Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51
  1. #1
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    311
    ...SAYS SCOTT RITTER

    This is an interview with former weapons inspector Scott Ritter -

    " Scott Ritter...
    are you surprised by how
    the assault in Iraq is going?
    Scott Ritter:
    " No actually, I wrote a paper that was published last Fall, that predicted just this. And i'm a little disturbed in listening to some of the analysis going along here.

    I think that one of the reasons the American find themselves in such difficulties in Iraq, is that so many in the Pentagon have listened to the... blithering of Iraqi expatriots who have spoken out --rightly so-- against Saddam Hussein, and who think that it's a) the role of the United States to liberate Iraq; and b) think that the Iraqi people want us to liberate them from Saddam.

    And I think that the harsh reality is that in buying off on the expectations of being greeted in the streets of Iraq with song and flowers... we now find we are being greeted with bullets and bombs.

    And it's the Shia in the south who are fighting us. They're not doing it because Chemical Ali is down there with his death squads threatening to execute 'em.

    They're doing it because, the American Crusader Infidel has invaded and violated Holy Iraq, and they will resist us, and they will resist us strongly.

    And no matter how many Iraqi's we kill and slaughter, I predict that America will loose this war and ultimately the American military will leave Iraq with its tail between its legs.

    Unfortunately, we're going to inflict a tremenduous amount of death and destruction on the people of Iraq; the American soldiers and Marines will also pay a price.

    And all those who sit outside of Iraq and courageously encourage Americans to go in and slaughter Iraqi's should be ashamed of themselves."


    Vincent Browne: "...You think the Americans will lose this war? "
    Scott Ritter:
    " We lost Vietnam....

    Remember we can kill many, many Iraqui's and we will do so. But I am telling you right now, that we do not have sufficient combat power in Iraq --as we speak-- to win this battle. So we will have to reinforce considerably.

    The current posture, in terms of American deployment, is predicated on a presumption that the Iraqi Army would surrender; that the Iraqi people would welcome; that the internsational community would support.

    The exact opposite is happening.

    And now we find ourselves with fewer than 120,000 boots on the ground; facing a nation of 23 million, with armed elements numbering around 7 million --who are concentrated at urban areas.

    We will not win this fight. America will lose this war.

    Saddam Hussein may die... But you know what?

    I'm betting that Saddam's gonna be around a lot longer than anyone can predict.

    I'm betting that we don't capture Bhagdad.

    I'm betting that we stall outside Bhagdad.

    I'm betting that this becomes an absolute quagmire.

    I hope I'm wrong, for the sake of the American lives that are going to be lost. Remember I'm a 12 year veteran of the Marine Corps. I fought in the first Gulf War. I know what war is about. I know what defending my country is about.

    This is a bad war, because it has nothing to do with the defense of the United States of America. Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration has pulled an enormous lie to the international community; to the American people.

    And now we're in Iraq --carrying out the right-wing neo-conservative motives of a handful of people; the Richard Perle's, Paul Wolfowitz's; the Dick Cheney's. And we've allowed them to hijack our foreign policy.

    And they've been cheered on by these Iraqi expatriots, who have zero credibility in my eyes. They're so brave and they want Iraq liberated... Then my goodness man, go to Iraq... fight and die for your country... But don't ask Americans to do it.

    Full Article

    _________________
    "Never settle for mediocre when it could be great. Never be afraid to
    be yourself because someone won't like you. Never give in, never give
    up, freely give out--opinions and beliefs. Share but don't force.
    Open your mind before you open your mouth, for ignorance is the
    downfall of man."

  2. #2
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    311
    What do you guys think?

  3. #3
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    I think he is absolutely correct.

    The Wolf Credo: Respect the elders. Teach the young. Cooperate with the pack. Play when you can. Hunt when you must. Rest in between. Share your affections. Voice your feelings. Leave your mark.

  4. #4
    ABW Ambassador iucpxleps's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    648
    I think it has valid points but I guess US will win the war eventually. They can drop some more cluster bombs, emps and depleted uranium bombs to baghdad and there wont be more resistance.

