Jump to content

Anyone remember Scott Ritter, that fool?


Supreme Cmdr
 Share

Recommended Posts

Neither did I, untill I came across this :

quote:


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."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

arrested

Conviction? FBI? COINTELPRO? Reality?

quote:

taking Iraqi money

Skakir al-Khafaji is an Iraqi American who opposes this war. Now I realize that he should be in an internment camp somewhere but I guess I could settle for just calling him a Saddam sympathizer in a clumsy attempt to discredit him.

quote:

but we will not be able to win this war, which

in my opinion is already lost."


I think he is talking about occupation and American style reconstruction.....we'll see how it goes....I get the feeling this thing is far from over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

...we may win some tactical battles...


I've got to agree with you Lotharr, I think he is talking about the reconstruction. The key is in that quote above. We may have won the tactical war, but the political war is just beginning. Its already a given that democracy as we know it will not work in Iraq, so I'm gonna love to see what we install as a government and if it survives the next decade.

Although, if he was talking about the actual war, he's dumber than Bush. Much dumber than Bush...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hellbinder[CE]

quote:

I've got to agree with you Lotharr, I think he is talking about the reconstruction. The key is in that quote above. We may have won the tactical war, but the political war is just beginning. Its already a given that democracy as we know it will not work in Iraq, so I'm gonna love to see what we install as a government and if it survives the next decade.

Although, if he was talking about the actual war, he's dumber than Bush. Much dumber than Bush...


I find it humerous that you cant seem to understand simple paragraph, yet in the next breath are talking about how *dumb* Bush is.

This BS about Bush being dumb is out of line, immature, FALSE, disrespectful and unwarranted. You go get Degree from both Yale and Harvard Then come back and open your mouth.

Otherwise it is nothing but the usual empty, meaningless, bitter Liberal Rhetoric.

(the same goes for all of you that post this kind of rubbish)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Conviction?

Yes. After the first arrest, he pled out for counseling. It never made the press because "Scott" is his middle name and the records were using his first name. He got caught a second time, and then a local NY TV station reviewed its records and found the story of the first arrest.

quote:

Skakir al-Khafaji is an Iraqi American...

Scott Ritter was an ex-marine who was on the first UNSCOM team of weapons inspectors. At the time, he was a staunch pro-American. After Hussein kicked out UNSCOM, Ritter was approached by Iraqi officials to make a pro-Iraqi documentary in exchange for $250,000. He did so, and has been an Iraqi supporter ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

After Hussein kicked out UNSCOM

Don't rewrite history.

quote:

One of the most common media errors on Iraq is the claim that the U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because they were "kicked out" or "expelled" (Extra! Update, 10/02). The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" (Washington Post, 12/18/98).


http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-myths.html

quote:

Ritter was approached by Iraqi officials to make a pro-Iraqi documentary in exchange for $250,000. He did so, and has been an Iraqi supporter ever since

Hook me up with some documented facts....

quote:

Yes. After the first arrest, he pled out for counseling. It never made the press because "Scott" is his middle name and the records were using his first name. He got caught a second time, and then a local NY TV station reviewed its records and found the story of the first arrest.


Hook me up.....

quote:

You go get Degree from both Yale and Harvard Then come back and open your mouth.


Well with my 3.0 I couldn't....however, if I had a 2.0 and Bush at the end of my name I could.....

quote:

This BS about Bush being dumb is out of line, immature, FALSE, disrespectful and unwarranted

Look if the guy could command the English language above an eighth grade level I wouldn't hold this opinion.....don't claim this belief is held by liberals alone.....I've talked to plenty of embarrassed conservatives who have privately reached the same conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lotharr,

You need to get a grip.

Fact is that once the inspectors left, Sadam would not let them back in.

And what is this crap about Iraq not being ready for democracy, what kind of arrogance is that?

Because that is what it is, pure unadultered arrogance.

We got Japan to turn over to a democracy in a little over 2 years, and they had 1500 years of militaristic, dictatorship behind them.

Compared to that, Iraq is gonna be easy.

You keep talking though, it will be fun to discredit everything you said when this is all said and done.

Oh, and Scott Ritter got over 250,000 from the Iraqi government for his little documentary, he has been bought and payed for. He has NO credibility, NONE.

And this further crap about PRESIDENT Bush being dumb is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard out of you Lotharr, and you come up with some doozies from time to time.

You go get those degrees from Harvard and Yale, and then come back and talk. Oh, and shouldn't have the name Gore gotten the Goron somewhere? He failed miserably in seminary school and BARELY got his degree, so you want to compare? Didn't think so.

