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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (15567)	3/26/2003 12:19:41 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 89467

Some say it's looking like another VietNam... US WILL LOSE THE IRAQ WAR - SAYS SCOTT RITTER gulufuture.com 25th March, 2003 by Fintan Dunne, Editor gulufuture.com Thorn in the side of the American administration, and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, has warned that America will lose the Iraq war and the American military: "will leave Iraq with its tail between its legs." In an interview with Irish radio, Mr. Ritter said that the conflict would become an "absolute quagmire," and the US-UK advance would stall outside Bhagdad and fail to capture the city. "We find ourselves... 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 loose this war," said Mr. Ritter. According to Mr. Ritter, too many in the Pentagon have listened to: "the blithering of Iraqi expatriates," whose agenda coincides with neo-conservatives in the White House. "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," he told Irish broadcaster, Vincent Browne on the RTE1 radio "Tonight Show." He warned that Shia Muslims in the South were not fighting because of intimidation by the Iraqi government, but because of nationalistic and religious reasons. "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," said Mr. Ritter. "We are not liberating Iraq, we are destroying Iraq," he added later in the interview. Scott Ritter, is a former U.N. weapons inspector and author of the book "Endgame." Ritter, a ballistic missile technology expert, worked in military intelligence during his 12-year career in the U.S. armed forces. In 1998, Ritter resigned from the U.N. Special Commissions team to protest Clinton Administration policies that he said subverted the weapons inspection process. Full Transcript & Audio follows below. Discussion of situation in Iraq from Tonight Show, on RTE1 24th March, 2003 Listen to Ritter Realplayer 3 mins Listen to full Gulf War Analysis Segment Audio 25 minutes[ Realplayer] Vincent Browne: " 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 loose 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 loose 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.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (15567)	3/26/2003 1:13:57 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Take Down Saddam TV By MAUREEN DOWD Columnist The New York Times March 26, 2003 Rummy was grumpy. TV generals and Pentagon reporters were poking at his war plan, wondering if he had enough troops and armor on the ground to take Baghdad and protect the rear of his advancing infantry. "It's a good plan," the war czar insisted with a grimace, adding that battle is "a tough business." The cocky theorists of the administration, and their neo-con gurus, are now faced with reality and history: the treacherous challenge, and the cost in lives and money, of bringing order out of chaos in Iraq. With sandstorms blackening their TV screens, with P.O.W.'s and casualties tearing at their hearts, Americans are coming to grips with the triptych of bold transformation experiments that are now in play. There is the president's dream of remaking the Middle East to make America safer from terrorists. There is Dick Cheney's desire to transform America into a place that flexes its power in the face of any evil. There is Donald Rumsfeld's transformation of the American military, changing from the old heavy ground forces to smaller, more flexible units with high-tech weapons. When Tommy Franks and other generals fought Rummy last summer, telling him he could not invade Iraq without overwhelming force, the defense chief treated them like old Europe, acting as if they just didn't get it. He was going to send a smaller force on a lightning-quick race to Baghdad, relying on air strikes and psychological operations — leaflets to civilians and e-mail and calls to Iraqi generals — to encourage Iraqis to revolt against Saddam. (The Pentagon has downgraded Saddam, the way it did Osama when it just missed getting him. Now the war in Iraq is "not about one man," as General Franks put it.) The administration was afraid that with too many Iraqis dead, we would lose the support of the world. But some generals worry that by avoiding tactics that could kill Iraqi civilians and "baby-talking" the Iraqi military, we have emboldened the enemy and endangered American troops. As Ralph Peters, a retired military officer, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed article: "Some things do not change. The best way to shock and awe an enemy is still to kill him." Despite the vast sums we spend on our intelligence and diplomatic services, American officials often seem clueless about the culture of our adversaries. After Vietnam, Robert McNamara admitted that he and other war planners had never understood Vietnamese history and culture. Our intelligence services didn't see the Iranian revolution coming, or the Soviet Union's breakup. It's hard to know why the administration seems so surprised at Iraqi ruses. As Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military tactician who inspired the "shock and awe" campaign, noted, "All war is deception." Besides, the Iraqis used similar fake surrender tricks in the last gulf war. It's also hard to know why the Pentagon is surprised at Iraqi brutality, or at the failure of Iraqi ethnic groups, deserted by America after the last gulf war, to celebrate their "liberation" by the U.S., or by the hardened resistance of Saddam loyalists like the fedayeen, who have no escape hatch this time around. American war planners were privately experiencing some shock and awe at Iraqi obliviousness to shock and awe, which we can see on TV, as Iraqis crowd into restaurants and onto roofs to watch the bombing. Miscalculating, the Pentagon delayed trying to take down Iraqi TV until last night because it hoped to use the network after the war. But that target should have been one of the first so the Iraqis could not have peddled their propaganda, paraded our P.O.W.'s and shown brazen speeches by Saddam, or Stepford-Saddam, and the mockery of Iraqi officials over the predictions of a quick victory. The Pentagon considered last year an "inside out" strategy that would rely on dropping Special Forces into Baghdad, with U.S. forces then taking over the rest of the country. That was scrapped in favor of the "outside in" strategy that we're now witnessing. But Saddam has turned our strategy upside down with his own "inside out" strategy. Tragically for everybody, the Iraqi fiend is still inside, dug in and diabolically determined to kill as many people as he can on the way out. nytimes.com