|
 Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
 
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,212
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 6 hours, 24 minutes
|
|
He probably just lied and said he thought they would win. Might as well get the people fired up to give the invaders some fight.
--------------------
--------------------------------
Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
 luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
 Re: Scott Ritter  [Re: Learyfan]
#2144928 - 11/29/03 04:52 PM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
 Riiggghhhhttttt.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
|
RandalFlagg writes:
I just find it strange that we have yet to find conclusive proof
of any WMD programs.
Read David Kay's findings, or for that matter Scott Ritter's reports back when he actually had access to Iraq. There is plenty of conclusive proof of WMD programs. What there isn't any proof of yet is stockpiles of ready-to-go WMDs.
And, the multitude of political benefits
from the Iraq invasion...
What political benefits might those be? Bush is arguably now the most hated man on the planet. His approval ratings have plummeted, and there is now a possibility that he may actually lose the 2004 election.
... makes me suspicious of the Bush
administration's WMD argument and its motivations.
As has been noted here many times before, the Bush administration was not alone in thinking that Hussein had failed to destroy the bio and chem stockpiles he was known to possess at the time the inspectors left in 1998. Not a single intelligence agency in the world believed Hussein had destroyed them all in secret.
As for the WMD being the argument; again -- as has been noted here many times before -- it was never the sole argument. But for whatever reason, it was the one that got the most attention in the media.
As for motivations -- what do you believe Bush's motivations were? As a corollary to that question, in what manner do the motivations behind an act determine its rightness or wrongness?
pinky
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: Phred]
#2145219 - 11/29/03 07:11 PM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
And, the multitude of political benefits
from the Iraq invasion...
What political benefits might those be? Bush is arguably now the most
hated man on the planet. His approval ratings have plummeted, and
there is now a possibility that he may actually lose the 2004
election.
I posted this in another message. I apologize for the cross-post.
I certainly concur that it is possible that the people responsible
for bringing about the Iraq invasion idea genuinely thought that
Iraq might have WMD programs. In that case they didn't lie, but
they could have exaggerrated. I just find it suspicious that there
are way too many good political reasons for invading Iraq, such
as:
1. Since Saddam is gone, we can pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia
without looking like pussies. One of the big reasons that Muslims
hate us is because we have troops in the Islamic holy kingdom of
Saudi Arabia.
2. We now have troops on both sides of Iran. Unlike with Iraq,
there is conclusive evidence of a large and sustained effort by
the Iranians to fund terrorism. We now have the ability to seriously
threaten them(which is good in my opinion).
3. We have troops on the Syrian border. We can now threaten
Syria(who also beyond a reasonable doubt supports terrorism).
4. Saddam would have always clung to power. He was contantly
defying us. He was an embarrassment to America's image. He made
the world question our resolve and will. With him gone, America
sends a message to the world: "Don't fuck with us".
5. Because Saddam would have always clung to power and he
would have indefinately defied the rules imposed upon him(weapons
inspections, no fly-zones, etc..) the sanctions on Iraq would have
never been lifted. This would have caused continued suffering for
the Iraqi people, which Saddam used as propaganda pieces to show
how "evil" America is.
6. By deposing a notorious dictator we send out the signal that
we are going to alter the Middle Eastern landscape by putting
pressure on the other countries in that region to accept democracy.
7. By getting rid of the sanctions in Iraq(by getting rid of the old
government) we can bring about a massive increase in Iraq's oil
production(they have the 2nd largest proven oil deposits in the
world). By doing this, America can decrease our reliance on Saudi
Arabia(which is ruled by a very unpopular monarchy that is kept in
power by America(which is another reason why the Muslims hate us)).
As for motivations -- what do you believe Bush's motivations were? As
a corollary to that question, in what manner do the motivations
behind an act determine its rightness or wrongness?
When it comes to war, I believe that the justifications for it that
are given to the general public should be %100 truthful and
forthright. When certain reasons are downplayed or not acknowledged,
I believe that is dishonest. Dishonesty coming from government
officials is nothing new however.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: Phred]
#2145528 - 11/29/03 09:59 PM (20 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
As for motivations -- what do you believe Bush's motivations were?
Nobody is psychic. I don't know what goes on in the man's head.
He might be telling the truth, he might not be.
In what manner do the motivations behind an act determine its
rightness or wrongness?
A classic moral question. It is also very subjective.
A person could argue that an occurrence is indelibly
influenced and imbued by its motivating factors. A person could also
argue that the motivation behind something is irrelevant when
considering the actual outcome that affects real people. Does
the cause matter, when the effect is what must be dealt with?
I am not the best person to direct this question at. I am too wracked
with nihilism to be able to give you a fulfilling answer. I feel as
if Man has not been equipped with the appropriate wisdom to deal
definitively with questions such as these.
