RedCeltic
21st February 2003, 20:31
Last night, Scott Ritter gave a lecture at Page Hall in Albany NY. Scott Ritter is a former Weapons Inspector in Iraq. Here is an essay I have compiled from notes I took then.
Scott Ritter said there where essentially three reasons why weapons inspectors did not complete their job earlier. Firstly was the fact that Iraq had no intention of cooperation. They played hide and seek with the inspectors, often keeping them from doing their job at gunpoint.
Despite this however, the UN security council made no attempts to enforce they law. They placed the entire burden of making Iraq comply on the shoulders of the inspection teem.
Thirdly, the inspections where inherently flawed by the simple fact that the United State's has a foregien policy of regime removal and working outside the framework of international law.
essentially said Scott Ritter, "The US is at war with itself."
On one hand they state that they want to disarm Iraq, however this is contradictory to their policy of containment and regime removal for the condition for completion of the weapons inspection is for the lifting of economic sanctions. Disarmament of Saddam means the continuation of his rule and Iraq entering the world community again as an equal. This is contrary to what has been the US policy even since 1991 (and repeated in 1997) that the sanctions will not be lifted until the elimination of Saddam as Iraqi leader.
George H. Bush, and Willam J. Clinton both took an "inactive" role in their policy of regime removal by continuation of containment and weapons inspections, but making attempts for assignation of Saddam. The only difference in George W. Bush's policy on Iraq is that he is taking an active role. He has realized that Saddam is 'cou proof' because of his extremely tight security, and so have taken to use military action to attempt the goal of regime change.
When Scott Ritter resigned in 1998 as UN weapons inspector, he said that he was sick having guns stuck in his face and the UN Security council not doing anything about it. But also was sick of being manipulated by the US Government. He viewed his goal in Iraq as to find weapons that Iraq possessed and disarm Iraq. And he did a fairly good job, disarming Iraq by 95%. However he did not view his job to be to find out where Saddam was sleeping, or act as a spy for the government. When the US bombed Iraq in operation Desert fox it used inelegance gathered from it's manipulation of weapons inspectors.
One must ask themselves what the goal of the United States Military is. one can define this by the first few lines of the military oath, "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME". It does not say defend the President, Congress, but the constitution, which is just a document, but a document that starts "we the people" and represents who we are as a nation. The military do not work for George W. Bush, the military work for the people of the United States. Before we let them go off to sacrifice their lives, we should ensure that their sacrifice is not in vein, and their sacrifice if for the American People, not for the will of George W. Bush.
The President and his administration will tell you that Iraq is a threat because it possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction, and may provide them to terrorists.
What Weapons of Mass Disruption are we talking about?
Anthrax? Colin Powell said that Iraq may be manufacturing the very same Anthrax used in the letters. However the kind of anthrax used in the letters is a dry form of anthrax that is only produced in the United States. Iraq was producing a liquid form of anthrax. The last anthrax produced in Iraq was produced in 1991, the plant was destroyed in 1996. Even if the Iraqis where able to hide some of it from the inspectors, it's shelf life would have expired in 1998.
So again What anthrax? It may be easy to hide the stuff, but it's impossible to hide the manufacturing of it. Inspectors will be able to detect the spores.
There has also been talk about "mobile Chemical Laboratories" anyone who believes that they exist in reality don't know how chemical agents are produced. They will not have access to water, proper ventilation, and the wonderful Iraq roadways will ensure that anything produced in such a condition will be rendered useless.
Weapons Inspectors destroyed Iraq's chemical weapons plant in 1996. Again, if they where able to hide some of it, it would have expired in 1999 and be useless today.
The United States does not execute people with capital punishment on circumstantial evidence, and shouldn't go to war over it as well which is essentially the same thing. We need to bring our policy with Iraq square with our overall policy. North Korea that does pose as a threat, does in fact posses weapons of mass destruction, and has expressed it's willingness to use them. However the United States has used diplomacy in order to try and resolve the situation in North Korea. Even though George W. Bush has said "we have exhausted all avenues of diplomacy" they have yet to send a diplomat to Baghdad to resolve the situation.
This is not a dispute between Iraq and the international community. Recent protests have shown an overwhelming opposition to the US government's position on Iraq. So strong in fact that protests in Rome caused the Italian Government to flip flop on the position and are now against war in Iraq. Tony Blair of the UK has also recently called George W. Bush saying he can't support a war with Iraq without the support of the UN security council. The US is alone on this decision as the world community does not see a threat worthy of going to war over.
George W. Bush's argument that Iraq has not complied with inspection teems does not take into account that situations for the inspectors are drastically different from when Scott Ritter quit in 1998. Inspectors now have complete access to go and inspect where they want, and the UN Security council is now willing to use military force if Iraq does not comply. They have said there will be consequences.
