Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/8/2002 3:14:47 PM EDT
The Subj line says it all for me.
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 3:32:26 PM EDT
Yea I don't think he is doing the country any good running around trying to create his own foreign policy. I'd remember one thing...he does not have access to current intel like he may have one upon a time....
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 4:42:19 PM EDT
would this qualify as a duplicate thread...since there was already one Scott Ritter Thread today?
Link Posted: 9/8/2002 4:45:44 PM EDT
i think this thread is fare game. the other one asks "whats the deal with ritter" this one is just for people to come out of the other ritter thread and make an informed decesion, like ritter is a pee head
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 5:49:52 AM EDT
Ritter former boss said he "HAS PRESONAL PROBLEMS".
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 6:05:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2002 6:07:17 AM EDT by PINGi3]
Personally I like Scott Ritter Jr. He had the backbone to take on the inept foreign policy of the Clinton administration and now he's standing up to the inept foreign policy of the Bush administration. But then again I opt for containment and not incursion. Oh yeah, so when does political free speech become traitorous?
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 6:17:04 AM EDT
This Ritter guy was on the ground in Iraq and privey to a lot more information than nearly anyone else. If he found out that the information he gathered or learned was contrary to what the government wanted the public to know, then isn't it typical to label the guy as a malcontent or disturbed? If you stood on your principles against the wishes of your employer (particularly the US Government) wouldn't you develop "personal problems" too? IMHO it takes guts to stand up and say what he knows whether people want to believe it or not. And rather than making him a traitor, it makes him that much more of a real American.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 6:22:35 AM EDT
Can't put it any better than monkeyman......
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 6:31:37 AM EDT
You guys are TOO MUCH. Ritter is a paid agent of a Hostile Foreign Power. And you call him brave. He's either a morally corrupt degenerate or a sick man, not a man with a mission. But I guess you folks have already ordered his movie, eh? That would likely be all the proof you need the Sadam has no weapons of mass destruction.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 6:39:21 AM EDT
[img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/liberty86%2Fthehomelandpromise%2Ejpg[/img]
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 6:45:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By WofWof: You guys are TOO MUCH. Ritter is a paid agent of a Hostile Foreign Power. And you call him brave. He's either a morally corrupt degenerate or a sick man, not a man with a mission. But I guess you folks have already ordered his movie, eh? That would likely be all the proof you need the Sadam has no weapons of mass destruction.
View Quote
A quote from his speech at the Iraqi national assembly, seems he's saying the same thing as the administration;
"Let me be very clear, the only path towards peace is one that begins with Iraq agreeing to the immediate unconditional return of United Nations weapons inspectors," Mr Ritter told them. "Iraq cannot attempt to link the return of weapons inspectors to any other issues regardless of justification. Unconditional return, unfettered access, this is the only acceptable option."
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 6:48:06 AM EDT
BTW, please show your proof that Ritter is "a paid agent of a hostile foreign power"...
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 6:50:46 AM EDT
I'm glad I live in a country that provides the freedom for him to speak up! The question becomes: Is he right or wrong? Either way, his qualifications mean that he should be taken seriously. We are all doomed to be traitors if one defines a traitor as someone who questions authority.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 7:00:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: We are all doomed to be traitors if one defines a traitor as someone who questions authority.
View Quote
What's disturbing to me is not only how blatantly the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft triumverate practice this - but how many good Americans (even those who claim to care about the Constitution) do so as well. I'm all over demonizing Ritter if he's a "paid agent of a hostile power" or under the influence of invisible rays by aliens - but show me some evidence before attacking a guy simply because he disagrees with our adminstration.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 7:02:33 AM EDT
This "Patriot" has quals that are over 4 years stale. Not one current intel wonk will even look at him let alone tell him anything. Oh, as for proof of his current benefactor is, some smart fellow said follow the money. Who financed his movie? Who paid for his current junket? Yeah a true patriot...just a used asswipe. At least you guys should admit, you want to believe him...Nothing he says do does can be wrong (in your minds), so what about what he said 4 years ago. Does that count? See he either lied then or is lieing now, ya can't have it both ways fellas!
