If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   Scott Ritter wins award for Dumbest Man Alive after claiming Saddam is not a threat to the US and Iraq is not building weapons of mass destruction   (newsmax.com) divider line 67
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

3438 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2001 at 8:27 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2001-11-20 08:35:17 AM
umm does newsmax have a whole team of people that make up facts, or is it just one guy?
 
fb-
2001-11-20 08:36:55 AM
I'd expect this type of crap from some leftist peace rag. Not newsmax.
 
2001-11-20 08:39:45 AM
Wiat a minute, isn't it all Clinton's fault? I'm so confused.
 
2001-11-20 08:48:16 AM
So let me get this straight...Newsmax does not trust the word of a former chief UN weapons inspector, but they do trust the world of Iraq's chief of nuclear weapon's production? Interesting.
 
2001-11-20 08:56:11 AM
who's Saddam Hussein?
 
2001-11-20 08:58:02 AM
Newsmax = Truth...HAW HAW! I almost said it with a straight face!
 
2001-11-20 09:02:01 AM
I dunno, I felt this guy was believable when he interacted with Mr. Roper and Chrissie and stuff. I do think he was porking that black-haired chick, tho.
I wondered where he went when the show ended.
I think he did a cameo on "Buffy" but haven't seen much of him since.
A weapons inspector?
What would Thelma and Tex say?
 
2001-11-20 09:10:48 AM
Instead of just dismissing this guy as a "peace rag," remember that he was there, you weren't. So he probably has a better idea of what Iraq is capable of than you do.
 
2001-11-20 09:36:48 AM
There was a very interesting NOVA documentary on PBS about Ritter, he sounded like a major pain in the ass, BUT he is a very honest guy and he's been blacklisted because of his honesty.
The documentary was very entertaining, especially when he would be right in the FACE of Iraqi offcials when he wanted to inspect weapons sites.
 
2001-11-20 09:41:57 AM
BTW, whoever wrote this is an idiot.

"Scott Ritter wins award for Dumbest Man Alive after claiming Saddam is not a threat to the US and Iraq is not building weapons of mass destruction"
 
2001-11-20 10:24:40 AM
Yea I mean what would he know, just ahving ran inspections for 4 years. Lets listen to Bush instead, he is the one with the mutiple degrees and expert understanding.

Not that it matters, Afganistan has been bombed to hell, next stop in operation war without end will be Iraq anyway.
 
2001-11-20 10:25:24 AM
"If, as Ritter claims, the Iraqis had no interest in building such weapons, they would have allowed in U.N. inspectors, which would have automatically lifted sanctions."

Point, set, and match to Newsmax. Ritter is a dumbass.

A courageous dumbass, but a dumbass nonetheless.
 
2001-11-20 10:26:29 AM
Ritter was in and out of Iraq for 7.5 years. A very honest man, needs to be listened to. Newsmax and Fark line way off base. His main issue is that US should prove Iraq is that big a danger before US going to war. He says Iraq not that capapble. Worth furhter study. He's a realist.
 
2001-11-20 10:31:11 AM
I didn't read the article, I don't think that newsmax site deserves any hits... I haven't read anything at all accurate there yet, and I am fed up with trying. If I want fabricated stuff I prefer the onion or bbspot....
 
2001-11-20 10:31:41 AM
Newsmax sure has a long way to go before they can compete with the "A" company, The National Enquierer.
 
2001-11-20 10:34:06 AM
Gr00vey: but what does this have to do with Clinton's cock, and how it ended the world as we know it? And on that note, I leave you with the the biatchy Geraldo article.
 
2001-11-20 10:38:25 AM
Good then we should be able to take Iraq...no problem....Thanks Mr. Ritter.
 
2001-11-20 10:38:55 AM
"If, as Ritter claims, the Iraqis had no interest in building such weapons, they would have allowed in U.N. inspectors, which would have automatically lifted sanctions."

"Point, set, and match to Newsmax. Ritter is a dumbass."

You're so sure that we would instantly lift sanctions on Iraq? I'm not all that convinced. We need a boogie man. Otherwise, all the paranoid freaks turn toward domestic devils.
 
2001-11-20 10:39:46 AM
Azrael
"If, as Ritter claims, the Iraqis had no interest in building such weapons, they would have allowed in U.N. inspectors, which would have automatically lifted sanctions."

Hang on a sec there Azrael, either you are 18 years old or you've been working with computers too long, I'm not saying Iraq is innocent but do you think a mega-ego like Saddam will just let anyone into his military establishment? I mean even a world class democracy like the USA wouldnt want the UN snooping into its military. So how do you expect a dictator like Saddam to react?
 
2001-11-20 10:40:04 AM
And the U.N. surrenders!! . . . er, wait a minute, they did that back a few years ago . . .
 
2001-11-20 10:45:44 AM
I like the bit about how America gets pissed off with anyone else that has similar weapons to them. A bit like a 4 year old kid with a new toy smashes the toy that another kid has.

Ah well, let's hope we last long enough to see America grow up.
 
2001-11-20 10:46:07 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1663000/1663376.stm

No convention cos the USA does not want anyone inspecting for weapons, which they dont have anyway.......

