This comes down to “Is a World Police a good idea, and in the unlikely event that it is, should a country like America play that role?”
My answer to both questions is a resounding, unshakable NO.
London_Calling, you are getting obsessed with Mr. Ritter. I don’t doubt he is sincere, but no one else agrees with him, including his own organization.
Here’s UNSCOM’s
report to the Security Council from 1999 on chemical weapons.
On missiles.
On Iraq’s efforts to obstruct the inspections upon which Mr. Ritter bases his assertions.
Saddam’s son-in-law has provided detailed information about Iraq’s ongoing WMD programs (after he defected). http://www.meib.org/articles/0007_me1.htm
Ritter reminds me of that loon who kept insisting that a U.S. naval missile shot down EgyptAir Flight 990. Anyone remember his name? A really respected guy (IIRC, he was one of JFK’s top advisors), but he was really off the reservation on that one. Sounds like Ritter is too.
Sua
Pierre Salinger http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/13/twa/
Thanks, december
Sua
Hi Guys!
I’ve been travelling for a month so I am not so very well informed who has bombed who the last month, but:
You have funny ways to speak about things:
Atta has contacted some Iraqi intel officer, so let’s bomb!
I am a Finnish citizen living in Russia for 6 years.
I have been contacted by three-letter-guys from 3 different countries. So logically if I do something really wierd, You begin to bomb Germany, USA and a “Guess Who”-country?
And bin Laden was in contact with CIA when Russia had a war in Afganistan. Conclusion: Bomb USA???
And You think US = The Free World
Why on earth should You go alone anywhere and begin a war?
Why can You not go through UN or NATO with Your “evidence”.
It is not enough that You see a bad regime. It is not evidence.
How about Turkmenistan, Libya and some 10 other countries. The Belo-Russian president is a total luna-guy. You will begin a war there too?
Or do You trust Gaddaffi?
You will certainly face many wars, if You have the attitude: “We have evidence, but we do not show it to anybody, we just begin a war.”
It is not a computer game. I would say that a war against Iraq begins with "a conflict at the border of Kuweit. Anyone can fix that. Then everything can start “cleanly” (just defending the under-dog):
some 1 million solidiers dead, some 1 million civilians dead. Game over.
Reload, please.
Yeah, and the next generation kids can read in their history books:
…and Atta met someone and the westerner principle: “Not guilty until proven guilty” is ready for “the scrap heap of history…”, (told by a guy, non less than the US president).
Nice.
So what should we fight for, the western principles? Or just the usual oil-question?
(Libya and Turkmenistan has also oil).
Btw. Chemical weapons can be done by any idiot that can use Internet or a public library. You just need to go to the nearest pharmacy and supermarket and You have everything You need.
Biological are maybe not so easy to make, but I do not think You need a nation for that, I think that it is enough if You have money.
- Please prove something before punishing (I think this the very root of western democracy)
and - Then make some united forces that can stop “The Bad”. But first proofs, please.
Henry
Pardon my vulgarity, but who really gives a shit? Decisions that George W. Bush makes as President affect the entire nation, and the nations with which he is conducting business or waging war. Bush is certainly entitled to turn his own cheek if he wants, but he is not entitled to turn mine as well. What’s more, he is not entitled to make decisions based on What Jesus Would Do. My country is not a theocracy.
Henry B is back… this could get fun!
Found it ! Apologies for being ever so slightly late to respond!
Found the link to this in the back of my e-mail so I apologise for letting it slip by. If anyone’s still interested…
That quote wasn’t mine Sua. It’s a direct quote from the link – take it back or I’ll whack you with my framed photo of Mr Ritter. Anyway, on the subject of Ritter, as best I can tell, the current understanding of Iraq’s weapons potential revolves, to a large extent, around the views of the two leading protagonists: The two former colleagues; Scott Ritter and Richard Butler
On the one hand we have an ex Gulf War Vet, ex-Intelligence, ex-US Marine, ex-UN Inspectorate, anti-Saddam US conservative and Republican vs. an Australian career mandarin currently employed by the UN and, for many, in the pay of the US. You pay yer money and you make your choice.
I suspect Ritter’s been discredited because he was the whistleblower on the UN/US spying mission and because he wouldn’t play the game for the Clinton Administration. Elsewhere, his record and experience (to my knowledge) is excellent. On the other hand, I trust the keen-to-please Richard Butler as far as I can throw his pension.
I’m not going to burden you with endless links but here’s one that offers a different perspective on the wonderful work (sic) Butler did for the US while in the employ of the UN. A brief extract:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/butler2.htm
Butler wrote in his report that UNSCOM had ‘solid evidence’ of ‘proscribed materials’ hidden there, including ‘ballistic missle components’. The London Times on 17 December revealed that this ‘solid’ evidence was only the say-so of US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)- backed Iraqi ‘dissidents’ seeking to overthrow the Baath Party. UNSCOM inspectors also demanded the right to inspect two establishments on Fridays - the Muslim holy day - and insisted that no Iraqis accompany then. This breached an agreement that government officials accompany inspectors on Frodays if nobody is working at the site. Despite writing, ‘In statistical terms, the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq’s cooperation’, Butler concluded, ‘the Commission is not able to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council.’ Russia and China called for Butler’s dismissal. China’s UN representative said, ‘The leader of UNSCOM has played a dishonorable role in the crisis. The reports submitted by UNSCOM to the secretary general were unfounded and evasive of the facts.’
