[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

Scott Ritter went from:

You mean this Scott Ritter?

I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program

The investigations had come to a standstill, were making no effective progress, and in order to make effective progress, we really needed the Security Council to step in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with."

and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

Then after being barred from inspections in Iraq, Ritter decides to take a completely different stand, AFTER he had first said that Iraq had not gotten rid of the WMD. Given the fact that Ritter wasn't allowed back into Iraq...

He was then expelled from Iraq by its government in August 1998

but still claimed after the ban that Iraq continued to have WMD, tells us that either Scott Ritter is an idiot, or he is flat out lying.

You see it would be pretty hard to say that Iraq had gotten rid of its WMD program, given that you're not allowed to inspect the sites anymore, and until 2000, Ritter wrote books of why Iraq should be disarmed. He even blamed the US for not infiltrating UNSCOM and gathering intelligance in order to help them get a regime change in Iraq.

However, he also expressed frustration at alleged attempts by the CIA to infiltrate UNSCOM and use the inspectors as a means of gathering intelligence with which to pursue regime change in Iraq – a violation of the terms under which UNSCOM operated, and the very rationale the Iraqi government had given in restricting the inspector’s activities in 1998.

But then, in 2002, Ritter suddenly changed his stance. Instead of remembering what he said back in 1998.....

"out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq." - September 3, 1998.

And completely turned around to say this......

But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited…

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.

Directly showing that he himself is a hypocrite.

Given that it would be pretty hard to change your stance since you have resigned from the UN and have no inside knowledge of that WMD program anymore. Yet Ritter still decided to take a different approach. Lying much?

the US spying on iraq isn't the issue. it's that they infiltrated and discredited UNSCOM, which no longer could claim a right to be in iraq. period.

They did? I thought your precious Scott Ritter said that they didn't?

All quotes taken from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

suppose it depends on the list.

http://www.kilowattage.com/articles/..._countries.php

iraq's #4, iran's #3, canada is #2.

lists vary. iraq's high on them all.

Thanks for proving my point, Canada(Alberta) is #2 in the world. Why doesn't the US invade us instead?

why invade when you can just buy? iraq wasn't playing ball. we are.

Exactly. You just proved the who "blood-for-Oil" arguement wrong. Why not just buy instead of invade?

what the hell are you talking aboot? saddam was supported by the US during the worst of his purges, attacks, and gassings. nice try.

Therefore Saddam could have killed 10 million people, and yet you still wouldn't agree with taking him out, because the US was actually supporting him.