Scott Ritter former weapons inspector assigned to Iraq gave a speech in Boston. Here is an article with quotes from his speech..
http://truthout.com/docs_02/07.25A.wrp.iraq.htm
Comments? Thoughts? All of 9-11 is a very touchy, emotional subject so please.. let's keep it civil and not let it get personal as I have seen on other forums..
later
Scott Ritter
Scott Ritter
I just heard that Scott Ritter gave this speech initially to the Iraqui parliment...
Scott Ritter
Radio show also just alluded to Scott Ritter being a paid lobbyist for Iraq. I can't confirm this though..
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Scott Ritter
Scott Ritter, when he sent in his resignation letter in September 1998, said in writting that there is no evidence that Irag has dismantled/destroyed their weapons of mass destruction.
In September 2002, he says that there is no evidence Iraq has any WMD and that the US is going to make a collosal mistake by bombing the innocent women and children.
So which is it?
He is paid as a lobbyist by an ex-patriot Iraqi US Citizen who sponsors a conference in Iraq for ex-pat Iraqis.
Like anything else, If Iraq has no WMD, then show us. That ole' Missouri thing again. UN mandate (which Iraq agreed to) requires it.
Ritter is not to be believed.
Gene
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited September 13, 2002).]
In September 2002, he says that there is no evidence Iraq has any WMD and that the US is going to make a collosal mistake by bombing the innocent women and children.
So which is it?
He is paid as a lobbyist by an ex-patriot Iraqi US Citizen who sponsors a conference in Iraq for ex-pat Iraqis.
Like anything else, If Iraq has no WMD, then show us. That ole' Missouri thing again. UN mandate (which Iraq agreed to) requires it.
Ritter is not to be believed.
Gene
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited September 13, 2002).]
-
Scott Danziger
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Long Island
- Contact:
Scott Ritter
Well it sounds credible to me.
I make no bones about the fact I never liked Bush. Ever! Way before he was president. However... I noticed that those in this administration that talk the loudest about going to war never wore the uniform.
Cheney? never served.
Bush - part timer we all know the deal on that one.
Rumsfeld? I really don't know. But I dout it.
Ever notice how mute Powell is? (And I do like him.) I'm willing to bet that privatley he doesn't want a war with Iraq.
We had our chance with Iraq. It's over. You don't win the hearts and minds of a country (or a people) by killing their innocent civilians because of your political agenda.
I'd like to read the opinions though of other vets. Especially the ones who have seen combat.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
He is paid as a lobbyist by an ex-patriot Iraqi US Citizen who sponsors a conference in Iraq for ex-pat Iraqis.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is this proof or heresay?
Now, if this administration can come up with concrete "proof" like we did with the Soviets during the Cuban missle crisis, then maybe I'd be willing to listen what we could/should do.
As a side thought though, why aren't we bombing North Korea? They're a small, poor, piss ant evil axis country. Is it because of China? Oh yeah, they already have ABC warfare capablity. (A-tomic B-iological C-hemical).
Don't get me wrong here, I am only stirring the pot (while stating my true conviction). I love this country and if truly threatened or attacked, if the army would take me back at my age I'd go in a heartbeat. Even if only to help train others.
Scott
------------------
VISIT:
Eastern Arts Multimedia
Eastern Arts Hotlist (Martial Art Links)
Taking Charge - Cable TV & Video Martial Arts Show
I make no bones about the fact I never liked Bush. Ever! Way before he was president. However... I noticed that those in this administration that talk the loudest about going to war never wore the uniform.
Cheney? never served.
Bush - part timer we all know the deal on that one.
Rumsfeld? I really don't know. But I dout it.
Ever notice how mute Powell is? (And I do like him.) I'm willing to bet that privatley he doesn't want a war with Iraq.
We had our chance with Iraq. It's over. You don't win the hearts and minds of a country (or a people) by killing their innocent civilians because of your political agenda.
I'd like to read the opinions though of other vets. Especially the ones who have seen combat.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
He is paid as a lobbyist by an ex-patriot Iraqi US Citizen who sponsors a conference in Iraq for ex-pat Iraqis.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is this proof or heresay?
Now, if this administration can come up with concrete "proof" like we did with the Soviets during the Cuban missle crisis, then maybe I'd be willing to listen what we could/should do.
As a side thought though, why aren't we bombing North Korea? They're a small, poor, piss ant evil axis country. Is it because of China? Oh yeah, they already have ABC warfare capablity. (A-tomic B-iological C-hemical).
Don't get me wrong here, I am only stirring the pot (while stating my true conviction). I love this country and if truly threatened or attacked, if the army would take me back at my age I'd go in a heartbeat. Even if only to help train others.