However George W. Bush has only given inspectors three months to do their job before deciding that war is the only option. Iraq may very well hide their weapons of mass destruction, and the inspectors will not find them. However what they can not hide is how they are manufactured. They aren't produced in a vacuum, or pulled out of a magic hat. Production of these chemical weapons is a messy process that anyone can tell if they have ever been to a chemical plant. They simply can't cover it up with sand as EPA can testify. Inspecting Iraq has to be conducted as inspecting a crime scene and Inspectors need to be given six months to two years to do their job.
Why only three months?
Reason for declaring a failure after three months is the need to implement a policy of unalaterallism. Rejection of international law, and resolve to destroy anything seen as a threat to the United States. This means that any nation that comes close to being an equal to the United States is a threat. Basically, The United States now endorses a policy of American Imperialism.
This is the most obscured thing ever, and contradictory to the principles the United States has been founded on. We fought a revolution to break away from an imperial empire, and now have become that which we loath! This is compounded on the fact that the present administration has not been embracing the US Constitution but attacking it through the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and Homeland Security.
George W. Bush has pushed for war so militantly that he has boxed himself into a rhetorical corner. The day we go to war to protect someone's political position is the day we have FAILED as Americans.
Some belive that Iraq supporting a position of Pan-Arabism is a reason to go to war with Iraq. As their However, while Iraq posed a great threat before 1991, today their once large and powerful army has been reduced to nothing. Iraq's army would break down before it got to it's boarder, and essentially couldn't get an invasion off the ground. Other nations also support a concept of pan-arabism such as Syria and Egypt.
A New Iraq regime would be more of a threat. When the US finishes fighting a bloody campaign, and thousands die of starvation and disease, a renewed anti-American sentiment will spread through the region. It will threaten nations such as Turkey, rebellions will pop up among various ethnic groups within Iraq. When the US does withdraw from Iraq, a more anti western, Muslim fundamentalist government will come to power. As opposed to the present Government that has actually embraced westernism.
Today, the US military solders think they will "shock and awe" the Iraqis into submission. and make comparisons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki which they think shocked Japan into submission. What they don't realize was that it was not the dropping of the bomb that stopped Japan, because it only deepened their resolve to fight. It was the Emperor of Japan getting on the radio and speaking to the people for the first time.
Shock and awe doesn't work and if the US wants to take Iraq they will have to earn it be going in with tanks and troops. It's estimated that he US will loose a battalion a day in the fight for Baghdad. However some possess the absurd logic that we need to kill the Iraqi people in order to save them.
Scott Ritter said there where essentially three reasons why weapons inspectors did not complete their job earlier. Firstly was the fact that Iraq had no intention of cooperation. They played hide and seek with the inspectors, often keeping them from doing their job at gunpoint.
Despite this however, the UN security council made no attempts to enforce they law. They placed the entire burden of making Iraq comply on the shoulders of the inspection teem.
Thirdly, the inspections where inherently flawed by the simple fact that the United State's has a foregien policy of regime removal and working outside the framework of international law.
essentially said Scott Ritter, "The US is at war with itself."
On one hand they state that they want to disarm Iraq, however this is contradictory to their policy of containment and regime removal for the condition for completion of the weapons inspection is for the lifting of economic sanctions. Disarmament of Saddam means the continuation of his rule and Iraq entering the world community again as an equal. This is contrary to what has been the US policy even since 1991 (and repeated in 1997) that the sanctions will not be lifted until the elimination of Saddam as Iraqi leader.
George H. Bush, and Willam J. Clinton both took an "inactive" role in their policy of regime removal by continuation of containment and weapons inspections, but making attempts for assignation of Saddam. The only difference in George W. Bush's policy on Iraq is that he is taking an active role. He has realized that Saddam is 'cou proof' because of his extremely tight security, and so have taken to use military action to attempt the goal of regime change.
When Scott Ritter resigned in 1998 as UN weapons inspector, he said that he was sick having guns stuck in his face and the UN Security council not doing anything about it. But also was sick of being manipulated by the US Government. He viewed his goal in Iraq as to find weapons that Iraq possessed and disarm Iraq. And he did a fairly good job, disarming Iraq by 95%. However he did not view his job to be to find out where Saddam was sleeping, or act as a spy for the government. When the US bombed Iraq in operation Desert fox it used inelegance gathered from it's manipulation of weapons inspectors.
One must ask themselves what the goal of the United States Military is. one can define this by the first few lines of the military oath, "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME". It does not say defend the President, Congress, but the constitution, which is just a document, but a document that starts "we the people" and represents who we are as a nation. The military do not work for George W. Bush, the military work for the people of the United States. Before we let them go off to sacrifice their lives, we should ensure that their sacrifice is not in vein, and their sacrifice if for the American People, not for the will of George W. Bush.