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,212
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 6 hours, 24 minutes
|
|
Quote:
if Man has not been equipped with the appropriate wisdom to deal
definitively with questions such as these.
Yes we are. But the government has shut down the movement to spread higher consciousness throughout the world by making consciousness expanding drugs illegal.
Halting human evolution is probably the worst thing the US government has ever done.
--------------------
--------------------------------
Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Scott Ritter *DELETED* [Re: Learyfan]
#2282563 - 01/29/04 12:30 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Bump
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: Phred]
#2283051 - 01/29/04 06:08 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What political benefits might those be? Bush is arguably now the most hated man on the planet. His approval ratings have plummeted, and there is now a possibility that he may actually lose the 2004 election.
Try looking at the long term benefits that controlling the middle east will bring. Even if Bush does lose the election the democrats will still capitalise on the situation in the middle east to make sure American companies benefit and they will also try to protect the American economy by maintaining as much oil trade in dollars as they possibly can. They might not do things exactly the way the republicans would like but it will only be in the details that there will be any significant difference. Maybe the neocons will have to wait 4-12 years before they can fully take control again but I would imagine they try to plan in decades anyway.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,212
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 6 hours, 24 minutes
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: Phred]
#2283466 - 01/29/04 10:16 AM (20 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pinksharkmark said:
Bumped because Scott Ritter's name is once again invoked as some kind of authority in this forum.
pinky
I think Alex's point is that even a child molester thinks that this war was immoral.
--------------------
--------------------------------
Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: Phred]
#3236920 - 10/09/04 03:58 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
looks like this thread needs to be bumped again.
|
Vvellum
Stranger
Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: ]
#3236970 - 10/09/04 04:24 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
...because it turns out Ritter was more correct on Iraq/WMD than Bush Inc and their sad apologists.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: Vvellum]
#3238739 - 10/10/04 08:55 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
...because it turns out Ritter was more correct on Iraq/WMD than Bush Inc and their sad apologists.
Amen.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: Phred]
#3238814 - 10/10/04 10:24 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Only just noticed this lengthy thread...Just perusing thru your damning file and I see:
"Let's start with the basics first: In order to believe Scott Ritter is telling the truth that Iraq has been disarmed and no longer contains the capacity or capability to produce WMD's (whether they are nuclear, chemical or biological) you the reader absolutely must believe that every other UNSCOM, and IAEA inspector is wrong or lying, and that Scott Ritter is the ONLY person in UNSCOM, IAEA and in fact the entire US Intelligence Services who knows the truth. This statement is irrefutable, as Scott Ritter is the ONLY former UNSCOM or US Based Intelligence "source" on record as saying that Iraq has been sufficiently disarmed, and no longer poses a threat to its neighbors, or the United States of America. " This dated 2003.
Arent you supposed to be making the guy look bad? Surely this makes him look like a veritable genius!! Scored an own goal there Pinkster!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Great_Satan
prophet of God
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: Learyfan]
#3238851 - 10/10/04 10:58 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Learyfan said:
Quote:
if Man has not been equipped with the appropriate wisdom to deal
definitively with questions such as these.
Yes we are. But the government has shut down the movement to spread higher consciousness throughout the world by making consciousness expanding drugs illegal.
Halting human evolution is probably the worst thing the US government has ever done.
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
This boy is sick. Quit drugs now, boy.
|
Great_Satan
prophet of God
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
|
|
Here is some interesting information I found on the U.N. website that dispels the myth that there were no WMDs in Iraq just prior to the war. It wasn?t publicized by the mainstream socialist media though.
I couldn?t do a cut and paste since this information is in PDF format.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/unmovic/s-2004-160.pdf
The United Nations sixteenth quarterly report on the activities of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) dated 27 February, 2004 certainly states that Saddam DID have WMDs as recently as November 2002. How do they know? Well, the inspectors destroyed some of them after November 2002.
The report also states that the inspectors were absent from Iraq between November 1998 and November 2002 which gave Saddam plenty of time to transport the WMDs to Syria or any other good hiding place of his choosing.
And of course there are all those "missing" parts. Here is a sample from the U.N. report which I retyped:
"Iraq purchased or produced more than 100,000 empty 122-mm rocket warheads suitable for use with chemical weapons agents. Several different models of warhead were supplied by foreign manufacturers, including the Sakr-18 and 30; the Firos-25 and other manufacturers' copies of those warheads. Iraq also produced indigenously both aluminium and steel 122-mm warheads similar to those purchased abroad. The Special Commission supervised the destruction of thousands of those warheads that had been filled with the nerve agent Sarin. Iraq declared that it had unilaterally destroyed thousands more."
By ambiguously saying that they had destroyed "thousands" the U.N. gets itself off the hook for not accounting for the "thousands" left. Now my next question is: what happened to the rest of those warheads and the Sarin they contained? Saddam claims to have destroyed "thousands" of them but his dog ate the paperwork.
