Iraq, The most sucessful war in US history!

[bismitch]

With your intellect, I can surely understand why you would think the things I say are stupid. Its because only you can see through the national media liberal bias conspiracy. My weak effort of gathering news by listening to and reading as many sources of it as possible so I can form an informed opinion must not be the way to go. I guess I should find a way to rule out the sources that slant the news, right? So that only leaves Drudge and Hannity, Right?

Problem is, those guys, and others of their kind, spend all of their air time stumping for the candidates of a particular party. And stupid as I may be, I can see through that. So I'm going to try to keep following all the sources that I can, even including a little input from the guys above. And some day I may be smart enough to be able to filter out all of the news that I don't like, like you can. A fellow can dream, can't he?

Liberal policy is usually that of reform and change, while conservative policy is "what we've got is good, so we don't need to change it". However there are crucial points in a nation's lifecycle that demand or need change. After the economic boom of the U.S. during the late 19th century and early 20th century there were poor living conditions and wide income difference between the rich and the poor. Reform in wages, working conditions and public programs saved lives and formed a more powerful middle class(probally including most people in this forum). After the 1929 stock market crash, there was worldwide economic depression and 25% unemployment. The conservative Hoover, hoped that the economy would fix itself and basically did nothing. With no change or progress, the liberal canidate, Roosevelt, took over the adminstration. He created jobs, set in motion massive public works projects, and beefed up welfare. While the reform created minor improvements, it was a step in the right direction for the time. I could keep giving you examples, but they prove the same point, liberal power stems from the need for change in policy.

Sorry i'll try to make this shorter..

List of needed changes:

After WWII the U.S. has been steadly aquiring national debt. There has been no efforts to stop this and we are now beginning to see the problems of this.
Just for reference the current national debt is:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif

Another issue that is coming to the table of discussion is terrorism and how to deal with it. The conservative mindset is to fight it like a conventional war, however even if it could work it is ineffective and a drain or money and troops.

One issue that I think is constantly overlooked is global warming. Many of the wealthy countries in Europe and Japan have been trying to reduce their CO2 emissions, while countries like the U.S. have overlooked this. In the next 50-100 years the effects of global warming(this is guarenteed look it up) will be mass flooding in the most populated places on Earth and droughts specifically(the ones that i know of) in Western U.S. and Eastern Australia. If we do not act now the costs of overlooking this problem will be inmense in the future.

Another issue that needs to be dealt with is illegal immigration. There hasn't been much reform in this area for many years and the costs in welfare benefits to illegals is a drain on the budget. I personally think that if we really wanted to protect America from terrorism that the Mexican Border should be guarded better. Maybe some of those 125,000 troops in Iraq could be deployed here.

As to the media being liberal and biased, it is not a conspiracy(I'm not sure what you mean by biased). Sure every media outlet owner has an opinion and wants to exert his influence on as many people as possible. From what I have seen the media is unbiased. If you could give me some examples from a major media company like Time-Warner I would gladly discuss it with you. The media tries to be moderate to gain a wider range of an audiance. There out their for money just like any business. If you are saying that there is a liberal conspiracy in the media, please tell me how liberals have a frickin warehouse filled with treasure. (I don't think liberal is even close to conservative funding(businesses)).

 

[bismitch]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

I have no intention of proving you wrong. There is no requirement that you like the Italy example. It is the example I am using to defend my argument. I have given plenty of information for you to research it yourself if you like... even excerpts from my own research. I have provided the definition of insurgency that I am using. Honestly there comes a time when you need to take responsibility for educating yourself and not relying on me or anyone else to educate you. That is not intended to be a judgment on you, you have already proved yourself above the fray in even being interested in understand facts. But Until you convince yourself by researching it you will never really believe me no matter what links I provide you. In my research I used Encarta, Britannica and Wikipedia in order to get a balanced understanding of post-war Italy.

However, don't get hung-up on Italy. If you think Iraq is a failure please post your historical comparison that supports your position. I have already posted mine. I am not sure I know what your position is... please state it and provide supporting evidences. I stick with Italy... I think it is the strongest support for my argument.

Your annoying do you know that?

Give me some time to research this, I really don't like spending too much time on the computer in a given day.