PRESIDENT Bush's language by the way is pure Texan, and unless you know someone from Texas, or are from Texas, you haven't got a clue. You ought to hear my friend Denney, he tears the english language to pieces, but he's pure Texan, and he is FAR from dumb. Oh, and if you said that about PRESIDENT Bush in front of Denney, you would be hoping that he would kill you quick. so that you wouldn't suffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag, most Georgians are as bad, if not worse. I don't care that he can't speak worth a damn. Does anyone else here feel that threatening world peace and ticking off what allies we have is dumb? Am I the ONLY one here that feels that. If you haven't read the news, Bush is refusing to let the UN in on reconstruction, if you ask me, this is one of the worst moves he can make foreign policy wise.

I HATE FRANCE, the last thing I want is them to really f*ck up the reconstruction, but ask yourself this, with the tax cuts, do we REALLY have the money to rebuild Iraq? We've already spent $20 billion so far. The pentagon is also projecting at least $2 billion more per month as well.

Not to mention, the Bush administrations restricting the first contracts to American contractors makes the image world wide that we have our own personal agenda for Iraq, that we want it to grow our way, not the Iraqi peoples way.

We've begun to piss British companies off as well. Hello! The British helped capture Iraq as well, they SHOULD be considered for the first contracts, but they arn't.

We are sending the wrong message people, is there anyone else realizing this?

P.S. Oh, and btw, Saddam was threatening peace in the middle eastern region of the world, it was only minorly threatening us. If we work on the homefront to keep terrorists out, they'll keep out, guaranteed.

EDIT: Oh, and 'bout the "Iraq's not ready for democracy bit", look at all the other countries that we've installed democracies in other than Japan. Most are failing, if you look closely. Already problems are arising in Afghanistan. We've got to do this PRECISELY right, otherwise this one will do the same. Unfortuanately, (God I hate to say this) I think we need the UN to help us, some of the best diplomats (including Americans) in the world are there, they can help, but only if we allow them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just do your favorite search on "Scott Ritter" & Arrest.

Are CNN and FoxNews okay as first sources?

Report: Former U.N. Inspector Scott Ritter Arrested in Internet Sex Sting

Ex-arms inspector, war foe Ritter confirms 2001 arrest

There's more, but that should be sufficient.

And regarding that Skakir al-Khafaji guy you mentioned, here's an article from Slate that links him as the bagman for Ritter (also, I was wrong -- it wasn't $250,000, it was $400,000). Scott Ritter: What turned the hawkish Iraq weapons inspector into a dove?

quote:

That leaves us to consider ulterior motives. One popular theory, recently advanced by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, holds that Ritter has essentially been bought off. By his own admission, Ritter accepted $400,000 in funding two years ago from an Iraqi-American businessman named
Shakir al-Khafaji
. Ritter used the money to visit Baghdad and film a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections (which in his telling were corrupted by sinister American manipulation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Fact is that once the inspectors left, Sadam would not let them back in.

Ok hook me up....where is this documented?

quote:

And what is this crap about Iraq not being ready for democracy, what kind of arrogance is that?

I never said that....I think the question is how can an American style democracy function in a country with three strongly nationalistic forces all striving for independence or control of the government. Also, how is democracy supposed to "flower" under American governors who are deeply resented by two out of three ethnic groups? These are the legitimate questions that were not debated and still hang unanswered.

quote:

He failed miserably in seminary school and BARELY got his degree, so you want to compare

I didn't realize that these two had so much in common....guess that's why I feel both make for terrible leaders.

quote:

Oh, and if you said that about PRESIDENT Bush in front of Denney, you would be hoping that he would kill you quick.

quote:

Japan to turn over to a democracy in a little over 2 years

Your not seriously comparing these two radically different situations are you?

quote:

There's more, but that should be sufficient.


Please provide it. If you read the article everything is alleged and he was at worst only charged. There were no convictions, only vindication. He is an enemy of the state and subject to COINTELPRO operations. But really we cannot prove any of this. We do know that this all started with the weekly standard that is most certainly a right wing publication. So if you can do better than speculation with actual convictions or hard evidence I would agree.

This was in there too:

quote:

What's more, Ritter's conversion apparently began before he ever met al-Khafaji. In 1999 he published Endgame, a book that railed against the Clinton administration, labeled the sanctions against Iraq "evil," and suggested that the international community could do business with Saddam. It was only after Endgame was published that Ritter says he was approached by al-Khafaji. It's possible that Ritter took money from al-Khafaji, or some other ally or agent of Saddam, before writing Endgame. But there's no evidence of that

http://slate.msn.com/id/2071502/

Who knows if what he said is correct....all I know is he was there and he is an unpopular type of patriot and really the only way to deal with what he said is to smear him.....when we find the huge stock of WMD we will know he was wrong....if we don't I think Ritter will be off everyone's radar as this administration frantically atttemps damage control. It is odd that no third parties are working with US forces to search for WMD....