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 7:10:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By WofWof: Oh, as for proof of his current benefactor is, some smart fellow said follow the money. Who financed his movie? Who paid for his current junket?
View Quote
Well - we're waiting with bated breath. TELL US who paid!
At least you guys should admit, you want to believe him...Nothing he says do does can be wrong (in your minds), so what about what he said 4 years ago.
View Quote
So nice for you that you can tell what I'm thinking. Can you read my mind as to my opinion of your intellect right now? He said four years ago that Iraq COULD get back on track if they wanted to in six months. The question he is addressing now is not whether or not they could, but whether or not they DID. Two different questions - try to keep that clear, would you? Or perhaps YOU have evidence that they did - that must the same evidence that NOBODY except Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have ever seen - including the Senate INtelligence Committee. But YOU clearly know, so tell us all about it - after you're done telling us who is paying Ritter.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 7:14:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By WofWof: Oh, as for proof of his current benefactor is, some smart fellow said follow the money. Who financed his movie? Who paid for his current junket?
View Quote
This is your proof?? "some smart fellow"? My, my, my. Aren't you the good American though. I can just see you sitting on some poor bastards jury. "The prosecuter says the defendant did it, so it must be true"!
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 7:14:58 AM EDT
Patriot ?? hardly....A patriot may question the government actions, but not get in bed with the enemy and preach from hostile soil. He is our generations "hanoi jane" I fully expect to see him sitting in a iraqi AA gun smiling for al-jizzeera. (are you listening photoshop gurus [;)] )
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 7:28:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2002 7:29:22 AM EDT by MIerinMD]
Originally Posted By liberty86: BTW, please show your proof that Ritter is "a paid agent of a hostile foreign power"...
View Quote
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62414,00.html[/url] BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq said Sunday reports President Saddam Hussein is trying to collect nuclear material and building up sites once targeted by U.N. weapons inspectors are part of a U.S. and British campaign of "lies and lies." Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, meeting with reporters in Baghdad, was asked about the head of a U.N. atomic weapons team saying Friday that satellite photos show new construction at several sites linked to Saddam's past nuclear efforts. Ramadan was also asked about a U.S. intelligence official saying Saturday Iraq has recently stepped up attempts to import industrial equipment that could be used to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. "There is no such a thing," Ramadan said, accusing the United States and Britain of seeking an excuse to attack Iraq. "They are telling lies and lies to make others believe them." On Saturday, U.S. President George W. Bush, who is looking for a way to topple Saddam, said satellite images of the construction was ample evidence the Iraqi leader is developing weapons of mass destruction. "I don't know what more evidence we need" to make the case for taking action against the Iraqi president, Bush said as he welcomed British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David for a weekend strategy session on Iraq. Blair, returning to Britain Sunday, said America and Britain would rally "the broadest possible international support" for action to stop Saddam from maintaining biological and chemical weapons or acquiring nuclear arms. Blair faces strong opposition to military action at home. Sunday, he told reporters some of the anti-war voices were asking "sensible questions" and could be convinced of the need to take action — possibly military — against Saddam. Bush later this week is scheduled to address the United Nations, where he is expected to challenge the international community to take quick, tough action to disarm Saddam or the United States will be obligated to act on its own to remove Saddam. In Europe and the Middle East, Iraq is being pressed to accept U.N. weapons inspectors in hopes of defusing the crisis. Sunday in Iraq, former weapons inspector Scott Ritter — who has been a sharp critic of U.S. policy on Iraq — joined those calls. Iraq's cooperation on inspections would leave the United States "standing alone in regards to war threats on Iraq and this is the best way to prevent the war," said the American, who spoke to members of parliament and to journalists on his third trip to Iraq since he resigned from the U.N. inspection team in 1998. [b]As in the past, Ritter's trip was organized by the Iraqi government.