PDA

View Full Version : UN inspector: US will lose


pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 09:13 AM
Scott Ritter, chief UN weapons inspector before resigning in protest over the Clinton administration's interference with the process, has said he thinks the US will lose the war. (rtsp://streaming2.rte.ie/2003/0324/tonightvb.ra?start=%2200:25:03%22&end=%2201:00:00%22)

Key to our strategy were two things:

1) The forces would surrender en masse without firing a shot. Has not happened. 4000 is the count so far, we still cannot capture key areas.

2) The people would welcome us as liberators. Has not happened. The Shi'ite population is already threatening to attack the US forces if they don't leave immediately after Saddam is deposed. Baghdad is not looking to be receptive to "liberation" (occupation) since we're bombing the hell out of it every night. One Irish pundit says you cannot take a city like Baghdad unless the people want you to take it.

Mr. Anderson
Mar 27, 2003, 09:20 AM
It will be tricky, but I think in the end we'll win and get Sadam's government out of Iraq. The bigger problem will be what happens afterward.

Given the crackdown on the population that has been going on for decades, all the people in power will be worrying about reprisals against themselves. Which will probably happen. Its not going to be pretty, that's for sure.

D

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 09:40 AM
Think about this though:

Support the US forces (prematurely -- and they never know where his forces are hiding) and Saddam will kill you.

Kill the US (fighting against the foreign invaders) in street battles now to maintain independence after Saddam's regime is toppled. Saddam won't kill you, and the infidels will never get you.

G4scott
Mar 27, 2003, 09:45 AM
I think this war will take longer than expected, but I do not think that the US will lose. The UN guys are just a bit sore after being shot down by the US the way they were...

NavyIntel007
Mar 27, 2003, 09:55 AM
Ah yes, Scott Ritter... he's the pedophile that all the networks have now shunned right?

chmorley
Mar 27, 2003, 10:27 AM
While I have plenty of concerns about this war (and think it was a bad idea and totally avoidable), Scott Ritter is not credible. He has some agenda, some axe to grind that is tough to figure out. He is angry and hateful and not particularly objective.

I think we will "win" within a month or two and end up increasing hatred of the US in the Arab world. Hoo-ray.

Chris

Mr. Anderson
Mar 27, 2003, 10:31 AM
After reading about the B-52 strike at the convoy of armored vehicles coming out of Baghdad last night, it seems to me that its just a matter of time before we defeat the Iraqis and move to the next phase. Our air support of the ground troups is one of our greatest advantages. The Iraqis cannot field a large army against us because it immeidately becomes a target. So we get to Baghdad, then what? Getting the country up on its feat with out Sadam is going to be the tough part.

Sol
Mar 27, 2003, 10:54 AM
I do not think this war is as simple as you make it out to be. At the end of this conflict how would you determine if the US has won?

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Sol
I do not think this war is as simple as you make it out to be. At the end of this conflict how would you determine if the US has won?

We have not set conditions for victory nor do we have an exit strategy. This was precisely what caused the first Gulf War to be seen as a failure.

pseudobrit
Mar 27, 2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by chmorley
Scott Ritter is not credible. He has some agenda, some axe to grind that is tough to figure out. He is angry and hateful and not particularly objective.

He is very knowledgeable about the nation. He knows Iraq much better than most of the talking heads you see on TV. You have to give him credit for that. He said straightaway that the chem factory in Nadjif would be clean, and that turned out to be true.

noht*
Mar 27, 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Sol
I do not think this war is as simple as you make it out to be. At the end of this conflict how would you determine if the US has won?
one of the best points i have read in this whole debate so far. i mean, seriously, maybe the coalition will at some time really be able to take bagdad (though i guess they'll suffer heavy casualties if they do so), and then what? you can bet that there will be restistance from various groups. the kurds just want to keep their autonomy. they are probably not specifically against the us, but they have also made clear that they're not going to support them. they shiites (don't know how to spell that, sorry) on the other hand still are pretty mad at the us, because they have the impression that they were left alone after the first persian conflict. no help to expect from them, either.
i'm not even going to mention the religious fanatics. true, they were not significant under saddam's regime, but they sure as hell won't miss the opportunity to kill some infidels once the pro-west government (or the us-declared governeur or whatever) is set in place.
i just dunno. i've heard alot about how the coalition is going to kill iraqis, but not too much about what they're going to do once they have killed enough.