Scott
------------------
VISIT:
Eastern Arts Multimedia
Eastern Arts Hotlist (Martial Art Links)
Taking Charge - Cable TV & Video Martial Arts Show
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Scott Ritter
Who pays Scott Ritter's lobbying bills has been widely reported in recent days.
Powell's keeping quiet mostly b/c he's in the minority in the administration - he's a bit of a dove when it comes to warfare and attacking first. This we know from his hesitation/opposition to the use of military force in the Balkans.
This does not, however, take away from his record as a career soldier and a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
No, I'm not a vet.
Gene
PS - A BIG error corrected in the first line.
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited September 14, 2002).]
Powell's keeping quiet mostly b/c he's in the minority in the administration - he's a bit of a dove when it comes to warfare and attacking first. This we know from his hesitation/opposition to the use of military force in the Balkans.
This does not, however, take away from his record as a career soldier and a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Right on.Now, if this administration can come up with concrete "proof" like we did with the Soviets during the Cuban missle crisis, then maybe I'd be willing to listen what we could/should do
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
In the US, the civilian authorities in power have control of the military. Has been that way since the beginning. If the Prez (the "Commander In Chief") wants to attack a third world country, well then so be it. God help him the political and civil uprisings to follow, unles he can convince people what he did was the correct course of action. That's Bush's job now - to convince us that invading Iraq is the correct course of action.I noticed that those in this administration that talk the loudest about going to war never wore the uniform.
No, I'm not a vet.
Gene
PS - A BIG error corrected in the first line.
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited September 14, 2002).]
Scott Ritter
Sorry, but...
How did Randy Weaver get in this thread?
How did Randy Weaver get in this thread?
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Scott Ritter
I had "cross-pollinated" my posts.
That damn profreading thing again...
Sorry.
Gene
That damn profreading thing again...
Sorry.
Gene
-
Scott Danziger
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Long Island
- Contact:
Scott Ritter
I just found this article and it echos exactly what I was saying about going to Iraq.
Those who never serve make the loudest call for war.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
War Service Is Iraq Debate Factor
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Some lawmakers pressing for war with Iraq never saw combat themselves. Some urging caution have fought. In a nation that does not require military service, one distinguishing factor in the war debate is who wore a uniform and who did not.
"It is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don't know anything about war," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a decorated Vietnam veteran who has urged President Bush, a fellow Republican, to be cautious with his Iraqi war plans.
"They come at it from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off," Hagel said.
Congress is debating whether to grant Bush the authority he seeks to use force against Iraq, with or without U.N. backing. The House was to vote Thursday; a Senate vote was expected next week.
War advocates contend Saddam Hussein is too great a threat to wait until he strikes first, and among them are some who never suited up in the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines.
In the post-World War II generation and with the Vietnam era receding, too, combat experience is becoming inevitably scarcer in Congress and the administration. Decisions about going to war are increasingly likely to be made by those who have not done so.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., a possible presidential candidate in 2004 who did not serve in the armed forces, favors action. "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States," he said.
Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., a Vietnam-era veteran and one of three anti-war House Democrats who recently visited Iraq, says Bush should pursue diplomacy before war. Bonior said he was just an Air Force cook in California during the Vietnam War but saw enough to know that "war destroys lives in such a profound way."
Combat veterans who have taken a go-slow approach to war against Iraq include Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam War veteran.
It's that firsthand experience of war that is feeding the opposition, says Michael Klare, who teaches peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass.
But are war-hardened critics the only ones fit to say when the country should go to war?
Not necessarily, Klare said. But "at least that experience gives you the sense that things could go wrong in war."
"If you're responsible for the lives of young men and women being sent into combat and you're aware of these uncertainties and you know that things can go wrong, you're going to be much more cautious and reluctant than people who think these things are all hunky-dory," he said.
Still, many proponents of using force recognize the task may not be simple or bloodless.
Case in point: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam for more than five years, is outspoken about removing the "tyrant" leading Iraq.
Any student of history, even a non-veteran, knows war-making can go wrong. Advocates of a tough war resolution say the effort is needed despite the risks.
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, wants a swift attack.
"America can't wait," said DeLay, another militarily inexperienced lawmaker.
The lack of combat experience extends to Bush's advisers, including some who are pushing hardest for war, in an echo of the backgrounds of many in the administration of Bill Clinton - a president who avoided the draft.
Among Bush officials without a combat background: Vice President Dick Cheney, a former defense secretary; White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; presidential adviser Karl Rove; national security adviser Condoleezza Rice; and Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary and a leading hawk.
Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard; he was not sent to Vietnam. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was a Navy aviator and flight instructor from 1954 to 1957.