[/b] "The truth is Iraq is not a threat to its neighbors and it is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside its borders," Ritter said. "Military action against Iraq cannot be justified." U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell disputed Ritter's comments on Fox News Sunday, saying the remarks had came from "somebody who's not in the intelligence chain any longer." "Why don't they [the Iraqis] say any time, any place, anywhere, bring them [the inspectors] in, everybody come in, we are clean?" Powell said. "The reason is, they're not clean. And we have to find out what they have and what we're going to do about it." Other members of U.N. teams that investigated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction from 1991 to 1998 have told The Associated Press that Iraq probably possesses large stockpiles of nerve agents, mustard gas and anthrax. They add that while Baghdad does not have a nuclear bomb, it has the designs, equipment and expertise to build one quickly if it were able to get enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. Many former inspectors say Iraq's arsenal poses little threat because Saddam has been deterred so far by fear of U.S. retaliation and apparently has been reluctant to share his weapons with terrorists. Iraq, while denying it has banned weapons, has offered only to continue dialogue with the United Nations about the return of inspectors. It has not responded to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's demand that inspectors be allowed to return unconditionally as a first step to further talks. "We want to maintain dialogue only with the United Nations without the pressuring of a certain country," said Ramadan, the vice president. "If the United States attacks Iraq not only Arabs but the whole world will oppose it, if they have one enemy today then there will be 10 more." The inspectors left Iraq ahead of U.S.-British strikes in December 1998 and they have been barred from returning since then. Sanctions imposed on Iraq for its 1990 invasion of neighboring Kuwait cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that the country has surrendered nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. [b]You don't think that Iraq, who is paying for Mr. Ritter's 'tour' isn't getting some say in the production? Or do you think they're doing this out of the kindness of their hearts? Will a mushroom cloud suffice for you as the "smoking gun?" (with apologies to Condi Rice)[/b]
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 7:43:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2002 7:52:55 AM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: On Saturday, U.S. President George W. Bush, who is looking for a way to topple Saddam, said satellite images of the construction was ample evidence the Iraqi leader is developing weapons of mass destruction. "I don't know what more evidence we need" to make the case for taking action against the Iraqi president, Bush said as he welcomed British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David for a weekend strategy session on Iraq. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell disputed Ritter's comments on Fox News Sunday, saying the remarks had came from "somebody who's not in the intelligence chain any longer." Will a mushroom cloud suffice for you as the "smoking gun?" (with apologies to Condi Rice)[/b]
View Quote
Brought to you courtesy of the same "intelligence" people who claimed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was a chemical/biological weapons plant, and a wedding party in Afghanistan was an anti-aircraft battery......
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:00:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD:
Originally Posted By liberty86: BTW, please show your proof that Ritter is "a paid agent of a hostile foreign power"...
View Quote
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62414,00.html[/url] [b]As in the past, Ritter's trip was organized by the Iraqi government.[/b] [b]You don't think that Iraq, who is paying for Mr. Ritter's 'tour' isn't getting some say in the production? Or do you think they're doing this out of the kindness of their hearts? Will a mushroom cloud suffice for you as the "smoking gun?" (with apologies to Condi Rice)[/b]
View Quote
Does paying his trip expenses make him "a paid agent of a hostile foreign power"? Are Congressfolks who take all expense paid trips "paid agents" of whoever paid for it?? Actually the article states the trip was "organized" by the Iraqi govt. not "paid for" by them......
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:06:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: Will a mushroom cloud suffice for you as the "smoking gun?" (with apologies to Condi Rice)[/b]
View Quote
Yes it will. Will you proscecute a gun owner for commiting a crime with a gun before he does the deed??
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:15:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: Does paying his trip expenses make him "a paid agent of a hostile foreign power"?
View Quote
um....yes it does. [url]http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fara/q_A.htm[/url] Taken from the Department of Justice's Website re: Foreign Agent Registration Act [i] Q. What constitutes an agent? A. An agent of a Foreign principal is any individual or organization which acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a foreign principal, or whose activities are directed by a foreign principal who: 1. engages in political activities, or [b]2. acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal, or [/b] 3. solicits or dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign principal, or 4. who represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government. [/i]
Are Congressfolks who take all expense paid trips "paid agents" of whoever paid for it??
View Quote
Heh heh. Some people think so. Seriously, no because they are not actors for a foreign power. Congressional trips are paid for by American taxpayers and are prohibited by law by accepting trips paid by foreign governments.
