Scott Ritter: If Israel uses nuclear weapons it will be destroyed

Globes Online ^

[RCW2001]

The former chief UN weapons inspector made his comments in a “Globes” interview.

Gil Tamari, Washington   10 Nov 02   17:08

Former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter sharply criticized US President George W. Bush’s intention to attack Iraq. “I don’t fear Iraq, but I fear US policy toward Iraq,” said Ritter in an interview that will be published in the upcoming “Globes” weekend supplement.

“Saddam Hussein does not constitute a threat to our [US] national security. He is a terrible man, a brutal dictator who represses his people, but that is not a sufficient reason to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers. Until we have proof that Saddam is threatening US national security, there should be no talk of war.”

Ritter says the talk about a possible Israeli retaliation with non-conventional weapons was very dangerous, and the use of such weapons could lead to Israel’s destruction. “There is no better way to ensure Israel’s destruction than its use of nuclear weapons,” said Ritter.

“The moment Israel uses its nuclear card, Arab countries will not stop until they get the Bomb and drop it on Israel. If you think a nuclear bomb on Baghdad will prevent Iran from dropping a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv, you’d better think again.”

Ritter believes that the way to prevent Iraq from getting weapons of mass destruction is through an effective inspections regime and not regime change.

Commenting on Israel’s concerns about an Iraqi attack, Ritter said, “The idea that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and would use them against Israel has been disproved. Israel knows exactly the degree to which Iraq’s arms have been dismantled. Israeli intelligence estimated in 1998 that Iraq had no more weapons of mass destruction and that the arms inspection regime was an effective tool.

“Even Israel ought to prefer that inspectors return to Iraq, so that weapons will continue to be dismantled. Dismantlement serves Israel’s security interests far more than war. Such a war would be the first step in US aggression that will ignite instability throughout the Middle East. There is no greater threat to Israel than regional instability, which would bring Islamic fundamentalism to power in moderate countries.”

Ritter attaches great importance to Friday’s UN Security Council resolution. “It makes it clear to Iraq that the international community is united in its demand to allow inspectors to return.” However, Ritter says, “I am bothered by the US interpretation of the resolution. I am convinced that the Bush administration is determined on regime change in Iraq, and they see the Security Council resolution as a tool that will lead to a military blow. I fear that the administration will use the inspectors as an excuse to go to war.”

It should be pointed out that Scott Ritter acknowledged, in an interview with CNN on September 13 this year, that he received $400,000 in funding from a US citizen of Iraqi origin for a documentary film he made about Iraq. Allegations have been brought that the provider of the finance for the film is a Saddam Hussein sympathizer. Ritter himself denies any link between the financing of the film and Saddam Hussein.

Published by Globes [online] - www.globes.co.il - on November 10, 2002

[Abar]

Ritter: traitor to America, threat to Israel.

[Republic]

Me too-I envision Scott wondering when Saddam will be penning his next $200,000.00 check to ol Scotty. Poor Scotty-once a patriot, now a man who had proved himself easily corrupted by money and celebrity. Too bad. Truthfully, I cannot imagine why anyone would even book this man on a show-he is so unbearably anti-war. Guess with Scotty-as long as a nuke isn't in the egg crate, there is no reason to worry.

[Abar]

If Israel is forced to play its nuclear card, what Arab countries will still exist?

Correct.

[cgordon]

I think Mr Ritter needs to read his Bible more and get with the program.

God has promised that the only way Israel will cease to be is if the ordinances of the sun, moon and stars cease to be or if "heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath".

God will never cast off His people Israel.

Jeremiah 31:35-37

[35] Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
[36] If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
[37] Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

[Abar]

Everyone knows that a U.N. Cap does not go with a Flannel.....

But it does go with a copper jacket.

[OReilly]

do you think it unreasonable that Israel responds in kind by destroying (with nukes) the very nations that conspired against it?

Israel has a problem determining what is an appropriate response (so do we, the US, for that matter... but we err in the other direction). Destroying the whole of Arab World because Iraq dropped 'the bomb', as you predicted the Israeli response would be, is over the top. (and I thought "get a grip" was a fairly kind response).

We would not be in this mess if Colin Powell, when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, had not been screaming 'we got to stop the war now' on the conference call between Storming Norman, Bush41, and Cheney. As it turned out, there was only 1 or 2 Charcoaled Iraqis on the Highway of Death and most of the Republican guard escaped to the north.

[cmsgop]

LOL Well Said!

