|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
 Posted - 09/11/2002 : 16:15:06 [Permalink]
|
Keep in mind that I don't completely agree with Scott Ritter. Scott Ritter is an ex-marine, and thought highly of the UN program to disarm Iraq. His problem was with the U.S. thwarting that effort and playing games.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/030700-106.htm
"Let's talk about the weapons. In 1991, did Iraq have a viable weapons of mass destruction capability? You're darn right they did. They had a massive chemical weapons program. They had a giant biological weapons program. They had long-range ballistic missiles and they had a nuclear weapons program that was about six months away from having a viable weapon.
"Now after seven years of work by UNSCOM inspectors, there was no more (mass destruction) weapons program. It had been eliminated....When I say eliminated I'm talking about facilities destroyed....
"The weapons stock had been, by and large, accounted for - removed, destroyed or rendered harmless. Means of production had been eliminated, in terms of the factories that can produce this...."There were some areas that we didn't have full accounting for. And this is what plagued UNSCOM. Security Council 687 is an absolute resolution. It requires that Iraq be disarmed 100 percent. It's what they call 'quantitative disarmament.' Iraq will not be found in compliance until it has been disarmed to a 100 percent level. That's the standard set forth by the Security Council and as implementors of the Security Council resolution, the weapons inspectors had no latitude to seek to do anything less than that - 80 percent was not acceptable; 90 percent was not acceptable; only 100 percent was acceptable.
"And this was the Achilles tendon, so to speak, of UNSCOM. Because by the time 1997 came around, Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed. On any meaningful benchmark - in terms of defining Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability; in terms of assessing whether or not Iraq posed a threat, not only to its immediate neighbors, but the region and the world as a whole - Iraq had been eliminated as such a threat....
"What was Iraq hiding? Documentation primarily - documents that would enable them to reconstitute - at a future date - weapons of mass destruction capability....But all of this is useless...unless Iraq has access to the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars required to rebuild the industrial infrastructure (necessary) to build these weapons. They didn't have it in 1998. They don't have it today. This paranoia about what Iraq is doing now that there aren't weapons inspectors reflects a lack of understanding of the reality in Iraq.
"The economic sanctions have devastated this nation. The economic sanctions, combined with the effects of the Gulf War, have assured that Iraq operate as a Third World nation in terms of industrial output and capacity. They have invested enormous resources in trying to build a 150-kilometer range ballistic missile called the Al Samoud.
"In 1998 they ran some flight tests of prototypes that they had built of this missile. They fizzled. One didn't get off the stand. The other flipped over on the stand and blew up. The other one got up in the air and then went out of control and blew up. They don't have the ability to produce a short-range ballistic missile yet alone a long-range ballistic missile....
"The other thing to realize is: they are allowed to build this missile. It's not against the law. The law says anything under 150 kilometers they can build and yet people are treating this missile as if it's a threat to regional security....It's a tactical battlefield missile, that's it. Yet, (Congressman Tom) Lantos and others treat this as though it's some sort of latent capability and requires a ballistic missile defense system to guard against it. It's ridiculous. Iraq has no meaningful weapons of mass destruction program today.
"Now, having said that, I firmly believe we have to get weapons inspection back in for the purpose of monitoring...especially if we lift economic sanctions. And I believe that there should be immediate lifting of economic sanctions in return for the resumption of meaningful arms inspections. Iraq would go for that.
What Iraq is not going for is this so-called suspension of sanctions where the Iraqi economy is still controlled by the Security Council and held hostage to the whim of the United States, which has shown itself irresponsible in terms of formulating Iraq policy over the past decade. The United States still has a policy of overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein - in total disregard for international law and the provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions.
"I, for one, believe that a.) Iraq represents a threat to no one, and b.) Iraq will not represent a threat to anyone if we can get weapons inspectors back in. Iraq will accept these inspectors if we agree to the immediate lifting of economic sanctions. The Security Council should re-evaluate Iraq's disarmament obligation from a qualitative standpoint and not a quantitative standpoint."