Hmm
 
2001-11-20 10:50:33 AM
Thanks Harmonia
good story
 
2001-11-20 10:58:40 AM
"I like the bit about how America gets pissed off with anyone else that has similar weapons to them. A bit like a 4 year old kid with a new toy smashes the toy that another kid has."

That's not entirely true. We don't mind that you guys across the pond have the same weapons as us. I've never heard America complain because the Brits have nukes. We just don't like it when our boogie men have ugly little weapons. (and it's not like our fears have gone ENTIRELY unfounded: 9/11).
 
2001-11-20 11:01:44 AM
USA a world class democracy????
Rather a world class nation of the Naive..

.. so the terrorists did win.
 
2001-11-20 11:16:24 AM
Our understanding with the USA is that we have the weapons you sold us but we cannot use them without your permission.
 
2001-11-20 11:31:52 AM
One scenario I always thought would be amusing was if some cash strapped NATO countries needing to update its armed forces and they needed some fast fighter planes and they couldn't afford the latest and greatest from the USA bought the latest and greatest from Russian, you know those MIG's that out perform some US planes. I'm no arms dealer but lets say a country like Canada was going to pay $20 million for a f-18 and they wanted 100 planes thats 2 billion, now if they bought MIGS for 8 million, now Canada get over double the amount of planes and have a major force...
I wonder what the political fallout would be?
 
2001-11-20 11:35:20 AM
Did any of you read the story? If saddam did not want to build those weapons then the U.N. inspectors could have did their jobs many many years ago and had the sanctions removed already. Why keep the inspectors out of the nation if he was not trying to build those weapons. They also pointed out that Ritter contradicted himself when in 1996 he stated that it was their goal to build such weapons.

I don't like newsmax as well but any retard could see they have this ONE right.

It all sounds good, but diametrically contradicts what Ritter said in 1996, when he quit the U.N. team claiming the Clinton administration had not allowed inspectors to do their job.

If, as Ritter claims, the Iraqis had no interest in building such weapons, they would have allowed in U.N. inspectors, which would have automatically lifted sanctions.

Instead, Hussein has kept the inspectors out, and has lost billions. Hussein obviously believes the weapons are more important than money.
 
2001-11-20 11:39:08 AM
Our friends in the east

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/technology/19SAUD.html

aint democracy wonderful.
 
2001-11-20 11:41:23 AM
I think Ritter is trying to embarass the government and vindicate himself from past failures.
 
2001-11-20 11:47:46 AM
He trusts Saddam. Shouldn't everyone?

Whadda dork.
 
2001-11-20 11:53:17 AM
Batcar: He's not "trusting saddam." He was there. He has a much better idea of what Iraq is capable of building than anyone who speculates that "they must have weapons if they kicked out the inspectors." Maybe Saddam wanted to keep some of his pride and throw the "infidels" out of his business.
 
2001-11-20 12:00:40 PM
"That's not entirely true. We don't mind that you guys across the pond have the same weapons as us. I've never heard America complain because the Brits have nukes. We just don't like it when our boogie men have ugly little weapons. (and it's not like our fears have gone ENTIRELY unfounded: 9/11)."

Please explain to me what nukes were used on 9/11. Just what foreign power's massive arsenal was used against us?
 
2001-11-20 12:16:48 PM
Quebecers feel the 9-11 terrorists pain
http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoNews/ts.ts-11-20-0006.html
 
2001-11-20 12:21:54 PM
Ritter should go back to "Three's Company."

Harmonia -- are you presently wearing your kilts and wailing away on your bagpipes while seeking out some lovely lupins this fine day?
 
2001-11-20 12:39:43 PM
Don't forget that Saddam's life is very, very pleasant, and the psycho could pretty much care less about his people. It would be convenient for him to deny access, regardless of what he had hidden, because the sanctions don't affect him or his rich, rich sons. It would not only make his economy easier to control for himself, but it would galvanize his populace against the U.S. It would also serve to get other mid-eastern countries pissed off at us. I'm not saying that Saddam doesn't have some wacky weapons programs, but please don't boil diplomacy down to black and white. It's always far more complicated than that.

Instead, just listen to fb-.
 
2001-11-20 12:44:12 PM
America gets all jittery when anyone they don't approve of having The Bomb, and so goes out to fark them up the arse until they can't walk, in the name of freedom.

If anyone feels the same way about America they're terrorists.

Discuss.
 
2001-11-20 01:24:37 PM
The winners write history.
 
2001-11-20 01:33:07 PM
Not only do you get to read righwing propaganda, but you also get to buy high quality quackery as well. Check out the, "Magnetic copper wrist bands" they sell to ease joint pains and promote healthy circulation! I bet they sell those X-ray sunglasses on there somewhere too!
 
2001-11-20 01:33:44 PM
And the losers fade away, until they reach the point where being a bigot towards them is acceptable behavior.
 
2001-11-20 01:34:13 PM
Rebbic: I always wanted a pair of Lucid dream goggles...
 
2001-11-20 01:35:15 PM
One day at newsass:
---------------------------
hey that guy knows too much!! we better give him a worlds stupidest award to discredit him!!
 