charboneau
Mar 27, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Ah yes, Scott Ritter... he's the pedophile that all the networks have now shunned right?
Well there were charges against him, possibly politically motivated, which were "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal" and the records were sealed. This suggests that the charges were not credible. But obviously the damage to his reputation is already done.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 27, 2003, 12:49 PM
Scott Ritter is a turd, I hate to resort to name calling but this guy has a axe to grind. If you hear him talk he does seem to have his own agenda and says things that dont make any sense maybe he is pure anti government or has been paid off by Iraq. Either way i take what he says with a grain of salt.

redAPPLE
Mar 27, 2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
It will be tricky, but I think in the end we'll win and get Sadam's government out of Iraq. The bigger problem will be what happens afterward.

Given the crackdown on the population that has been going on for decades, all the people in power will be worrying about reprisals against themselves. Which will probably happen. Its not going to be pretty, that's for sure.

D

no offense dukestreet. but i would just like to state, that i cannot understand, how people can say "we will win" in the end.

no one wins a war. never.

i would rather say, our objectives will be achieved.

i am sorry to say, i think the price will be too high.

mymemory
Mar 27, 2003, 02:16 PM
Bush is the most unsuccesfull president of the United States. Just imagine if he, for some reason, move his troops back?

1. The moral of th US will live behind the economic depression.

2. The entire world is gonna make so much fun of the US that is gonna take decades to forget about that. I bet not many discovery channel programs about the subject.

3. Some sort of punisment by the UN the US is going to receive.

4. George Bush may face some kind of trial togather with some other people for taking actions agains anti-war movments and taking the nation to the wrong way without enough expertices, international support and the causalties this originates in booth sides.

I was listening to the analisis on the radio and the US wasn't prepare for this, the troops have been at 70miles (I gues) from Bagdag for the last week and the battle still in dipers.

As I say it before, if the US come to save my country from a legimit problem that help would be appriciated but the US wants oil agreetments, a legimit invation and that will make people to react more agresive. You can expect anything from the Iraki army, specially because that is their ground.

There is allways the "arrogancy" factor from the US cultura that no one in the world is going to acept and the US government does not accept that. People from Irak are gonna say "Thank you for killing your enemy Sadan, now leave".

That is why Bush will do anything to finis this war, specially because Bin Laden still free, Bush didn't get him neither so, something the man have to finish some day.

What I do not get i: why if Bush couldn't get Bin Laden now he went to a more dangerours and prepared individual? May be because he felt to finish what his father couldn't? I see a lot of that there.

Any way, the scenario can change any time, as everybody else I see this war is a big mistake, a tremendus one and have all the elements to become a big failiour. I think Bush is a big american mistakes but my concern are with the soldiers that are doing their dutty no matter what and people should feel proud of them.

mymemory
Mar 27, 2003, 02:23 PM
I saw Bush on tv talking how bad Sadan was with his people. If Bush is so concern about some other country population... why he is not doing anything about Cuba?

In Cuba before their are gonna execute some one their take all his blood out, and well, that is just nothing really, there are tons of terrible things just 70 miles from Florida so do not come to me about Husein, please!

NavyIntel007
Mar 27, 2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Sol
I do not think this war is as simple as you make it out to be. At the end of this conflict how would you determine if the US has won?

Look at the current casualty numbers... US/Britain around 60, Iraqi Soldiers ... in the thousands.... That's the old school way to tell victory. Other than controlling 3/4 of the country.

NavyIntel007
Mar 27, 2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by mymemory
I saw Bush on tv talking how bad Sadan was with his people. If Bush is so concern about some other country population... why he is not doing anything about Cuba?

In Cuba before their are gonna execute some one their take all his blood out, and well, that is just nothing really, there are tons of terrible things just 70 miles from Florida so do not come to me about Husein, please!

Because any US politician who comes out saying we're going to bomb Cuba, or transversly we're going to open the border with Cuba, will lose Florida in the next election. That would mean that he'd lose the next election.

The Cubans in Florida hate Castro, but they would not support an invasion.

NavyIntel007
Mar 27, 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by redAPPLE
no offense dukestreet. but i would just like to state, that i cannot understand, how people can say "we will win" in the end.

no one wins a war. never.

i would rather say, our objectives will be achieved.

i am sorry to say, i think the price will be too high.

No one won the Civil war? That ended slavery.

No one won World War 2? That ended the holocaust.