I would also like to see real evidence against Skakir al-Khafaji....

quote:

We are sending the wrong message people, is there anyone else realizing this

More and more everyday.

Fun with Hamilton:

quote:

Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by MEN as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

There were no convictions, only vindication.

The records are sealed. From MSNBC.

Like I said, Ritter plead out to counseling in exchange for "adjournment in anticipation of dismissal." From some Google copies of old stories no longer available:

quote:

The June 2001 arrest of Ritter, 41, came to light over the past week in various media reports. He was charged with a Class B misdemeanor, the least serious state crime on the books, for allegedly setting up a sexual rendezvous with a person who he thought was a 16-year-old girl.

Ritter was unaware that he was chatting over the Internet with an undercover Colonie investigator posing as a teenage girl. Police were waiting for Ritter when he showed up at a Burger King in Menands to meet the girl.
The case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal,
[the MSNBC story stops here]
meaning the charges would be dropped and the records sealed if he didn't break the law for a six-month period.


quote:

Who knows if what he said is correct.... I would also like to see real evidence against Skakir al-Khafaji....

I'm not going to look for it. You can if you want, but I think I showed you enough evidence. I doubt you'd believe it anyway, unless you heard it with your own ears.

quote:

Fun with Hamilton:

What were you quoting? Hamilton was angling to be the General of the Army (Hamilton fancied himself as the American Napolean), but Adams wouldn't appoint him. Adams preferred a strong Navy over an Army, so Hamilton schemed to undermine Adams in the election of 1800. Hamilton succeeded, but his ego got the better of him and Aaron Burr killed him in 1804.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Albany County Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser agreed to have the case adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, meaning the charge would be dropped if Ritter stayed out of trouble for six months, and the case was subsequently sealed, the newspaper said.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76196,00.html

This demonstrates that the state's case was weak as crap....the mans wife went to court with him.....COIN-TEL-PRO.....If I had just spoken out against a "popular war" I wouldn't want to go before a jury either....rock and hard place. But I don't know the man so all I can do is try to reflect on a vague notion of innocence before corporate media castration...or something like that....

quote:

I'm not going to look for it. You can if you want, but I think I showed you enough evidence. I doubt you'd believe it anyway, unless you heard it with your own ears.


I wouldn't accept the notion of anyone from Iraq accepting Saddam as a good leader for their nation (well maybe a Sunni...but not an Americanized one).....however, that does not mean I wouldn't see the merit of an argument that tried to a deter a war where innocent people would be the vast majority of casualties and the "savior" would be the forces of Zionist oppression. And no, for the ignorant, who cannot separate Zionism from Judaism this is not an anti-Semitic statement....just putting some context on the actions of the potentially misunderstood Iraqi American....of course I always reserve the right to be wrongand for you to piss off.

quote:

What were you quoting

FP 6....not in the exact context, but still I feel it is extremely telling....in a global and regional strategic analysis of morals and motivations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, so it was OK if Saddam kept killing his people himself, but if we harmed a small percentage of that by getting him out of power that was wrong?

I see where your priorities are Lotharr.

No problem.

I can see where Ritter would be your hero, but the man was BOUGHT and paid for with Iraqi Cash.

The man is a traitor to his country, just as that twerp reporter who claimed on Iraqi television that we had to change the plan because of "Iraqi Resistance". Yeah, right, sure.

What world do you live in again, oh, that's right, lala, the land of conspiracies and where the Americans are evil and imperialistic.

Yeah, I got your priorities there Lotharr, what are you going to say when we decide to take out Syria? It's gonna happen, one way or the other.

I can't wait to see you antiwar crowds go nuts when that happens.

Where were the rallies when Clinton bombed the hell out of Kosovo, or when he bombed afghanistan, where were you then?

What about when Iraq took Kuwait, all I saw was the fact that WE shouldn't get involved, not the fact that a country had been taken by force, oh no, that little fact didn't matter a bit.

What about Syria being in Lebanon, haven't heard a bit about your crowd on that score.

Nope, just every time a republican does it, is it wrong. If it's a democrat, or a foreign power, hey hunky dorey, but if the US tries to get involved with a republican president at the helm, the SH%^ hits the fan.

Interesting, very interesting, where were you then Lotharr, what were your feelings then, or was it OK, when a Democrat was in charge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

FP 6....not in the exact context...