And what about the little noticed incident last month when the U.N. got it's collective panties in a bunch because the U.S. had removed nearly two tons of radioactive material from Iraq without U.N. permission? The U.N. had known of it's presence and did nothing about it. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2667950
If you want some additional eye opening information, read their Working Document dated 6 March 2003 involving "UNRESOLVED DISARMAMENT ISSUES" and "IRAQ'S PROSCRIBED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES". Especially note PDF page 13. http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/unmovic/6mar.pdf
And all this comes from an organization that publicly states there were no WMDs. Of course they also said there is no genocide occurring in Darfur so they wouldn't have to get involved.
http://www.itsallpolitics.com/viewtopic.php?t=228
Syria hiding Iraq WMDs
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463
|
Great_Satan
prophet of God
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
|
|
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: GazzBut]
#3241457 - 10/11/04 12:37 AM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"Let's start with the basics first: In order to believe Scott Ritter is telling the truth that Iraq has been disarmed and no longer contains the capacity or capability to produce WMD's (whether they are nuclear, chemical or biological) you the reader absolutely must believe that every other UNSCOM, and IAEA inspector is wrong or lying, and that Scott Ritter is the ONLY person in UNSCOM, IAEA and in fact the entire US Intelligence Services who knows the truth. This statement is irrefutable, as Scott Ritter is the ONLY former UNSCOM or US Based Intelligence "source" on record as saying that Iraq has been sufficiently disarmed, and no longer poses a threat to its neighbors, or the United States of America. " This dated 2003.
Arent you supposed to be making the guy look bad? Surely this makes him look like a veritable genius!! Scored an own goal there Pinkster!
Good point Gazz. Scott is proved correct and he's the bad guy? Go figure..
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
EonTan
bird
Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: Xlea321]
#3243485 - 10/11/04 02:31 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
PROVED, by the war. Not by his failed inspections.
Ritter is not a bad guy. Saadam is the bad guy. Ritter gave his opinion, and everyone else gave theirs. The USA and their coalition believed he had not lived up to his agreements, and that the risk was too high to not hold him accountable.
No matter what we learn after the invasion, what we KNEW prior to the invasion is what we went on.
What do you think should have been done about Saadam. What if the Inspections failed again?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: EonTan]
#3243515 - 10/11/04 02:39 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Ritter gave his opinion, and everyone else gave theirs
Except Ritters was correct.
No matter what we learn after the invasion, what we KNEW prior to the invasion is what we went on.
You don't seriously believe the whole WMD propaganda do you? Do you honestly think Bush sat there going "But guys, he's got these WMD and we have to invade Iraq to protect ourselves"? Seriously? Even Wolfowitz said WMD was nothing more than the excuse they went with.
What do you think should have been done about Saadam
What was the point of invading Iraq in 2003? He'd been there for 20 years. During the 80's when he was committing the bulk of his crimes Reagan and Bush were instrumental in propping up his dictatorship. Why invade 15 years later when he wasn't committing a fraction of the crimes he had throughout the 80's? The justification for invasion was in the 1980's when Reagan had his tongue up Saddams ass.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
EonTan
bird
Registered: 08/18/04
Posts: 468
Loc: very south
|
Re: Scott Ritter [Re: Xlea321]
#3243677 - 10/11/04 03:14 PM (19 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
We did not know before the war who was correct. Your going in circles.
What I believe is Saadam invaded his neighbor in 1991. He was thrown out by a Large coalition of Nations, at great EXPENSE. As part of his own agreements to not being removed from power, he agreed to let Inspectors oversee his disarming. IT IS THIS THAT HE FAILED AT. Stop apologizing for Saadam. WMD are real not propaganda. Propaganda is using information you aquired ONLY through WAR, to make an argument against that very war. WE did not KNOW before the war because of Saadam.
You and Saadam unthink alike. People who disagree with you are not brainwashed, they just disagree with you. Hell I might agree with you on lots of other things!!!
Saadam is a complete asshole for making it possible for War to be a viable solution.
You cannot now, or could not before the war convince me that WMD are not a real threat, or that Saadams behavior was anything less then EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and possibly contagious.
I do not view the world as safe. Never have. So appeasement is not an answer for me. Diplomacy first(ten years of failure) then war. The notion that this war was rushed into is Absurd. It probably set a world record for avoiding the inevitable. Kind of like the Israel/Palestine conflict. Avoidance!!!
If the USA decided to hold israel accountable for it's BAD BEHAVIOR on Palestine, made some mandates, Israel agreed to them, and then Ignored them for a DECADE, would you support a War to enforce them? I have this strange feeling that there would be WORLD support for that war. If you cry hypocrisy, make sure you are not a hypocrite.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Bulk Cannabis Seeds
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Xlea321
Rono
chodamunky
Learyfan
Scratcher