43%
2001-11-20 01:36:42 PM
Until such time that the losers ideas (regardless of how ludicrous) come back into fashion and negative comments about those losers is labeled xenophobic or racist.
 
2001-11-20 01:42:20 PM
remember a few days ago some news organization said Osama had nuke blueprints, if you beleived that story read this.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/20/wbin120 .xml&sSheet=/news/2001/11/20/ixhome.html
 
2001-11-20 01:48:51 PM
"Please explain to me what nukes were used on 9/11. Just what foreign power's massive arsenal was used against us?"

What are you talking about? Someone said we don't like when other countries have weapons like we have. I said that's not entirely true, because our allies that have nukes (weapons that we have--an EXAMPLE) aren't a problem for us. I never said that someone used their arsenal on us. I just said that our fears were confirmed that we are not safe from attack. Therefore, our fears of unstable enemies having weapons of mass destruction are a legitimate concern. Our concerns are more for unstable powers having these weapons. You don't really see us screaming about Russia or China, because they are relatively rational, stable states.
 
2001-11-20 01:55:03 PM
The sanctions don't seem to be doing anything but providing Saddam Hussein with a propaganda point. Either he's innocent of producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), in which case the USA is complicit in the killing thousands of Iraqi children (the fact that Saddam diverts whatever aid shipments that come in away from the north and southeastern parts of Iraq doesn't help either) ... or he is producing them.

Even if he is, do you really think he's going to give a fark about starvation in regions of the country hostile to him? He's already proven gassing them is not beyond his capabilities ...

If Ritter says now that Saddam more or less stopped in 1993, why didn't he mention that back in 1996, when he quit the inspection amidst spectacular controversy? Either way, something stinks. Ritter is likely a fairly soft target; Iraqi or CIA agents may be trained to off him should he say too much.

As for other countries getting nukes, I don't see why we slapped sanctions on India and Pakistan ... they got the nukes as much to oppose China as they did to oppose each other. As they both have nukes, they are in a cold war with each other. No worse than the US-USA situation.

Harmonia, Goatman, etc.: I thought you guys on the European left were against nukes in all forms? So why is it OK for Third-World nations to get nukes and not OK for the US to have them?

Shawn
 
2001-11-20 01:58:42 PM
"America gets all jittery when anyone they don't approve of having The Bomb, and so goes out to fark them up the arse until they can't walk, in the name of freedom."

Well, yes, because America really doesn't want to get nuked. It's assumed to be a rather unpleasant experience. We're more jittery when it's an unstable power that gets hold of nukes. Like I said before, the US really couldn't care less that France and the UK have nukes. We're more afraid of Russia losing nukes than intentionally using them on someone. China isn't going to use them, so that's not a huge concern. India and Pakistan are concerns because they fight each other every time they get the chance. India is otherwise stable, so we really only gave them a slap on the wrist (that has now been retracted). The fear in Pakistan is that their government will fall to fanatics. Of course no one wants unstable dictatorships to have nukes (or other weapons of mass destruction). That's just commons sense. Unstable plus massive death is never a good combination.
 
2001-11-20 02:01:03 PM
Stpickrell
Then explain why there is an economic embargo on Cuba?
There are no nukes there? and don't tell me the the island is run by a communist regime, because the regime in China is a lot worst than the Cuban one.
 
2001-11-20 02:05:32 PM
"As for other countries getting nukes, I don't see why we slapped sanctions on India and Pakistan ... they got the nukes as much to oppose China as they did to oppose each other. As they both have nukes, they are in a cold war with each other. No worse than the US-USA situation."

I don't agree at all. The US and the USSR never fought a "hot war". Pakistan and India have fought more than one real war directly against each other in the last 50 years. They are constantly having border skirmishes over Kashmir. One could not have had nukes without the other without causing huge tensions (not that having nukes pointed at each other does not cause tension). Their aquisition of nukes was vastly more based on their fears of each other than fears of China (although it might have been a bit of concern for India). The US and the USSR were both highly stable states. Pakistan is under military rule that followed a recent coup. India is a relatively stable democracy. The sanctions were a slap on the wrist. We knew the nukes were not going away no matter what we did. The sanctions are also now history.
 
2001-11-20 02:10:51 PM
"Then explain why there is an economic embargo on Cuba?"

What exactly is the goal of the economic embargo on Cuba? Ah yes, it is to end the Castro regime. How many US presidents has Castro survived? It's not exactly the most effective US action ever taken. Castro is still in power with the only apparent thing set to remove him being death, and the people of Cuba live in poverty. It didn't even work with a little tiny island right off of our coast.

"and don't tell me the the island is run by a communist regime, because the regime in China is a lot worst than the Cuban one."

That's arguable. At least per capita, they are pretty equal in repressions. At least China is freeing up on the economic front, and has legit local elections. Cuba certainly does not have any real elections. Although they are loosening up a bit on the economy...at least enough to bring in tourist dollars. And China is not run by a communist regime. China is communist in name only. They are run by a totalitarian regime, but China gave up on Communism in the 1970s.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report