    Yes it might sound extreme but if this war goes that far I bet "USA Admin." will use it without hesitating.


    -NO WAR-

  5. #5
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    311
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SSanf:
    I think he is absolutely correct.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I agree with you

    _________________
    "Never settle for mediocre when it could be great. Never be afraid to
    be yourself because someone won't like you. Never give in, never give
    up, freely give out--opinions and beliefs. Share but don't force.
    Open your mind before you open your mouth, for ignorance is the
    downfall of man."

  6. #6
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    311
    I think that if the US concentrates too many assetes in Iraq then theay are just asking for North Korea to attack South Korea and the US would be very slow to react to try to stop that. If such a scenario happens then I wouldn't want to think what would happen to the 37000 US soldiers that are stationed there. The same would be true with China taking over Taiwan.
    I think the moves that the US is making militarily speaking are very risky and could potentially bring a lot of truble in places that were relatively peacefull untill now.

    _________________
    "Never settle for mediocre when it could be great. Never be afraid to
    be yourself because someone won't like you. Never give in, never give
    up, freely give out--opinions and beliefs. Share but don't force.
    Open your mind before you open your mouth, for ignorance is the
    downfall of man."

  7. #7
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    I think it is premature to say what will happen or even what is happenng right now. The reports from the battlefield are spotty at best. What everyone is basing their opinions on is the viewpoints of very few people.

    The pro-liberation camp are relying primarily on US and UK military reports with a very few reporters most of them embedded with little view of the big picture.

    The pro-regime and the anti-war camps seem to be basing their opinions as to the outcome on interviews with a few angry civilians, foreign media without direct access to story, the regime's reports, and inuedo.

    I also think who will 'win' depends on your definition of 'win' in this specific case.

    For example, the anti-war crowd assumes the US loses if they do not capture Baghdad and do it quickly and without large losses.

    My opinion is that that we all are taking a very narrow view of what will happen and even what could be a positive outcome of this conflict.

    Stay tuned.

  8. #8
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    311
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They can drop some more cluster bombs, emps and depleted uranium bombs to baghdad and there wont be more resistance.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Good point. I think Depleted Uranium killed and maimed more people than Saddams regime has ever killed. And lets not forget about the estimated 100,000 Gulf War I veterans that are sick because of that. In Gulf War I the US forces used an estimated 500 tons of that stuff and it's all still there being blown by the sandstorms. I wonder how many tons have already been spilled untill now and how many will.
    Talk about using WMD...

    _________________
    "Never settle for mediocre when it could be great. Never be afraid to
    be yourself because someone won't like you. Never give in, never give
    up, freely give out--opinions and beliefs. Share but don't force.
    Open your mind before you open your mouth, for ignorance is the
    downfall of man."

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    I am hoping we can 'tone it down' on this board as was requested by the owner. How about you lay off the American-are-evil rantings, and maybe the pro-war types will halt the anti-Muslim rhetoric?

    You asked a question. My answer is that the US can win without overtaking Baghdad. That is not the only objective of this war. Battle plans change all the time in conflicts, and it does not come down to two possible outcomes. I consider your view too narrow.

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador iucpxleps's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    648
    Well capitals are the ultimate targets. and in this war it has even more importance imho as iraq = bagdat for soemtime. I cant think of a victory without taking bagdat. but yeah we cant know yet..


    -NO WAR-

  11. #11
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    311
    Let's just hope that the US intelligence services get one thing right, that the war ends when Saddamn is dead.

    What if that doesn't happen and people reject the imposed "regim change" and fight a guerilla stile war even if the regime is finished like in Chechenia?
    I think the US government has been actin on too many asumptions with hardly any evidence to back them up and that this war is looking worse by the minute.

    _________________
    "Never settle for mediocre when it could be great. Never be afraid to
    be yourself because someone won't like you. Never give in, never give
    up, freely give out--opinions and beliefs. Share but don't force.
    Open your mind before you open your mouth, for ignorance is the
    downfall of man."