Actually the article states the trip was "organized" by the Iraqi govt. not "paid for" by them......
View Quote
Hooo. You try to argue your point by dancing on "semantics" That kind of stuff would make Bill Clinton proud. Who else would pay for the junket and his movie production? The US Govt?? Ritter himself?? Who has the most to gain from his exploits? C'mon.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:19:07 AM EDT
You guys are too wise for lil ol me... Organized by Iraq ain't paid for by them. Yupper. Permission to film what they want this scumbag to see ain't biased. Yup. Does Enemy Propagandist fit better...fine. Lordy, I do believe the Girl Scouts paid for his trip and videotapes with cookie money. Look I faced the fact that you believe IraqScotty is a saint...You win! I can't wait to see who your version of reality plays out. Oh I almost forgot ask you geniuses how do you reconcile Scottyboy's 180 turnabout? Follow the Money?
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:20:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PINGi3: Personally I like Scott Ritter Jr. He had the backbone to take on the inept foreign policy of the Clinton administration and now he's standing up to the inept foreign policy of the Bush administration. But then again I opt for containment and not incursion. Oh yeah, so when does political free speech become traitorous?
View Quote
Much like yelling "Fire!" in a theater, which when you break it down is an exercise of free speech but its irresponsible and potentially dangerous, therefore it has been deemed illegal. The crap that Ritter is stirring up could be viewed in the very same light. By helping to forestall the inevitable conflict with this nutbag it has the potentiall to kill many thousands of people. Dont even go there and say "it cant happen" because its happened and it can and mostl likely will happen again. Containment is a poor option. Its far more expensive to continually be poised for war in that particular region than to take out the dangersous individuals by force. Besides we have a poor history of maintaining the kind of vigilance it would take to constantly protect ourselves from terrorist attack. So in essence, Ritter is a Jag-off.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:23:32 AM EDT
[img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/Max%5FPower%2Fritter%2520and%2520fonda%2EJPG[/img]
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:24:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2002 8:32:48 AM EDT by MIerinMD]
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: Will a mushroom cloud suffice for you as the "smoking gun?" (with apologies to Condi Rice)[/b]
View Quote
Yes it will. Will you proscecute a gun owner for commiting a crime with a gun before he does the deed??
View Quote
If he has killed before using a gun and is prohibited from owning a gun, yes I would. (And since you might not see the parallel, Saddam Hussein has used Chemical and Biological weapons before on his own people and against the people of Iran. It is expressly forbidden for him to have these agents) Next analogy please!
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:35:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2002 8:37:48 AM EDT by MIerinMD]
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: Will a mushroom cloud suffice for you as the "smoking gun?" (with apologies to Condi Rice)[/b]
View Quote
Yes it will.
View Quote
It would be little late to do something about it then, don'tcha think?
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:41:03 AM EDT
Im all for questioning the motives of the US government. I think they spend too much on the wrong things. I think that they cover things up. I think that they have alterior motives when dealing in foreign matters. I think all these things and more. But its sad when people cannot see the obvious threats to our own security and when you get down to it, our families. This Saddam person is a POS, a bad bad guy, he has, and will help terrorist attack the US in ways we havent even thought of yet. To think otherwise is irresponsible as far as Im concerned. I have kids and people dear to me that I would protect with my life if it comes to that. The problem is that we only react to a threat, we dont prevent it. I know all that can go wrong with ousting Saddam. We may be opening ourselves up to a worse asshole than him but Im willing to chance it if it means doing something to prevent something on par with 9/11 or even worse. IF you think the mid-east is against attacking Saddam because hes a great guy or that hes innocent then your an idiot. If you think that the mid-east gives a shit about the US other than for the money we give them or oil we buy from them then you are an idiot. Its simple, do something now or pay far more dier consequences later.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:44:34 AM EDT
I will ask this question once more.....why are we attacking Iraq and not Saudi? Can anyone give me an answer? Nope to busy following the shrub around and believing everything he says.....if Saddam is such a treat...then why didn't his daddy finish what he started?
