http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032603/content/stack_a.member.html
Posted on 03/26/2003 6:34:39 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Former UN weapons inspector says US does not have military means to take over Baghdad, defeat inevitable.
LISBON - The United States does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.
"The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win," he told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here Tuesday evening.
"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable," he said.
"Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost," Ritter added.
Stiffening Iraqi resistance as US-led forces close in on Baghdad have prompted questions about the strategy to use precision air power and a smaller, fast moving ground force to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Some military analysts have said there are not enough allied troops in Iraq to take control of Baghdad, where Saddam Hussein's elite troops are said to be concentrated, and that the planning of the war was overly optimistic.
But British Prime Minister Tony Blair told parliament Wednesday the United States and Britain believe they have "sufficient forces" in Iraq and London was not planning to send reinforcements to the country at this stage.
A combination of bad weather and heavy fighting in central Iraq has slowed the advance of coalition troops marching on Baghdad.
Ritter resigned in August 1998 after accusing both Washington and the United Nations of not doing enough to support the weapons inspectors.
Since leaving the UN weapons inspectors team he has become an outspoken critic of US policies towards Iraq.
...And spends his free time luring children to Burger King parking lots so he can molest them.
They left that part out for some reason.
Or Scott "Mata Hari" Ritter. This man (and I use that term loosely) doesn't know his a$$ from a hot rock. Why doesn't he just go to Iraq and become a human shield? Maybe he could guard some of those scuds Saddam doesn't have. ...
http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032603/content/stack_a.member.html
Stay Safe Dave !
I think the origin of that qaint expression is the first French surrender to a foreign power, when the surrendering Frenchman prostrated himself to his new overlord and ended up face first in a pile of steaming roadapples.
WTF is _anyone_ even listening to this treasonous sonuvabitch any longer?!? I swear to God, if I ever saw this sack of sh!t walking down the street, I'd chase him down and beat him like a dog. I wouldn't be able to stop myself.
Good, and long overdue question. Here is an example of the U.S. code on sedition, dating back to WW-I:
16 May, 1918 The U.S. Sedition Act
United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.
SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
Time to give this worm his own hospital bed and jail cell (in that order) IMO.
Stay Safe !
Boy howdy, I'd like a shot at him.
Stay Safe !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.