  12. #12
    ABW Ambassador Packy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    4,205
    DreamMaster,

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think that if the US concentrates too many assetes in Iraq then theay are just asking for North Korea to attack South Korea and the US would be very slow to react to try to stop that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Who says we are gonna stop it. We're letting the rest of the world deal with North Korea and all the other problems. We know the world hates to see the US start policing so we are through after Iraq and the Al quada. Someone elses turn.

    I tuely do believe after Iraq it is time to take a break from the world. Pull all of our troops back home. Protect our borders. Take care of our countries financial problems which won't be hard. Just stop with the aid to other countries should whip the deficit problem in no time.

    Drop Isreal as a friend. Of course that would be the end of the Palestines because the US wouldn't be around to put presure on Isreal to stop them from doing what they could do. But then again, that would be the end of The US problems with terrorists because they would like us again because we aren't backing Isreal. But of course they would find another reason to hate us again.

    Of course we will have to have the best missile defense around because every country in the world will have nuclear weapons. So with our missile defense program at least that won't be our problem. Of course I will feel sorry for the rest of the world who will be blackmaled into whatever regimes like Suddams would be able to do once they have them. Yup, time to take a break from the world soon and you can bet I will be one of them protesters calling to bring our troops home from every country that they are in right now.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Good point. I think Depleted Uranium killed and maimed more people than Saddams regime has ever killed. And lets not forget about the estimated 100,000 Gulf War I veterans that are sick because of that. In Gulf War I the US forces used an estimated 500 tons of that stuff and it's all still there being blown by the sandstorms. I wonder how many tons have already been spilled untill now and how many will. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yup, next time maybe we will smarten up and stay the fugg out of things. Just think, Iucpxleps could be bowing to Suddam right now if the coalition didn't step in to stop Iraq from taking over the Middle East in the Gulf War. Ahhhh, pictures and Suddam hanging and statues all over Turkey Suddam could of had vacation palaces in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and a few other places.

    Hmmm, have the Turk troops that have massed at the border moved in yet? Oh thats right, it's just for refugees.

    Coincidence Me baby!

    Affiliate Programs That Just Might Work

  13. #13
    ABW Ambassador ShoreMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    NJ, USA
    Posts
    912
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DreamMaster:
    What do you guys think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that his other troubles have forfeited his right to have me pay any attention to anything he says ever again.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...7p-51227c.html

  14. #14
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    311
    DaPackster,

    I agree with most of your points but I think Saddam could never have taken over the middle east. Even with all the weapons of mass distruction that the US and other countries gave him in the Iraq - Iran war he still could not win that it. Imagine if he had taken on Turkey (which is a Nato member) or Soudi Arabia which is the biggest countrie in the middle east.

    Another point that I want to make is that I think that most of the people who opposed Saddam are already dead or have fled the country a long time ago. Therefore I don't think he was killing many people recently.

    _________________
    "Never settle for mediocre when it could be great. Never be afraid to
    be yourself because someone won't like you. Never give in, never give
    up, freely give out--opinions and beliefs. Share but don't force.
    Open your mind before you open your mouth, for ignorance is the
    downfall of man."

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador Packy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    4,205
    Jimbo,

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You asked a question. My answer is that the US can win without overtaking Baghdad. That is not the only objective of this war. Battle plans change all the time in conflicts, and it does not come down to two possible outcomes. I consider your view too narrow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't think this will be posible to end without taking control of Bagdad. The R Guards will be inside and it won't be over until they are done away with or surrender.

    One thing I will say to the anti US people here though who seem to be gloating about the time it is taking to end this which for the most part will be Bagdad.

    There is no doubt that with Turkey deciding to not let ground troops in it will prolong the war. There is no doubt that with Turkey not letting ground troops in it is costing more lives. Definately coalition lives and most likely Iraqi lives. Not having the front from the North allowed the Iraqi forces not to be split like would of been hoped for. That being said.