I fail to see your logic.


edit: by the way, this is my 241 post, anyone want a beer?

taeclee99
Mar 27, 2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Scott Ritter, chief UN weapons inspector before resigning in protest over the Clinton administration's interference with the process, has said he thinks the US will lose the war. (rtsp://streaming2.rte.ie/2003/0324/tonightvb.ra?start=%2200:25:03%22&end=%2201:00:00%22)

Key to our strategy were two things:

1) The forces would surrender en masse without firing a shot. Has not happened. 4000 is the count so far, we still cannot capture key areas.

2) The people would welcome us as liberators. Has not happened. The Shi'ite population is already threatening to attack the US forces if they don't leave immediately after Saddam is deposed. Baghdad is not looking to be receptive to "liberation" (occupation) since we're bombing the hell out of it every night. One Irish pundit says you cannot take a city like Baghdad unless the people want you to take it.

1 No one in their right mind thought that Iraqi's would surrender without a fight. Every pundit on the war I heard expected the Republican Guard to put up a vicious fight. So far theyhave.

2. The people for the most part have not welcomed us with open arms. This is because of two reasons.

a. they think we will abandon them just like last time the last gulf war.

b. people are still afraid of Saddam Hussein.

Once it is confirmed that Saddam and his forces are defeated...more people will begin to welcome us.

Sol
Mar 27, 2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by mymemory
In Cuba before their are gonna execute some one their take all his blood out, and well, that is just nothing really, there are tons of terrible things just 70 miles from Florida so do not come to me about Husein, please!

I hate to nit-pick but if you drain someone's blood out of their body there would be no need for an execution because they would be dead already.

lmalave
Mar 27, 2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by taeclee99
1 No one in their right mind thought that Iraqi's would surrender without a fight. Every pundit on the war I heard expected the Republican Guard to put up a vicious fight. So far theyhave.

2. The people for the most part have not welcomed us with open arms. This is because of two reasons.

a. they think we will abandon them just like last time the last gulf war.

b. people are still afraid of Saddam Hussein.

Once it is confirmed that Saddam and his forces are defeated...more people will begin to welcome us.

1. We've only captured 4000 Iraqi POWs, and we really have no idea where the rest of the Iraqi regular army is. In Gulf War I we captured 80,000 POWs, and the war planners expected more of the same this time around. We also completely underestimated the threat from the Fedayeen.

2. I think you are really underestimating the Iraqi public's distrust and animosity toward the U.S. From everything I've seen the overwhelming majority of them will be glad to have Saddam gone and to receive our humanitarian aid, but they will be cursing us under their breath even as they take our aid. I really think our troops will face persistent sniper and guerilla attacks for as long as they stay in Iraq.

lmalave
Mar 27, 2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Look at the current casualty numbers... US/Britain around 60, Iraqi Soldiers ... in the thousands.... That's the old school way to tell victory. Other than controlling 3/4 of the country.

What is our objective? Ok, deposing Saddam's regime, but to what end? As far as I can tell, our objectives are:

1) Eliminate threat of WMD
2) Combat terrorism
3) Spread democracy throughout the Middle East

As far as I can tell this war is likely to work against all three of the above objectives. If you don't achieve your objectives, does it matter how much of the country you control?

Sol
Mar 27, 2003, 09:58 PM
Or how many you kill.

noht*
Mar 28, 2003, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Look at the current casualty numbers... US/Britain around 60, Iraqi Soldiers ... in the thousands.... That's the old school way to tell victory. Other than controlling 3/4 of the country.

yeah, that's truly old school. whoever kills more people wins. great.

and i guess you are the good guys, huh?

leprechaunG4
Mar 28, 2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by lmalave

2. I think you are really underestimating the Iraqi public's distrust and animosity toward the U.S. From everything I've seen the overwhelming majority of them will be glad to have Saddam gone and to receive our humanitarian aid, but they will be cursing us under their breath even as they take our aid. I really think our troops will face persistent sniper and guerilla attacks for as long as they stay in Iraq.
And I think you are buying into stupid propaganda way too much. Give some more credit to the Iraqi people would you. You would probably also say the Iranian people hate us too, right? You'd be wrong if you said yes. We have a foreign exchange student from Iran at my college. I have talked with her and she told me about how people in the middle east are not the religious zealots that Americans think they are. She told me she wished we understood they were "normal" too. A lot of the protestors we see on tv are actually members of the government and military dressed as civilians. I have seen an article on this as well, but can't remember where. We ae shown the zealots on the news because that's what sells. People don't want to watch if it's just "normal" people, but some crazy people burning the flag and yelling, now that's news.:rolleyes:

Backtothemac
Mar 28, 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
We have not set conditions for victory nor do we have an exit strategy. This was precisely what caused the first Gulf War to be seen as a failure.