- I don’t see that Ritter has the record or the agenda of Butler. He has the look of an independent loose cannon (albeit a US conservative, Republican, ex-Marine) whereas Butler would seem to be in the pocket of vested interests.
Might be interesting to try and get to the bottom of the Ritter vs. Butler, handbags-at-dawn deal ?
Bottom found. Ritter is either a liar or a loon.
Here is an August 31, 1998 interview with Mr. Ritter after his resignation as weapons inspector. To sum up his position then:
(emphasis added)
Yet now, four years later, despite the fact that there has been no “effective monitoring” since UNSCOM was kicked out, Mr. Ritter suddenly asserts that Iraq has no WMD.
Actually, he’s doing a fine job discrediting himself. BTW, the reason he said he resigned was because the US wasn’t doing enough to uncover Saddam’s WMD.
Interesting, no?
Sua
Bottom found. Ritter is either a liar or a loon.
Here is an August 31, 1998 interview with Mr. Ritter after his resignation as weapons inspector. To sum up his position then:
(emphasis added)
Yet now, four years later, despite the fact that there has been no “effective monitoring” since UNSCOM was kicked out, Mr. Ritter suddenly asserts that Iraq has no WMD.
Actually, he’s doing a fine job discrediting himself. BTW, the reason he said he resigned was because the US wasn’t doing enough to uncover Saddam’s WMD.
Interesting, no?
Sua
A November 1998 interview with Scott Ritter.
So, In November 1998, Ritter’s position was that the US should invade Iraq. In my book Ritter has gone from loon to utter jackass.
Sua
Okay, I’m going to look at this closer. FWIW, at the moment I want to see if Ritter towed the US line whilst still emplyed by the UN but once released from his obligations/employment, changed his tune to reflect his own views - his career looks to be all about ‘loyalty’, etc. Ollie North with a conscience 
Butler has been consistent.
No reason to think Ritter’s a loon at all. Trying to understand what went on is interesting, though.
L_C, both above interviews came after Ritter’s resignation from the UN.
One more bit, and then I’ll leave poor Mr. Ritter alone. In January 2000, Ritter testified before Congress. In that testimony, he said:
OK, fine.
How do we “broadly” interpret this bit from his Congressional testimony in September 1998?
Sua
I am in the middle of reading a good book called Rule by Secrecy by jim Marrs.
In it, he postulates that Bush(es) want conflict in that area; it has something to do with their oil interests.
Missed this before, L_C. Sorry about the misattribution of the quote. Please don’t whack me with Mr. Ritter’s photograph - unless it’s signed.
Sua
—Yet now, four years later, despite the fact that there has been no “effective monitoring” since UNSCOM was kicked out—
As I understand it, the latter part of this is actually a fairly controversial claim. Most papers at the time reported that UNSCOM withdrew itself, under the direction of Richard Butler (head of the team then) in anticipation of a U.N. attack on Iraq. Butler felt that the Iraqi’s were not cooperating fully (and they almost certainly were not) but it’s not clear at all that Iraq kicked them out. They left.
Further, Iraq’s charges of the team being used for espionage were bourne out: it was a mainstream story and egg on the face of Clinton that the team, in addition to doing inspections, had members who were gathering info for the purposes of undermining Saddam’s regime. I think Butler was very unhappy at this, feeling that it underminded their primary mission.
Fair enough, Apos, UNSCOM withdrew. But leaving and not being let back in or being kicked out, the result is the same - there’s been no “effective monitoring.”
Iraq’s charges of espionage were bourne out. They were also, when you think of it, pretty damn silly - the whole of UNSCOM was an espionage operation. The purpose of UNSCOM was to track down information the Iraqi government wanted to keep a secret. Ritter himself freely acknowledges this - his job was chief of UNSCOM’s “information assessment unit”, which he (in one of the interviews I linked above) says was UNese for “intelligence.”
So who should the UN send on an intelligence mission? Intelligence agents. With the exception of some technical experts, I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole UNSCOM staff consisted of French, Russian, American, etc. intelligence agents. And are they going to do spying on the side and report to their governments what they discover? Of course.
Sua
[/quote]
Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. […]Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.
(emphasis added)
Yet now, four years later, despite the fact that there has been no “effective monitoring” since UNSCOM was kicked out, Mr. Ritter suddenly asserts that Iraq has no WMD.
[/quote]
According to the article quoted by London Calling, Ritter adressed this argument, roughly saying that there was monitoring (note the “without monotoring” part in the piece you quoted) and there’s no way Irak could have resumed its weapon production programm without it being noticed, Irak being under close scrutinity.
Sorry, I totally messed up my previous post…
From the article originally quoted by London Calling :
—They were also, when you think of it, pretty damn silly - the whole of UNSCOM was an espionage operation.—
There’s espionage, and then there’s espionage. What was objected to was feeding information not about weapons, but rather about regime (like the positions of various officials), directly to the U.S.: not a U.N. thing.