The President and his administration will tell you that Iraq is a threat because it possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction, and may provide them to terrorists.
What Weapons of Mass Disruption are we talking about?
Anthrax? Colin Powell said that Iraq may be manufacturing the very same Anthrax used in the letters. However the kind of anthrax used in the letters is a dry form of anthrax that is only produced in the United States. Iraq was producing a liquid form of anthrax. The last anthrax produced in Iraq was produced in 1991, the plant was destroyed in 1996. Even if the Iraqis where able to hide some of it from the inspectors, it's shelf life would have expired in 1998.
So again What anthrax? It may be easy to hide the stuff, but it's impossible to hide the manufacturing of it. Inspectors will be able to detect the spores.
There has also been talk about "mobile Chemical Laboratories" anyone who believes that they exist in reality don't know how chemical agents are produced. They will not have access to water, proper ventilation, and the wonderful Iraq roadways will ensure that anything produced in such a condition will be rendered useless.
Weapons Inspectors destroyed Iraq's chemical weapons plant in 1996. Again, if they where able to hide some of it, it would have expired in 1999 and be useless today.
The United States does not execute people with capital punishment on circumstantial evidence, and shouldn't go to war over it as well which is essentially the same thing. We need to bring our policy with Iraq square with our overall policy. North Korea that does pose as a threat, does in fact posses weapons of mass destruction, and has expressed it's willingness to use them. However the United States has used diplomacy in order to try and resolve the situation in North Korea. Even though George W. Bush has said "we have exhausted all avenues of diplomacy" they have yet to send a diplomat to Baghdad to resolve the situation.
This is not a dispute between Iraq and the international community. Recent protests have shown an overwhelming opposition to the US government's position on Iraq. So strong in fact that protests in Rome caused the Italian Government to flip flop on the position and are now against war in Iraq. Tony Blair of the UK has also recently called George W. Bush saying he can't support a war with Iraq without the support of the UN security council. The US is alone on this decision as the world community does not see a threat worthy of going to war over.
George W. Bush's argument that Iraq has not complied with inspection teems does not take into account that situations for the inspectors are drastically different from when Scott Ritter quit in 1998. Inspectors now have complete access to go and inspect where they want, and the UN Security council is now willing to use military force if Iraq does not comply. They have said there will be consequences.
However George W. Bush has only given inspectors three months to do their job before deciding that war is the only option. Iraq may very well hide their weapons of mass destruction, and the inspectors will not find them. However what they can not hide is how they are manufactured. They aren't produced in a vacuum, or pulled out of a magic hat. Production of these chemical weapons is a messy process that anyone can tell if they have ever been to a chemical plant. They simply can't cover it up with sand as EPA can testify. Inspecting Iraq has to be conducted as inspecting a crime scene and Inspectors need to be given six months to two years to do their job.
Why only three months?
Reason for declaring a failure after three months is the need to implement a policy of unalaterallism. Rejection of international law, and resolve to destroy anything seen as a threat to the United States. This means that any nation that comes close to being an equal to the United States is a threat. Basically, The United States now endorses a policy of American Imperialism.
This is the most obscured thing ever, and contradictory to the principles the United States has been founded on. We fought a revolution to break away from an imperial empire, and now have become that which we loath! This is compounded on the fact that the present administration has not been embracing the US Constitution but attacking it through the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and Homeland Security.
George W. Bush has pushed for war so militantly that he has boxed himself into a rhetorical corner. The day we go to war to protect someone's political position is the day we have FAILED as Americans.
Some belive that Iraq supporting a position of Pan-Arabism is a reason to go to war with Iraq. As their However, while Iraq posed a great threat before 1991, today their once large and powerful army has been reduced to nothing. Iraq's army would break down before it got to it's boarder, and essentially couldn't get an invasion off the ground. Other nations also support a concept of pan-arabism such as Syria and Egypt.
A New Iraq regime would be more of a threat. When the US finishes fighting a bloody campaign, and thousands die of starvation and disease, a renewed anti-American sentiment will spread through the region. It will threaten nations such as Turkey, rebellions will pop up among various ethnic groups within Iraq. When the US does withdraw from Iraq, a more anti western, Muslim fundamentalist government will come to power. As opposed to the present Government that has actually embraced westernism.
Today, the US military solders think they will "shock and awe" the Iraqis into submission. and make comparisons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki which they think shocked Japan into submission. What they don't realize was that it was not the dropping of the bomb that stopped Japan, because it only deepened their resolve to fight. It was the Emperor of Japan getting on the radio and speaking to the people for the first time.
Shock and awe doesn't work and if the US wants to take Iraq they will have to earn it be going in with tanks and troops. It's estimated that he US will loose a battalion a day in the fight for Baghdad. However some possess the absurd logic that we need to kill the Iraqi people in order to save them.