The administration's most prominent veteran, Secretary of State Colin Powell, fought in Vietnam in a long military career topped by his years as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Powell is promoting Bush's tough policy on Iraq despite his reputation as a reluctant warrior.
In his 1995 memoirs, he touched on the subject of non-warriors wanting Americans to fight: "The intellectual community is apt to say we have to 'do something,' and diplomats fire off their diplomatic notes. But in the end, it is the armed forces that bring back the body bags and have to explain why to parents."
Anthony Zinni, the retired Marine general and former head of the U.S. Central Command, noted that he and other ex-generals, including Brent Scowcroft, believe attacking Iraq will cause more problems.
"It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and (are) really hellbent to go to war see it a different way," Zinni observed in a recent speech in Florida. "That's usually the way it is in history."
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., supports using force despite the personal stakes involved. Although he has not been to war, his 30-year-old son is a staff sergeant in an Army unit likely to be sent to Iraq.
"The attitude of my son, Brooks, is that I should do what's best for the country and he should do his best as a soldier and nothing else really matters," Johnson said in an interview.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those who never serve make the loudest call for war.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
War Service Is Iraq Debate Factor
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Some lawmakers pressing for war with Iraq never saw combat themselves. Some urging caution have fought. In a nation that does not require military service, one distinguishing factor in the war debate is who wore a uniform and who did not.
"It is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don't know anything about war," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a decorated Vietnam veteran who has urged President Bush, a fellow Republican, to be cautious with his Iraqi war plans.
"They come at it from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off," Hagel said.
Congress is debating whether to grant Bush the authority he seeks to use force against Iraq, with or without U.N. backing. The House was to vote Thursday; a Senate vote was expected next week.
War advocates contend Saddam Hussein is too great a threat to wait until he strikes first, and among them are some who never suited up in the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines.
In the post-World War II generation and with the Vietnam era receding, too, combat experience is becoming inevitably scarcer in Congress and the administration. Decisions about going to war are increasingly likely to be made by those who have not done so.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., a possible presidential candidate in 2004 who did not serve in the armed forces, favors action. "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States," he said.
Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., a Vietnam-era veteran and one of three anti-war House Democrats who recently visited Iraq, says Bush should pursue diplomacy before war. Bonior said he was just an Air Force cook in California during the Vietnam War but saw enough to know that "war destroys lives in such a profound way."
Combat veterans who have taken a go-slow approach to war against Iraq include Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam War veteran.
It's that firsthand experience of war that is feeding the opposition, says Michael Klare, who teaches peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass.
But are war-hardened critics the only ones fit to say when the country should go to war?
Not necessarily, Klare said. But "at least that experience gives you the sense that things could go wrong in war."
"If you're responsible for the lives of young men and women being sent into combat and you're aware of these uncertainties and you know that things can go wrong, you're going to be much more cautious and reluctant than people who think these things are all hunky-dory," he said.
Still, many proponents of using force recognize the task may not be simple or bloodless.
Case in point: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam for more than five years, is outspoken about removing the "tyrant" leading Iraq.
Any student of history, even a non-veteran, knows war-making can go wrong. Advocates of a tough war resolution say the effort is needed despite the risks.
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, wants a swift attack.
"America can't wait," said DeLay, another militarily inexperienced lawmaker.
The lack of combat experience extends to Bush's advisers, including some who are pushing hardest for war, in an echo of the backgrounds of many in the administration of Bill Clinton - a president who avoided the draft.
Among Bush officials without a combat background: Vice President Dick Cheney, a former defense secretary; White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; presidential adviser Karl Rove; national security adviser Condoleezza Rice; and Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary and a leading hawk.
Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard; he was not sent to Vietnam. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was a Navy aviator and flight instructor from 1954 to 1957.
The administration's most prominent veteran, Secretary of State Colin Powell, fought in Vietnam in a long military career topped by his years as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Powell is promoting Bush's tough policy on Iraq despite his reputation as a reluctant warrior.
In his 1995 memoirs, he touched on the subject of non-warriors wanting Americans to fight: "The intellectual community is apt to say we have to 'do something,' and diplomats fire off their diplomatic notes. But in the end, it is the armed forces that bring back the body bags and have to explain why to parents."
Anthony Zinni, the retired Marine general and former head of the U.S. Central Command, noted that he and other ex-generals, including Brent Scowcroft, believe attacking Iraq will cause more problems.
"It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and (are) really hellbent to go to war see it a different way," Zinni observed in a recent speech in Florida. "That's usually the way it is in history."
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., supports using force despite the personal stakes involved. Although he has not been to war, his 30-year-old son is a staff sergeant in an Army unit likely to be sent to Iraq.
"The attitude of my son, Brooks, is that I should do what's best for the country and he should do his best as a soldier and nothing else really matters," Johnson said in an interview.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