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:50:10 AM EDT
I think that Ritter has become a puppet for hire. Back in 1998 Ritter said that the Iraqi's were hiding weapons and weapon components and were preventing the inspectors from doing their job. He also bashed the Clinton administration for being too soft on Iraq and not wanting to push too hard for the inspectors to be allowed back in due to fears that it may lead to military action against Iraq. He also accused the Clinton administration of bowing to Iraqi pressure to have him removed from the inspection team, this is why he resigned. Iraq didn't want him as inspector because they accused him of being a spy for the US and Israel. In January of 1997 the FBI started an investigation of Ritter on suspicion of passing information on Iraq to a foreign government (read Israel). Ritter is married to an Israeli by the way. So now we jump to the present, where Ritter is now saying that we should not take military action against Iraq because they now have no WMD and are not hiding WMD. Ritter is also on very good terms with the Iraqi government now and is making a documentary about how Iraq was mistreated during the inspection process. Seems to me that money is most logical explanation to the whole Ritter situation. He was upset at Iraq for kicking out the weapons inspectors and asking that he be taken off the inspection team. He was also disillusioned with the US for not pressing Iraq to get the weapons inspectors back and for investigating him. So whichever side wants to front the money Ritter will puppet their cause. Here is how Ritter felt back in 1998. [url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html[/url] [url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31a.html[/url] [url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/realaudio/august98/ritter_8-31.ram[/url]
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:51:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: I will ask this question once more.....why are we attacking Iraq and not Saudi? Can anyone give me an answer? Nope to busy following the shrub around and believing everything he says.....if Saddam is such a treat...then why didn't his daddy finish what he started?
View Quote
I am unaware that Saudi Arabia is developing weapons of Mass Destruction like Iraq currently is. If you have proof to the contrary, please provide the link. SA may not be the greatest nation on this planet but they are not a 'clear and present danger to this country' like Iraq. Your hatred for the Bush Administration blinds you to reality. Sometimes the goverment actually tells the truth. Deal with it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 8:51:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AKADave: Im all for questioning the motives of the US government. I think they spend too much on the wrong things. I think that they cover things up. I think that they have alterior motives when dealing in foreign matters. I think all these things and more. But its sad when people cannot see the obvious threats to our own security and when you get down to it, our families. This Saddam person is a POS, a bad bad guy, he has, and will help terrorist attack the US in ways we havent even thought of yet. To think otherwise is irresponsible as far as Im concerned. I have kids and people dear to me that I would protect with my life if it comes to that. The problem is that we only react to a threat, we dont prevent it. I know all that can go wrong with ousting Saddam. We may be opening ourselves up to a worse asshole than him but Im willing to chance it if it means doing something to prevent something on par with 9/11 or even worse. IF you think the mid-east is against attacking Saddam because hes a great guy or that hes innocent then your an idiot. If you think that the mid-east gives a shit about the US other than for the money we give them or oil we buy from them then you are an idiot. Its simple, do something now or pay far more dier consequences later.
View Quote
There is no doubt that Saddam is a relaly bad guy, and that he's done horrible things to his own people. So fucking what? Since when has the U.S. cared about a bunch of Kurds in the desert (who by the way seem to be helping Al Qaeda). Is he bad? Undoubtedly! Does he pose a threat to the U.S.? I cannot concieve of how he possibly could. If he could even develop a nuclear weapon, which nobody has provided any proof that he is even trying to - what would he do with it? Why in the world would he attack the U.S., when he could either use it to destoy Kurds within his own border, or he could use it to satisfy his own wet-dream fantasy of attacking Israel. But the U.S.? Never. There are TONS of really bad people in the world, that abuse their own populations, and could possible develop "weapons of mass destruction" - does that mean we should go to war with all of them? CHINA would seem to be at the very top of that list. Followed by South Africa, possibly Israel (oh wait, we don't mind them). How about Iran? How about Syria? Don't forget Pakistan - has nuclear weapons, lots of fundamentalist muslim extremists, and is ruled by a military dictator. If you believe we should go to war against all of them first, then I'll support you against Iraq. But until someone can actually make the case that Iraq is a THREAT to the U.S., I couldn't care less about Saddam and his abused Kurds. It's time for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to put up or shut up. Stop blathering about all this supposed "proof" you have that nobody else has. SHOW ME (yes, I'm in Missouri) or SHUT UP.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 9:01:41 AM EDT
Once again my hatred of the Bush administration......yadayada.....once and for all..you peeps have got to learn better lines. I don't hate the man or his admin., But I am deeply disturbed by his policies. And as far as you weapons of mass destruction BS....buy a plane ticket to New York, Look at hole in ground, then read list of Hijackers...Hint look for country of residence..Then try to answer my question without all of the misguided rahrah crap......