 

[bismitch]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

I have no intention of proving you wrong. There is no requirement that you like the Italy example. It is the example I am using to defend my argument. I have given plenty of information for you to research it yourself if you like... even excerpts from my own research. I have provided the definition of insurgency that I am using. Honestly there comes a time when you need to take responsibility for educating yourself and not relying on me or anyone else to educate you. That is not intended to be a judgment on you, you have already proved yourself above the fray in even being interested in understand facts. But Until you convince yourself by researching it you will never really believe me no matter what links I provide you. In my research I used Encarta, Britannica and Wikipedia in order to get a balanced understanding of post-war Italy.

However, don't get hung-up on Italy. If you think Iraq is a failure please post your historical comparison that supports your position. I have already posted mine. I am not sure I know what your position is... please state it and provide supporting evidences. I stick with Italy... I think it is the strongest support for my argument.

Your annoying do you know that?

Give me some time to research this, I really don't like spending too much time on the computer in a given day.

 

[Iriemon]

...
List of needed changes:

After WWII the U.S. has been steadly aquiring national debt. There has been no efforts to stop this and we are now beginning to see the problems of this.
Just for reference the current national debt is:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif

...

Not to disagree with your contention that the national debt is a serious problem that needs change -- a contention about which I wholeheatedly agree, I disagree with the implicit contention that the national debt problem is one that has been steadily growing since WWII.

The US incurred a huge amount of debt in WWII, the total which exceeded 100% of GDP. And while it is generally true that the dollar value of the debt was not paid down, the leaders of the "greatest generation" ensured that revenues were generally sufficient (top tax rates were 90% then 70% from the 50s through 1981) so that additional borrowing was controlled. As a result, the relative size of the debt declined steadily in the 3 decades following WWII:

Year - Tot Debt - GDP - Debt:GDP

1946 269 222.3 121.0%
1947 258 244.2 105.7%
1948 252 269.2 93.6%
1949 253 267.3 94.7%
1950 257 293.8 87.5%
1951 255 339.3 75.2%
1952 259 358.3 72.3%
1953 266 379.4 70.1%
1954 279 380.4 73.3%
1955 281 414.8 67.7%
1956 277 437.5 63.3%
1957 275 461.1 59.6%
1958 282 467.2 60.4%
1959 290 506.6 57.2%
1960 290 526.4 55.1%
1961 296 544.7 54.3%
1962 303 585.6 51.7%
1963 309 617.7 50.0%
1964 317 663.6 47.8%
1965 321 719.1 44.6%
1966 329 787.8 41.8%
1967 345 832.6 41.4%
1968 358 910.0 39.3%
1969 368 984.6 37.4%
1970 389 1038.5 37.5%
1971 424 1127.1 37.6%
1972 449 1238.3 36.3%
1973 470 1382.7 34.0%
1974 492 1500.0 32.8%
1975 577 1638.3 35.2%
1976 654 1825.3 35.8%
1977 719 2030.9 35.4%
1978 789 2294.7 34.4%
1979 845 2563.3 33.0%
1980 930 2789.5 33.3%

Sources: CBO.gov, BEA.gov.

That changed in 1981, when the Reagan and his supply side (ie voodoo) economic theory took power. Though the Democrats nominally controlled congress, enough "boll weevel" and "gypsy moth" Democrats supported the Republicans in slash income tax rates, eventually from 70% to 28%. Not surprisingly, real revenues fell and then grew but less than GDP, and the drop in revenues combined with Reagan's military build-up resulting in the hugest deficits and debt growth in post-war history. Bush raised the tax rate to 31% in '91, but by then the damage had been done. In 12 years the national debt had quadrupled, and doubled as a percentage of GDP:

1981 1,029 3128.4 32.9%
1982 1,197 3255.0 36.8%
1983 1,411 3536.7 39.9%
1984 1,663 3933.2 42.3%
1985 1,946 4220.3 46.1%
1986 2,125 4462.8 47.6%
1987 2,350 4739.5 49.6%
1988 2,602 5103.8 51.0%
1989 2,857 5484.4 52.1%
1990 3,233 5803.1 55.7%
1991 3,665 5995.9 61.1%
1992 4,065 6337.7 64.1%