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2002 : 16:22:26 [Permalink]
|
I think this explains his earlier statements. Also, I think he said early on that if the inspectors were not put back in, Iraq would be able to re-establish its weapons of mass destruction program within months.
He stands by that statement. They have the ability to do that. However, with the U.S. bombing almost daily, and satellite reconnaissance, etc., voluntary inspections by the International Atomic whats-it agency, there is no evidence that they have done so. The U.S. wants no inspections, and does not want the sanctions tied to the inspections. They never were. The sanctions began as an attempt to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Then the goalposts kept moving.
Had there been any real WMD program in Iraq, it would have been destroyed, as Israel bombed before the war, and as the U.S. has bombed weekly or more since then.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 09/11/2002 16:26:59 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2002 : 18:21:24 [Permalink]
|
It should be noted also that Scott Ritter's letter of resignation was written and/or submitted on August 26th, 1998.
------------
The NASA Vision:
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2002 : 18:23:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Keep in mind that I don't completely agree with Scott Ritter.
Yes, only when he writes an article that supports your position...
------------
The NASA Vision:
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 03:12:34 [Permalink]
|
Yes, I only agree with someone when I agree with someone. Isn't that horrible?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 05:45:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, I only agree with someone when I agree with someone. Isn't that horrible?
No, I'm just chuckling that you'd post an article without any commentary, which implies complete agreement with the author and that the article supports some argument of yours, then when the author's credibility is found to be suspect on the very subject of the article, you say "well, I don't completely agree with him anyway". I think that's a tad disingenuous.
By the way:
quote:
Keep in mind that I don't completely agree with Scott Ritter. Scott Ritter is an ex-marine, and thought highly of the UN program to disarm Iraq.
Just curious as to why his being an ex-marine is relevant to you not "completely agreeing with him".
[On of these days, I may finally be able to remember how to spell "relevant" correctly...]
------------
The NASA Vision:
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond.
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 09/12/2002 05:46:52 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 06:30:29 [Permalink]
|
Okay. My bad. I am not saying that I don't agree with him because someone showed something said that seemed to contradict something he said earlier. I am just saying that Scott Ritter is an ex-marine who believes that if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that would mean that the U.S. would have an obligation to escalate the war on Iraq.
In other words, I think the discussion is irrelevant, but here are the comments of someone with whom at least some of you might have common ground. He is an ex-marine, which seems to be important to some (HE IS FOREIGN POLICY) and he is not in any way a pacifist, and he was very much in agreement with the UN program to clean up Iraq's weapons.
Having said that, I do not see where he contradicted himself. Even if he did, we still have the question of whether or not Cheney lied.
quote:
No, I'm just chuckling
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 12:07:31 [Permalink]
|
Richard Butler himself denounced Ritter. He also points to written reports from Ritter that totally contradict what he is saying now. Only one can be the truth. He is either lying now or he was lying when he was an inspector. Either way, his credibility just got shot to hell.
He is also forgetting that Saddam has had since '98 to proceed without any UN inspectors to hamper their efforts. He's using (what most everyone else including the chief UN inspector thinks is false) information to determine Iraq's current WMD program.
I think it was notable that the CNN interview with Ritter was conducted in the middle east. I'd like to know what he's doing there now.
Butler said: "somewhere in the last couple years, he's crossed the road." I think Butler is dead on right. He's become a sympathizer. He'd be much more compelling if he hadn't done a complete 180 AFTER the inspections ended (where it's all speculation anyway) in 1998.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 12:17:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
He's using (what most everyone else including the chief UN inspector thinks is false) information to determine Iraq's current WMD program
--Er, I mean his information is old. Very old in fact as far as intelligence goes. Actually, according to his reports to the UN, the info points to a WMD program, so he's really discounting HIS OWN first hand information to come to this new conclusion.
This new conclusion is entirely speculation since he has not been there since the inspections stopped years ago. His conclusions when he said there was indeed a program is the far more informed opinion. Now he can only speculate, and given the utter disbelief of his collegues, his credibility is suspect.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