    I think for whatever reason everyone was expecting a war like the Gulf war. This war is completely different. The coalition forces had to send in ground troops right away to secure the oil fields from being blown up. They also had to secure the ports for humanitaian aid to flow in and also for supplies. This isn't a war that could of been just bombing until Iraqi troops surrendered and for some reason people seem shocked that it is taking so long. I think almost 6 days so far.

    This war could of probably been eneded in 2 days if the Coalition had the morals of the Iraqis military and didn't care about the innocent. If we didn't worry about the civilians being used as shields for the Iraqi scumbags doing that. Add 3 days of sandstorms that have caused more problems. All I can hope and pray for is that it ends as fast as posible and with the fewest caualties on all sides. Flame away US bashers .

    Coincidence Me baby!

    Affiliate Programs That Just Might Work

  16. #16
    ABW Ambassador Packy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    4,205
    DreamMaster,

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Even with all the weapons of mass distruction that the US and other countries gave him in the Iraq - Iran war he still could not win that war imagine if he had taken on Turkey (which is a Nato ally) or Soudi Arabia.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    True, Turkey is a Nato ally and the UN either voted not to allow protection to them for this war or wouldn't let it go to a vote. Another move of France I believe. So America and the allies are going to war and the UN decides not to allow protection to an allied country??? Hmmmmm. Frances argument was that would mean they approved of the war.

    Coincidence Me baby!

    Affiliate Programs That Just Might Work

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    190
    why dont you go build some sites then check back on iraq in 3 months

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador Packy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    4,205
    Spacewar,

    was that directed towards me?? Even if it wasn't, your right. I'll stop posting. I can see people are being bothered be war being talked about here.

    K, my last post. I'll sit back and let the US get slammed. No More.

    As to sites, I'm still building. This is just my vent break. No more though.

    Coincidence Me baby!

    Affiliate Programs That Just Might Work

  19. #19
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    311
    I think that was actually directed at me and I think he is right. I am going to decrease my war related posts but I just wanted to share this interview with you because I thought it was interesting.

    Ok back to building my sites...

    _________________
    "Never settle for mediocre when it could be great. Never be afraid to
    be yourself because someone won't like you. Never give in, never give
    up, freely give out--opinions and beliefs. Share but don't force.
    Open your mind before you open your mouth, for ignorance is the
    downfall of man."

  20. #20
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    I believe the war is going well for the coalition forces.

    When military planners make their stategy, they plan for various scenarios and adjust the battle plan accordingly.

    These are the early days of the war. The first approach was was decapitation & shock and awe in the hopes that the dictator would go down and his regime with it, putting a quick end to the war and minimal bloodshed. It did not happen, but that does not mean we lost the war, are losing, or will lose.

    From what I see, the coalition is now on an excellent plan. The US/UK strength is in open combat from a distance. This minimizes losses and utilizes technological advantages.

    The regime's plan is to lure the Americans into a bloody battle in the streets of Baghdad. This is a plan (trap) the US/UK do not want to follow, and so far (thankfully) they have not.

    Some may think the US troops are stalled and demoralized and losing because they have not pressed on to Baghdad like everyone expects. I do not see it that way.

    From what I have seen they are going about this on their own plan (not the dictator's). They moved to within 60 miles of Baghdad (the hornets nest). Their is no reason to run into a bloody Baghdad confrontation. If the Republican Guard wants to drive down to meet them, the US can utilize its air dominance to pick them off. Their artillery is also within range to slam them if they drive down.

    In the meantime while the US holds its position south of Baghdad, keeping the Republican Guard at bay, the UK and US can work on the south and north where there is less support for the dictator. There is no rush to get to Baghdad except to satisfy the foreign protestors (military planners do not care about the protestors schedule, they did not elect them).

    Now, lets look at victory scenarios. In order to achieve victory the coalition must achieve its objectives: a regime change, liberation of the Iraqi people, elimination of the threat of weapns of mass destruction, aid to Iraqi citizens, and restoration of the US's relations with the non-supporting nations.