Not in context is an understatement.

That passage is a history lesson on how neighboring countries throughout history were motivated to war with each other. Hamilton was trying to set the stage for a constitution among the states that removes the motivations to go to war with each other.

The first two paragraphs:

quote:

I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind--those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation.

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.

Furthermore, the passage you cite begins with "Has it not, on the contrary..." Hamilton is setting up an argument and then arguing against it. You pick up on the second half of his argument. The beginning goes:

quote:

But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.

Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary...

Hamilton is stating that mankind has been at war for its entire civilization, and those who argue that "The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars" or "Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord." are missing the point.

Hamilton is saying that the real motivition for going to war is "that it has from long observation of the progress of society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies."

Hamilton continues:

quote:

"An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject to this effect: "NEIGHBORING NATIONS (says he) are naturally ENEMIES of each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors." This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY."

So, what do we make of the rest of FP6? Hamilton is saying that commercial interests, as well as territorial or power interests have started wars, but the overriding factor has been the nearness of nations to each other. He feared that the states would fall into the same problem of warring with each other unless a constitution could be put in place that makes common interests more important than competing interests.

quote:

I always reserve the right to be wrongand for you to piss off.

Don't hold your breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

and for you to piss off.

This was only directed at you specifically if you cannot separate Zionism and Judaism (but I think you can)....it was for those who donÔÇÖt know the difference or donÔÇÖt want to.

quote:

Hamilton is saying that the real motivition for going to war is "that it has from long observation of the progress of society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies

I would agree with that. Another reason the world should be uniting against unilateral American power. For America the world is small place indeed.

quote:

Hamilton is saying that commercial interests, as well as territorial or power interests have started wars, but the overriding factor has been the nearness of nations to each other. He feared that the states would fall into the same problem of warring with each other unless a constitution could be put in place that makes common interests more important than competing interests.


This is an interesting point, and when the reality is that America has been capable of rapid international force projection and works through a strong global trade infrastructure the second point becomes less significant than the first.

Our imperialistic streak took off after the BS war of 1812 and has since morphed from traditional colonial acquisition to that of neo colonial exploitation via TNC's....or "free trade"..not just us.

So I favor the second part of the argument...

quote:

Americans are evil and imperialistic.

Americans are complacent, jingoistic, heavily regulated and bombarded by scare tactics...in my opinion these conditions are generated by the private sector...the rich people who's feet you love groveling around. There is also a streak of Christian fundamentalism that would have made our founding fathers sick, involved in high level policy making and presents another force who would love to see this country punish the wicked bla bla bla. And yes the more you examine why wars happen you come back to the economy. Who else is to blame? Who when there is no other power of set of laws to determine why things happen the way they do....the problems of the world are too much for one nation to bear alone....as we will see.

quote:

Where were the rallies when Clinton bombed the hell out of Kosovo

Good point....IÔÇÖll be there next time. Clinton was bastard but he worked multilaterally and didnÔÇÖt seek to polarize western society by attempting to ostracize dissenting nations.

quote:

when he bombed afghanistan, where were you then?


He also bombed a "chemical factory" that was only making aspirin for miserable people.

Why do you always lump me in with the democrats? Their behavior is just a poor as the republican's in my opinion.....if not worse because they claim to be "for the people" when really most are a bunch of corporate whores.....

quote:

What about when Iraq took Kuwait

That violated international law....for real...but where were you when we reestablished the Kuwaiti dictator? Where are you now that Afghanistan is the largest heroin supplier and slipping back into tribal fundamentalism? Where are you on the fact that Israel continues to colonize the west bank and Gaza strip? Where are you? We know where you aresee no evil hear no evil.

quote:

but if the US tries to get involved with a republican president at the helm, the SH%^ hits the fan.


Yeah it had nothing to do with the fact this situation needed a great deal of finesse and all we got was a this sorry lesson on how not to conduct international affairs.

quote:

Interesting, very interesting, where were you then Lotharr, what were your feelings then, or was it OK, when a Democrat was in charge?


Alright smart guy you show me where our founding fathers claimed waging wars of aggression were justified....I don't think you can cause I don't think they would ever support this kind of operation or global set up....your such a hypocrite when you pander to republican nonsense under "constitutional" pretense....but maybe you would like the idea of only white males being able to vote and reinstituting slavery....finding some more people of darker complexion to heroically slaughterwell we know that last part is trueget off your righteousness trip and deal with reality....or I'll send my friend lenney who is an ex-green beret, special forces, ranger, delta force sniper, and agent orange operator to find you....moo ha ha...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...