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 9:04:28 AM EDT
Agreed the guy is right up there with John Walker. He addressed the friggin Iraqi parliament on their request the other day.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 9:10:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: There is no doubt that Saddam is a relaly bad guy, and that he's done horrible things to his own people. So fucking what? Since when has the U.S. cared about a bunch of Kurds in the desert (who by the way seem to be helping Al Qaeda).
View Quote
We prevented mass starvation and death of the Kurds after the Gulf War by a huge humanitarian operation. We currently enforce the Northern No-Fly zone so Saddam can't bomb them into oblivion. So I guess we care on SOME level. But that's not the point. If he's willing to gas his own people, why wouldn't he be willing to do that against a sworn enemy.
Is he bad? Undoubtedly! Does he pose a threat to the U.S.? I cannot concieve of how he possibly could.
View Quote
Wow! When did YOU start receiving secret intelligence briefings? Care to pass on some of your info to us? What we (ordinary citizens) know is that a) he has actively developed chemical and biological weapons b) he has been actively importing components to build an atomic weapons (highly specialized aluminum tubing, photo recon evidence of nuclear facilities upgrades with technology that is consistant with a bomb manufacturer. c) he has been experimenting with unmanned drones capable of releasing chem/biol agents. Would you like more??
If he could even develop a nuclear weapon, which nobody has provided any proof that he is even trying to
View Quote
please see above
- what would he do with it? Why in the world would he attack the U.S., when he could either use it to destoy Kurds within his own border, or he could use it to satisfy his own wet-dream fantasy of attacking Israel. But the U.S.? Never.
View Quote
Never? What makes you say that? I'm sure he WOULD have killed off the Kurds if we didn't enforce the no fly zones. Past history, my man, it says a lot!
There are TONS of really bad people in the world, that abuse their own populations, and could possible develop "weapons of mass destruction" - does that mean we should go to war with all of them?
View Quote
If they have the means and desire to attack the US, then I'd have to say yes to that.
CHINA would seem to be at the very top of that list. Followed by South Africa, possibly Israel (oh wait, we don't mind them). How about Iran? How about Syria? Don't forget Pakistan - has nuclear weapons, lots of fundamentalist muslim extremists, and is ruled by a military dictator. If you believe we should go to war against all of them first, then I'll support you against Iraq. But until someone can actually make the case that Iraq is a THREAT to the U.S., I couldn't care less about Saddam and his abused Kurds. It's time for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to put up or shut up. Stop blathering about all this supposed "proof" you have that nobody else has. SHOW ME (yes, I'm in Missouri) or SHUT UP.
View Quote
I get the impression that regardless of any degree of proof, you still wouldn't be satisfied. I'm glad we have stronger, more decisive men than you in this current government.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 9:19:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: Once again my hatred of the Bush administration......yadayada.....once and for all..you peeps have got to learn better lines. I don't hate the man or his admin., But I am deeply disturbed by his policies. And as far as you weapons of mass destruction BS....buy a plane ticket to New York, Look at hole in ground, then read list of Hijackers...Hint look for country of residence..Then try to answer my question without all of the misguided rahrah crap......
View Quote
Get a grip, man. The reason we're not "going" after Saudi is that there is no proof that the Saudi Government sanctioned the attacks on the US. Attacking them based on the actions of several of its citizens makes no more sense than attacking Michigan for what Timothy McVey did. Do you have evidence that Saudi Arabia is developing WMD? If you do, I'd like to see it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 9:23:34 AM EDT
I continue to be stunned by some the absolute naivete of some in this thread. Let's skip the A-bomb shit. 1 small gift of Smallpox and a plane ticket is all it takes. The death and destruction this would cause is unimagable. Or don't you believe he has the pox either? And you Dolts want to contain Sadam??? In reference to all those other countries w/WMD...Which one of them is run by a MADMAN...Who also happens to like Scott Ritter now that he's seen the light?