    We do not need to take over Baghdad, but that would be the icing on the cake.

    There are various ways satisfy everyone (except the regime).

    Iraq is a split country of three factions. It was artificially put together forcing opposed groups to share a nationality.

    It will not be long before the north and south are swept clean of the regime. Their supply lines will be cut off. I don't see why they have to come back together as one country again, except that their neighbors insist on it. The south could stand on its own with oil prosperity like Kuwait, Dick Cheney could get a lot of business, and there would be a buffer for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It could be a beautiful small prosperous coutry like Kuwait.

    As long as the dictator and his inner core are eliminated, I don't see why they have to go into Baghdad. After the north and south are liberated and the regime's power destroyed, the UN could go in and do its weapons hunting, which would be easier in such a small area and without the dictator around. Or maybe the Iranians and/or Kurds could go in and finish the dirty work.

    Who would complain? The protestors would be happy for the lives spared. The Americans would be happy to get their boys and girls back in one piece. Dick would get oil. Anybody left in Baghdad that wanted to be free and prosperous could move north or south. The Baghdadians would be landlocked and without oil money. The US would have liberated everyone who wanted it, and gained an ally in the region. We would restore relationships with our former allies.

    If you really don't want to see a massacre in Baghdad, keep your mind open and don't be so antagonistic in your protests that you push our President into a situation where he has send the troops in there.

  21. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    190
    The BBC World Service coverage of the war is very good, by the way (also broadcast on Radio 4 during those late night coding hours, if you're in the UK). None of the 'shock and awe' bullsh*t of the rolling news channels. Anyway, just wanted to recommend it for some great background if you can get it wherever you happen to be. Also available over the web http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/

  22. #22
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    311
    Great advice Spacewar, I listen to it on a daily basis. Highly recomended.

  23. #23
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    Another thing about the US media. They have to sell ads and achieve ratings. They do this by keeping us in a state of suspense where we have to tune in to see what is happening.

    They make it sound like a rush to Baghdad is imminent. That keeps us tuning in. It is interesting that some of the foreign 'news' providers got sucked in by this. Or maybe they are trying to use it to their advantage.

    In other words, as the US media creates a sense that things have to keep rolling towards the grand spectacle in downtown Baghdad (oh the ratings!), then the foriegn media thinks the US is stuck because the troops are sitting, waiting.

    Then the radicals and protestors get into a frenzy that the US might be falling. The terrorists come out of their caves (do you think it is a coincidence that the US is conducting renewed operations in Afganistan).

  24. #24
    ABW Ambassador buy_online's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    3,234
    First DreamMaster, I am glad to hear you are planning on toning it down a little. I thought the post was reasonably responsible. However, your choice of the thread's title was very inflammatory. If I were to look at that title I would immediately think you want the US to lose or fail. But you have said you don't feel that way?

    If one wants to talk about the military aspects of the campaign, I am all for that. An it cold take our discussion to a direction we have not yet followed.

    I personally put Mr. Ritter in the same category as others who don't think we should be there. However, he makes one very good point. There may not be enough allied ground forces to do the job expediently. So far, we are pushing so quickly to the Northwest that we are having problems with security on our flank. We also need more forces to secure the towns and cities along the river.

    So where do we go from here?

    Fred

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." Abraham Lincoln

  25. #25
    Domain Addict / Formerly known as elbowcreek Thomas A. Rice's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    5,468
    buy-online - That's a GREAT quote, thank you.

    Time Is A Parasite's Friend

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. okay, Some evidence to back up the IRAQ war
    By jc101 in forum Virtual Family and Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 19th, 2004, 08:34 AM
  2. To everyone that hates the war against Iraq
    By Jaloppy in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 26th, 2003, 02:29 PM
  3. What is your opinion of the Iraq war?
    By jc101 in forum Virtual Family and Off-Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2003, 08:32 AM
  4. War with Iraq = Bad
    By cpavlovski in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 347
    Last Post: March 19th, 2003, 06:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •