?

I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.

Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left?

I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this. The question is, has someone found that what Iraq has done goes beyond simple sanctions violations? We have tremendous capabilities to detect any effort by Iraq to obtain prohibited capability. The fact that no one has shown that he has acquired that capability doesn't necessarily translate into incompetence on the part of the intelligence community. It may mean that he hasn't done anything.

You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children ? toddlers up to pre-adolescents ? whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

I threw in that last question for perspective. He didn't want to depose Saddam even if the guy did have prison camps for children. Interesting guy.

Hmm and where are those kids now? Safe in Bush's loving arms right? no, probaly planning to blow a american up.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: yllus
Exclusive: Scott Ritter in His Own Words

You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children ? toddlers up to pre-adolescents ? whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

I threw in that last question for perspective. He didn't want to depose Saddam even if the guy did have prison camps for children. Interesting guy.

Hmm and where are those kids now? Safe in Bush's loving arms right? no, probaly planning to blow a american up.

You're making moronic statements like that, and yet you're accusing "pigeonhawks" of ignoring the facts? Actually...hell, that's pretty in character for you.

 

[Engineer]

Let them attack them as the troop levels run dry. *shrugs*. If that's what the country wants, have at it.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: yllus
Exclusive: Scott Ritter in His Own Words

You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children ? toddlers up to pre-adolescents ? whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

I threw in that last question for perspective. He didn't want to depose Saddam even if the guy did have prison camps for children. Interesting guy.

Hmm and where are those kids now? Safe in Bush's loving arms right? no, probaly planning to blow a american up.

You're making moronic statements like that, and yet you're accusing "pigeonhawks" of ignoring the facts? Actually...hell, that's pretty in character for you.

You have 0 facts on your side but conjecture and pro-war propaganda from the US govt. (and they have no clue obviously what is going on either with the handling of the war.)

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Let them attack them as the troop levels run dry. *shrugs*. If that's what the country wants, have at it.

All of these alcholic druggie supporters will be singing a very different tune when it's their turn on the front lines. 😉

Pull the troops out now. They've had their sham election. Put a short leash on the alcoholic druggie before he can do any more damage. And before he starts shipping American kids over to Iraq and Iran for the next decade or so.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: yllus
Exclusive: Scott Ritter in His Own Words

You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children ? toddlers up to pre-adolescents ? whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

I threw in that last question for perspective. He didn't want to depose Saddam even if the guy did have prison camps for children. Interesting guy.

Hmm and where are those kids now? Safe in Bush's loving arms right? no, probaly planning to blow a american up.

You're making moronic statements like that, and yet you're accusing "pigeonhawks" of ignoring the facts? Actually...hell, that's pretty in character for you.

You have 0 facts on your side but conjecture and pro-war propaganda from the US govt.

Uh, I quoted Scott Ritter himself in a Time Magazine interview. You countered with, "Hmm and where are those kids now? Safe in Bush's loving arms right? No, probably planning to blow an American up." Facts are clearly the furthest thing from your befuddled mind.

 

[Steeplerot]

And this disproves his credibility how?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
And this disproves his credibility how?

Well gee, do you think that someone who's willing to overlook child prison camps to keep a Middle Eastern dictator in power is a neutral voice? Not to mention, how the fsck would he of all people know what President Bush's intentions are? I don't exactly see him being on the list of internal memo recipients.

What he's really after, of course, is people lacking any foundation in logical reasoning to keep him in demand and pay to hear him speak.

National voices to speak on Iraq war:

BRICK, a student organization at South Puget Sound Community College, is paying Ritter's $3,000 speaker fee, and Jamail has asked only for a donation, Leahy said.

Congrats. You're just one more Chicken Little that helps Ritter pay the bills.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I hope Ritter is wrong. It seems even the Conservatives and the Dub apologists here hope he is wrong too. I guess attacking Iran wouldn't go over very well even amongst the Dub's most ardent supporters.

Until the first shot is fired. From that point they will be and will always have been for it.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
And this disproves his credibility how?

Well gee, do you think that someone who's willing to overlook child prison camps to keep a Middle Eastern dictator in power is a neutral voice? Not to mention, how the fsck would he of all people know what President Bush's intentions are? I don't exactly see him being on the list of internal memo recipients.

What he's really after, of course, is people lacking any foundation in logical reasoning to keep him in demand and pay to hear him speak.

National voices to speak on Iraq war:

BRICK, a student organization at South Puget Sound Community College, is paying Ritter's $3,000 speaker fee, and Jamail has asked only for a donation, Leahy said.

Congrats. You're just one more Chicken Little that helps Ritter pay the bills.

What Saddam did is Iraqis buisness to sort out. Not ours. Now iraq is in even far deeper doo-doo becasue of our obiviously imperialistic meddling.

And if you think I have a problem with SR trying to speak the truth heres a hint: I would donate my OWN money to help to help stop the insainity.
Have a problem with that?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
And this disproves his credibility how?