In 1993, Clinton took office, inheriting a $340 billion deficit. To address this crises, Clinton and the Democrats increased taxes, and the top rate to 39%(over the opposition of every single Republican, the measure passed the Senate only with Gore's protem vote). The tax increase rapidly increased Govt revenues, which grew almost twice as fast as GDP in that period. Combined with relatively frugal spending policies (helped by the "peace divided) the deficits were eliminated by 2000, and the national debt was actually paid down $100 billion that calendar year. Not a big dent in the national debt which then stood at $5.7 trillion; but it was a start. And as a result, there was a significant drop in the debt compared to GDP:

1993 4,411 6657.4 66.3%
1994 4,693 7072.2 66.4%
1995 4,974 7397.7 67.2%
1996 5,225 7816.9 66.8%
1997 5,413 8304.3 65.2%
1998 5,526 8747.0 63.2%
1999 5,656 9268.4 61.0%
2000 5,674 9817.0 57.8%

Unfortunately, the period of fiscal responsibility was short lived. In 2000, Bush and the supply-siders took control again and slashed taxes. Bush promised his tax cuts would not cause deficits, however, within two years the deficits exploded into record territory (dollar wise), and 2006 marked the 4th straight year that the national debt grew by $1/2 trillion dollars. Consequently the debt compared to GDP has creeped back up:

2001 5,807 10128.0 57.3%
2002 6,228 10469.6 59.5%
2003 6,783 10971.2 61.8%
2004 7,379 11734.3 62.9%
2005 7,932 12487.1 63.5%

Thus, what you said about the debt is technically true, relatively speaking it has been during the Reagan, Bush and Bush terms that we have the exploding levels of debt that plague the nation now.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

...

However, don't get hung-up on Italy. If you think Iraq is a failure please post your historical comparison that supports your position. I have already posted mine. I am not sure I know what your position is... please state it and provide supporting evidences. I stick with Italy... I think it is the strongest support for my argument.

I still have not seen any evidence that the "insurgency" you describe in Italy either was happening after WWII, or was a consequence of the US liberation of Italy (as opposed to something that independently sprang up from movements in the late 60s and early 70s) or was directed at US troops in Italy, or that the scope of it was anything comparable to Iraq.

The number of deaths is also not sole criteria of a successful "war." But if you want to do that, I could tick off a number of them -- Panama, Grenada, Bosnia or any number of US interventions would be more successful in terms of number of US casualties and the comparative lack of a resulting insurgency.

 

[tryreading]

Liberal policy is usually that of reform and change, while conservative policy is "what we've got is good, so we don't need to change it". However there are crucial points in a nation's lifecycle that demand or need change. After the economic boom of the U.S. during the late 19th century and early 20th century there were poor living conditions and wide income difference between the rich and the poor. Reform in wages, working conditions and public programs saved lives and formed a more powerful middle class(probally including most people in this forum). After the 1929 stock market crash, there was worldwide economic depression and 25% unemployment. The conservative Hoover, hoped that the economy would fix itself and basically did nothing. With no change or progress, the liberal canidate, Roosevelt, took over the adminstration. He created jobs, set in motion massive public works projects, and beefed up welfare. While the reform created minor improvements, it was a step in the right direction for the time. I could keep giving you examples, but they prove the same point, liberal power stems from the need for change in policy.

Sorry i'll try to make this shorter..

List of needed changes:

After WWII the U.S. has been steadly aquiring national debt. There has been no efforts to stop this and we are now beginning to see the problems of this.
Just for reference the current national debt is:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif

Another issue that is coming to the table of discussion is terrorism and how to deal with it. The conservative mindset is to fight it like a conventional war, however even if it could work it is ineffective and a drain or money and troops.

One issue that I think is constantly overlooked is global warming. Many of the wealthy countries in Europe and Japan have been trying to reduce their CO2 emissions, while countries like the U.S. have overlooked this. In the next 50-100 years the effects of global warming(this is guarenteed look it up) will be mass flooding in the most populated places on Earth and droughts specifically(the ones that i know of) in Western U.S. and Eastern Australia. If we do not act now the costs of overlooking this problem will be inmense in the future.