[xm177e2]

Ritter says the talk about a possible Israeli retaliation with non-conventional weapons was very dangerous, and the use of such weapons could lead to Israel’s destruction. “There is no better way to ensure Israel’s destruction than its use of nuclear weapons,” said Ritter.

“The moment Israel uses its nuclear card, Arab countries will not stop until they get the Bomb and drop it on Israel. If you think a nuclear bomb on Baghdad will prevent Iran from dropping a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv, you’d better think again.”

"The moment Israel uses its nuclear card, Arab countries will not stop until they get the Bomb and drop it on Israel."--actually, that sounds a lot like what they're doing RIGHT NOW.

[Lent]

Yep!!!! But no need to bring the nukes out unless some Arab Islamic punk tries to pull the trigger on WMD. But that's what preemptive strikes are about like in 1981.

[B-Chan]

The Muslim Movement on the campuses say there will be a suitcase nuke used on a American City. They say that 9/11 was just a primer.

Proper response: "Yeah? Well, here's a primer for you: if a suitcase nuke does explode here in America, I'm coming after you with a gun in my hand, and God help you when I find you."

[Mr. Mojo]

Destroying the whole of Arab World because Iraq dropped 'the bomb', as you predicted the Israeli response would be, is over the top.

Now you're misquoting me, despite my best efforts to avoid this sort of confusion. I explictly said (a few times now) that the Israeli (nuclear) response to "the whole of the Arab world" should only take place if the nuking of Israel is a concerted effort by many Arab states, not just Iraq. If it's just Iraq that does the bombing, then only Iraq should pay the price. Capiche? ....or do I need to repeat myself yet again?

And for (hopefully) the last time, I mentioned the "whole of the Arab world" because Ritter - when predicting what would happen if Israel retaliated with nukes against Bagdhad - said that "Arab countries will not stop until they get the Bomb and drop it on Israel." By "Arab countries," he means more than one, and probably all.

[OReilly]

Now you are misquoting me...

Here is your quote and my response...

If "the Bomb" is "dropped" on Israel (to use Ritter's uneducated parlance), Israel would most likely respond by destroying the whole of the Arab world.

Get a grip...

[1bigdictator]

< "RCW is Scotty Ritter high or what"

RCW is Scotty Ritter.

Neither one has ever been photographed together. They both like to plant stories out of context. They are both proud to sport a moustache in honor of their patron saint Sadam Hussein. They both have never met a Jew who wasn't secretly in control of the world's banking industry.

[RightWhale]

“There is no better way to ensure Israel’s destruction than its use of nuclear weapons,” said Ritter.

Scott has it backwards. Faced with immediate destruction, Israel would fire all its weapons. This would be done by the last Israeli soldier left standing.

[Mr. Mojo]

I suspected your stupidity, but I didn't quite realize the extent of it. Yes, I said that Israel would most likely respond to a nuke attack against it by destroying the whole of the Arab world, but only if they were attacked in concert by many Arab nations. (And I've explicity stated this 4 times now in 4 different posts). It's stuck in that frighteningly dense head of yours that I believe that Israel's massive response should be if only Iraq attacks it.

Perhaps you should take a remedial reading comprehension course.

[Brian Allen]

Isn't it past time this awful bloody traitor -- who surely competes with Madam Half-a-Brian Jim Brady and Mr Polly Klass to hold the all-time world stretch-the-15-minutes record -- was put against the Eddy Slovak Memorial Wall?

[OReilly]

I suspected your stupidity, but I didn't quite realize the extent of it.

Well, I guess you clearly won that round since you are now resorting to ad holmium, and since your first post was followed by mine within 8 minutes with none of your claimed (4 times) clarification. Where I come from, that kind of argument is called trying to set up a straw man after the fact.

[OReilly]

ad hominem

[Mr. Mojo]

My original response to your original folly is in post #72. Here's what I wrote: "Ritter said that 'the Arab world' - which, I assume, includes more than one or two nations - would "not stop until they get the Bomb and drop it on Israel."

So, in my original response, I was very clear about the Israel nuclear response against "the whole of the Arab world" being a result of a nuke attack against Israel being committed by more than just Iraq alone. ...And then your density forced me to repeat myself several times

Game, Set, Match.

How does it feel to lose yet another argument?

[pray4liberty]

Until we have proof that Saddam is threatening US national security, there should be no talk of war.”

What's he waiting for? A bomb to drop on his head or something?