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 9:40:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: I will ask this question once more.....why are we attacking Iraq and not Saudi? Can anyone give me an answer? Nope to busy following the shrub around and believing everything he says.....if Saddam is such a treat...then why didn't his daddy finish what he started?
View Quote
[b]OIL[/b]. Question answered. Bill
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 9:47:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2002 11:57:39 AM EDT by heliflyer]
Originally Posted By fn_hipower: I think that Ritter has become a puppet for hire. Back in 1998 Ritter said that the Iraqi's were hiding weapons and weapon components and were preventing the inspectors from doing their job. He also bashed the Clinton administration for being too soft on Iraq and not wanting to push too hard for the inspectors to be allowed back in due to fears that it may lead to military action against Iraq. He also accused the Clinton administration of bowing to Iraqi pressure to have him removed from the inspection team, this is why he resigned. Iraq didn't want him as inspector because they accused him of being a spy for the US and Israel. In January of 1997 the FBI started an investigation of Ritter on suspicion of passing information on Iraq to a foreign government (read Israel). Ritter is married to an Israeli by the way. So now we jump to the present, where Ritter is now saying that we should not take military action against Iraq because they now have no WMD and are not hiding WMD. Ritter is also on very good terms with the Iraqi government now and is making a documentary about how Iraq was mistreated during the inspection process. Seems to me that money is most logical explanation to the whole Ritter situation. He was upset at Iraq for kicking out the weapons inspectors and asking that he be taken off the inspection team. He was also disillusioned with the US for not pressing Iraq to get the weapons inspectors back and for investigating him. So whichever side wants to front the money Ritter will puppet their cause. Here is how Ritter felt back in 1998. [url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html[/url] [url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31a.html[/url] [url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/realaudio/august98/ritter_8-31.ram[/url]
View Quote
OK, I think that everybody here, except for an Oregon apologist, knows Ritter is a hypocrite. It does seem like, based on the preponderance of evidence, either it is money, or mental disease that has caused this drastic change in Ritter. Take you pick, but base it on the preponderance of the evidence. I vote it was the money that caused Ritter to flip-flop Bill
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 9:51:18 AM EDT
[size=4]"Baghdad Scott" has a nice ring to it![/size=4]
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 10:10:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MIerinMD: I get the impression that regardless of any degree of proof, you still wouldn't be satisfied. I'm glad we have stronger, more decisive men than you in this current government.
View Quote
Good job on the petty insult. Pathetic that someone who would actualyl insist that a war REALLY be rightous BEFORE we start it would be considered indecisive and weak. Good job on the SOP of this administration - demonize anyone that disagree with thier rhetoric, and dismiss them as un-patriotic, mentally unstable, etc - rather than actually deal with the important moral issues that are being raised. All of your arguments boil down to one thing. In lieu of any REAL "proof", you will just swallow raw the propaganda of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeldt, and you're not interested in any reality. The responses you posted are so weak. Good for you that it is so easy to sway your conscience - it must make your life very easy. Some of us, however, are a little more strong-willed than you.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 10:17:32 AM EDT
Man, oh man some of you guys are so indoctrinated! Ritter a traitor? I think not! The guy did the best job he could do as a weapons inspector and he didn't let the the CIA compromise his efforts. He followed his orders to the letter. If you've ever seen the videos of him trying to conduct the inspections, you would know that Ritter is one tough, brave, and smart individual. I am glad he has come out against this bogus war--he knows that it isn't necessary is only a political move. To sit at your computer in your home and spout off that this man is a traitor is to deny all reality--the traitors are the ones goading for war, not the ones trying to keep the US out of it. There is money to be made in a war with Iraq and young, patriotic, American men will not be the ones profiting when they go there and lose their lives. I simply refuse to believe that Iraq has all these scary chem/bio/nuclear arms we keep hearing about. Can't you recognize propaganda when you hear it?