Well gee, do you think that someone who's willing to overlook child prison camps to keep a Middle Eastern dictator in power is a neutral voice? Not to mention, how the fsck would he of all people know what President Bush's intentions are? I don't exactly see him being on the list of internal memo recipients.

What he's really after, of course, is people lacking any foundation in logical reasoning to keep him in demand and pay to hear him speak.

National voices to speak on Iraq war:

BRICK, a student organization at South Puget Sound Community College, is paying Ritter's $3,000 speaker fee, and Jamail has asked only for a donation, Leahy said.

Congrats. You're just one more Chicken Little that helps Ritter pay the bills.

What Saddam did is Iraqis buisness to sort out. Not ours. Now iraq is in even far deeper doo-doo becasue of our obiviously imperialistic meddling.

Yeah, fsck em! Let those children rot in those camps. What business is it of ours what goes on within those arbitrarily drawn borders of a nation? Our "imperialistic meddling" that led to the first free elections in decades and, soon, the drawing up of a constitution that will reflect the ideas and attitudes of Iraqis...well, clearly a dictator and his secret police are preferable.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's a shining example of morality we've got here. Take a bow.

 

[Steeplerot]

Uh-huh you going to conquer the whole world?
Free elections bwahaha, You thought the saddam statue thing was real I bet too :roll: Whats next, pro-wrestling?
Iraq has been screwed for ages (becasue of us.) Ok mr. morals lets invade kills and tons of people -probaly getting close to as many as Saddam did anyhow in his whole career....then put another us puppet dictator in power..good job and I lack morals by saying iraqis need to make thir own future..sure
Save your cheap state-funded moral dilemmas for the dittoheads ok?
Th whole "But saddam was teh even wurst!!!!!" apology is getting as old as the rest of the administrations hypocricy.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Uh-huh you going to conquer the whole world?
Free elections bwahaha, You thought the saddam statue thing was real I bet too :roll: Whats next, pro-wrestling?

Oh, I've stated numerous times that given unlimited manpower and assets I'd enforce the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights on every inch of the Earth. However, unlike you, I know what is realistic and what is not.

Realistic: Do what you can, where you can. What happens five years from now when young Iranians cast an eye at a considerably improved democratic Iraq? Young Saudi Arabians? Democracy is a virus. There are long-term goals at work here.

Unrealistic: "OMG SCOTT RITTER D/LED BUSH'S SECRET PLANZ FROM THE INTARWEB 2 BOMB IRAN & HEZ GONNA SHOW US, FIGHT THE POWA!!!11"

Pro wrestling? Hmm, I think watching sweaty men in tights wrap themselves around each other is more your thing, but thanks for the invite.

 

[Steeplerot]

You are fooling yourself it's the same tired line that Iranians are just going to give up and embrace Democracy. Those people are a ancient civilisation and will rally together to defend Persia.
But keep waiting for the flowers to be showered on our troops. I am sure they are coming soon foxnews says so!
(and if they dont I am sure the MSM will stage you a little demonstration that you will eat right up.)

What is unrealistic now can be changed with hard work. But then that involves looking forward and helping out our fellow man -a big no-no for the republicans who only have their own personal self-interests at heart sadly.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
You are fooling yourself it's the same tired line that Iranians are just going to give up and embrace Democracy. Those people are a ancient civilisation and will rally together to defend Persia.
But keep waiting for the flowers to be showered on our troops. I am sure they are coming soon foxnews says so!

As always, you skip to some peripheral made-up argument and throw in laughable cliches about "neocons" or "imperialistic meddling" or Fox News.

Did I say Iranians are just going to give up and embrace democracy? Guess what? I didn't! If you want to make up both sides of an argument so you can feel important, get a blog. Here on planet Earth, all I said was that when neighbouring countries to Iraq glimpse its fledgling democracy, there might be more push than ever to being it about at home. "If it can work in Iraq, why not here?"

This is about self-empowerment. We've removed the dictator, and aside from temporary security provision that's near the limit of what America can accomplish in Iraq. Now let's see the Iraqis and the ME at large make of it. That is, of course, if you don't prefer dictators and their prison camps for kids.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
And this disproves his credibility how?

Credibility?

So a child molestor's views are valid, but a male prostitutes aren't. Got it. 😀

 

[DZip]

Do you think this will be a surprise attack?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DZip
Do you think this will be a surprise attack?

Not if we keep talking about it 😀

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: DZip
Do you think this will be a surprise attack?

Assuming the U.S. was going to bomb Iran to destroy its nuclear capabilities, we'd see a quiet campaign of intelligence gathering on the exact location of every nuke facility in Iran followed by a surprise air attack, a la Israel on Iraq in 1981.*

I would imagine that this is actually completely unfeasible because, well, people learn. Iran knows about the surprise bombing threat and has distributed and secreted its nuclear assets carefully. Since it's probably not likely that the U.S. could take out each one of those targets while risking full-blown war, the entire thing isn't likely to happen.


* I am far from an expert on military tactics. Consult with one of AT's much more knowledgable professionals on this matter.