Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SirRealist who wrote (37115)	8/11/2002 11:24:00 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But on Ritter, the challenges mostly are directed at his integrity, with claims that defectors' integrity is automatically greater. No, it's that Ritter has switched his story 180 degrees from three years ago, and won't even admit it, much less explain why. That alone undercuts the integrity of everything he says now. Also, the other inspectors, such as Butler and Ekeus, have not switched their stories, and they agree with the defectors. That agreement bolsters their stories.

To: SirRealist who wrote (37115)	8/12/2002 10:03:24 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Do you suppose we might even have drones over the remaining zone? Do you think there might be some truth to the claim that fissionable materials could be identifiable via our surveillance? I think you give our surveillance assets a bit too much credit, despite their amazing capabilities. Exactly how would we be able to maintain 24 hour surveillance over an entire country? And if we could, don't you think we would have been able to track China and Pakistan's weapons testing program, as the weapons were being taken to the test range? The inspections process cannot be performed solely by electronic means. There has to be experienced, thinking people on the ground looking for documentation that provides clues as to where they stand. And given the likelihood that any weapons programs are being conducted underground, probably under one of Saddam's palaces, we need access to them. And Ritter can claim that we "used" information gleaned from the inspections process for targeting purposes but that's ridiculous. We have to recall that the US didn't launch Desert Fox until Clinton was being impeached. But despite the obvious "wag the dog" analogy, the US still had compelling reasons for striking Iraq. Personally, Ritter has it completely wrong. Saddam attacked Kuwait and lost. The price of that loss, and being able to retain power is that he has to "drop his drawers" and submit himself to a very invasive inspection routine. Something Ritter also concurs with, that 8 years after Desert Storm, Saddam clearly has not complied with the terms of the cease-fire agreement and the US was forced to take offensive action to coerce compliance. Hawk