Hey, nice shot! Blame that crap on the UN. What is this "we **** white man?" (joke btw, since I am native american).

The military planners wanted to finish the job. Bush 41 did not see it that way, he saw it the UN way. Thus the mistake was made. We FOLLOWED the UN in that conflict, and look what it got us.

Rower_CPU
Mar 28, 2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
People don't want to watch if it's just "normal" people, but some crazy people burning the flag and yelling, now that's news.:rolleyes:

That and all the "warnography" running 24/7 on CNN et. al... ;)

lmalave
Mar 28, 2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
That and all the "warnography" running 24/7 on CNN et. al... ;)

Hehe:

(warning, sexually suggestive cartoon)

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0313/sutton.php

lmalave
Mar 28, 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by leprechaunG4
And I think you are buying into stupid propaganda way too much. Give some more credit to the Iraqi people would you. You would probably also say the Iranian people hate us too, right? You'd be wrong if you said yes. We have a foreign exchange student from Iran at my college. I have talked with her and she told me about how people in the middle east are not the religious zealots that Americans think they are. She told me she wished we understood they were "normal" too. A lot of the protestors we see on tv are actually members of the government and military dressed as civilians. I have seen an article on this as well, but can't remember where. We ae shown the zealots on the news because that's what sells. People don't want to watch if it's just "normal" people, but some crazy people burning the flag and yelling, now that's news.:rolleyes:

Hehe. Believe me, you're the one believing propaganda (or at least engaging in wishful thinking). Realize that an exchange student coming to the U.S. is going to be pro-U.S., obviously. And Iran hasn't been invaded by the U.S. ...yet.

And, uh, I live in NYC for goodness sakes, I've had Iranian, Pakistani, Kuwaiti and Turkish friends. I also dated a French/Algerian. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that a large majority of the Arab world hates the U.S. foreign policy. This is not to say that the majority are violent, only a tiny, tiny minority are. But, as we have seen, 10,000 well organized terrorists out of 6 Billion people in the world can still wreak havoc.

And in a situation where you have that hated foreign policy projected directly onto them in the form of bombs and Anglo-American troops, I would say at least a few percentage would be willing to put up armed resistance. Realize that if 1% of Baghdad residents decide to fall back and wage guerilla/terrorist warfare, that's still a number that's in the tens of thousands, and can still cause a steady trickle of casualties.

macfan
Mar 28, 2003, 02:14 PM
Just FYI, Scott Ritter was never the "chief weapons inspector." No need to promote him above his rank.

leprechaunG4
Mar 28, 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by lmalave

And, uh, I live in NYC for goodness sakes, I've had Iranian, Pakistani, Kuwaiti and Turkish friends. I also dated a French/Algerian. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that a large majority of the Arab world hates the U.S. foreign policy. This is not to say that the majority are violent, only a tiny, tiny minority are. But, as we have seen, 10,000 well organized terrorists out of 6 Billion people in the world can still wreak havoc.

Well I live in Vermont, not necessarily the most diverse state. In fact the second whitest state in America after Maine. So the foreign exchange students here are a very big part of how I see the rest of the world's opinion. I value their opinion more than that of what I read in a newspaper, or see on tv that's for sure.

Sol
Mar 28, 2003, 10:46 PM
It is good to read from people's posts that they have talked to, studied with, befriended, and even dated Muslims. It is people like these which give me hope for America. Unfortunately the others who have nothing more to express than their hatred seem to be dominating the forums and I feel that these people are a bigger threat to Western Society than the terrorists in our heads.

I live in Australia and in my town, days after the World Trade Center was destroyed, a mosque was burned down by an arsonist. Months later we found out that he was a white 20-something security guard who was having problems with his girlfriend. He is in jail now. Unfortunately he was the exception that got caught. Others have attacked mosques, schools and businesses and gotten away with it.

It seems like my government is not ready to brand these people as terrorists because of where they stand politically. I see no difference. Both the people who hijack airplanes and the people who burn mosques are fueled by hatred. They have more in common with each other than they do with the rest of civilized society.