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 10:45:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: dismiss them as un-patriotic
View Quote
Nobody would say that about you, DK. You are a Danish citizen, right?
rather than actually deal with the important moral issues that are being raised.
View Quote
Yeah, like "containing" Saddam for another dozen years. [rolleyes]
All of your arguments boil down to one thing. In lieu of any REAL "proof", you will just swallow raw the propaganda of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeldt, and you're not interested in any reality. The responses you posted are so weak.
View Quote
That's [b]Rumsfeld[/b], foreigner. And MIerinMD is right, he's ten times the man you'll ever be.
Good for you that it is so easy to sway your conscience - it must make your life very easy.
View Quote
Back in Denmark they have consciences too. Now they have muslim ghettoes and fanatics publicly offering rewards for dead jews. Enjoy!
Some of us, however, are a little more strong-willed than you.
View Quote
Who does this remind me of?
Bill Clinton: "This is still the greatest country in the world, if we just will steel our wills and lose our minds."
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 10:46:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Good job on the petty insult. Pathetic that someone who would actualyl insist that a war REALLY be rightous BEFORE we start it would be considered indecisive and weak.
View Quote
When exactly would it be "rightous" for us to start? After the tens of thousands infected with small pox or the hundreds of thousands killed by a tactical nuke on the Hudson river? THEN would we have the 'right' to defend ourselves? I'm glad that you are willing to wager American lives on Iraqi intent.
Good job on the SOP of this administration - demonize anyone that disagree with thier rhetoric, and dismiss them as un-patriotic, mentally unstable, etc - rather than actually deal with the important moral issues that are being raised.
View Quote
I never called you un-patriotic or mentally unstable. I'm simply arguing for a more proactive stance. And the defense of American lives IS a moral issue to me.
All of your arguments boil down to one thing. In lieu of any REAL "proof", you will just swallow raw the propaganda of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeldt, and you're not interested in any reality. The responses you posted are so weak.
View Quote
Exactly where are my responses weak?? What "REAL" proof do you need?? Until you 'enlighten us' on what you've learned from your apparent participation in top level secret government intel briefings, you are not in a position to tell me that they pose no threat.
Good for you that it is so easy to sway your conscience - it must make your life very easy. Some of us, however, are a little more strong-willed than you.
View Quote
Your concept of strong willed is nothing more than willful ignorance. You refuse to see what is before you. Just because YOU don't see the threat doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 10:55:29 AM EDT
Well, I learned something from this posting. First, people will believe what they want to believe and nothing will change their mind. Second, that one can always depend on topics such as these to degenerate into name calling and other imature tactics. That is sad and I'm outta here......>>>>>>>>>>>
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 11:23:18 AM EDT
For Ritter to go to iraq and speak in front of iraqi leadership served no one but saddam himself. Scott Ritter has the right to say what ever he wants to say and give his professional opinion but he must understand what he is doing when he goes to iraq is serve as saddam's lap dog. It does the United states no good at all, and some would argue that it causes America harm.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 12:28:03 PM EDT
Just wondering if DK is an American Citizen?
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 12:45:57 PM EDT
Mr. Ritter is simply asking for solid, logical and unrefutable evidence instead of the emotionally charged rhetoric that the Bush administration is currently offering.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 12:55:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PINGi3: Mr. Ritter is simply asking for solid, logical and unrefutable evidence instead of the emotionally charged rhetoric that the Bush administration is currently offering.
View Quote
Whilst sitting upon the lap of a MADMAN. Perhaps, just perhaps we would have been better served making his case from HIS nation's capitol rather then Sadams... No matter he's just a Fair and Balanced Guy...afterall he did speak on Fox too.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 1:02:38 PM EDT
Whilst sitting upon the lap of a MADMAN. Perhaps, just perhaps we would have been better served making his case from HIS nation's capitol rather then Sadams... No matter he's just a Fair and Balanced Guy...afterall he did speak on Fox too.
View Quote
I would agree with that 100% wofwof...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top