Another issue that needs to be dealt with is illegal immigration. There hasn't been much reform in this area for many years and the costs in welfare benefits to illegals is a drain on the budget. I personally think that if we really wanted to protect America from terrorism that the Mexican Border should be guarded better. Maybe some of those 125,000 troops in Iraq could be deployed here.

As to the media being liberal and biased, it is not a conspiracy(I'm not sure what you mean by biased). Sure every media outlet owner has an opinion and wants to exert his influence on as many people as possible. From what I have seen the media is unbiased. If you could give me some examples from a major media company like Time-Warner I would gladly discuss it with you. The media tries to be moderate to gain a wider range of an audiance. There out their for money just like any business. If you are saying that there is a liberal conspiracy in the media, please tell me how liberals have a frickin warehouse filled with treasure. (I don't think liberal is even close to conservative funding(businesses)).

I was responding sarcastically to ProudAmerican's post.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I was responding sarcastically to ProudAmerican's post.

evidently sarcasm just isnt your bag.

 

[tryreading]

evidently sarcasm just isnt your bag.

I think if you re-read my post you will find it was very funny, in a snide way.

 

[bismitch]

I think if you re-read my post you will find it was very funny, in a snide way.

Sorry, I really don't read the posts carefully, next time I won't skim.

At least no one is arguing with my ideas, maybe my facts...

 

[Ilovefood]

hum hum! just let me take a really deep breath, first of all why are you comparing Iraq with Italy ?! they are two different countries with a bunch of hole another stories. second of all; do you call it succes when a lot of people die,?? I understand your point that it took much shorter time etc to invade Irak then it took for Italy. But I dont think that the word is succes. Nice to see your comparison, but dont play with war ....

 

[bismitch]

hum hum! just let me take a really deep breath, first of all why are you comparing Iraq with Italy ?! they are two different countries with a bunch of hole another stories. second of all; do you call it succes when a lot of people die,?? I understand your point that it took much shorter time etc to invade Irak then it took for Italy. But I dont think that the word is succes. Nice to see your comparison, but dont play with war ....

If you read the beginning of the thread you would have seen my explainations that were more in-depth than yours, but yes this is what I have been trying to say.

 

[Lena]

What is wrong with you?! How can you call any war successful?! Besides, you can't compare WWII to the war in Iraq, not only because the tecnology is far better now, making it a lot easier to invade a contry, but also because it's a totally different situation, since Iraq wasn't a threat to the whole world, before the invation!

 

[ProudAmerican]

What is wrong with you?! How can you call any war successful?! Besides, you can't compare WWII to the war in Iraq, not only because the tecnology is far better now, making it a lot easier to invade a contry, but also because it's a totally different situation, since Iraq wasn't a threat to the whole world, before the invation!

so now a country must be a threat to the entire planet before something is done?

lol. another rule change in the middle of the game.

besides, the UN, Scott Ritter, The democrats, and republicans all dissagreed with you BEFORE the invasion.

hindsite is a wonderful thing. too bad we didnt have a crystal ball to give us all this information.

 

[Volker]

so now a country must be a threat to the entire planet before something is done?

In fact, Iraq was not a threat for one single country.

besides, the UN, Scott Ritter, The democrats, and republicans all dissagreed with you BEFORE the invasion.

A lot of decent people opposed the war against Iraq long before it started. The UN did not disagree with Lena and Scott Ritter did not disagree with Lena. Republicans were lieing because they had an agenda, Democrats were lieing because this is what they usually do.

 

[Volker]

So before someone asks, when I talk about Republicans and Democrats, I reference to their respective leaders, those who smile in the cameras and say weird things when they don't know the microphone is still active

 

[bismitch]

What is wrong with you?! How can you call any war successful?! Besides, you can't compare WWII to the war in Iraq, not only because the tecnology is far better now, making it a lot easier to invade a contry, but also because it's a totally different situation, since Iraq wasn't a threat to the whole world, before the invation!

Of course war can be successful. War is successful is it benefits more than it costs for the victor.

 

[shuamort]

Of course war can be successful. War is successful is it benefits more than it costs for the victor.

So what benefits are outweighing the 2809 american casualties?

 

[MSR]

The conservative Hoover, hoped that the economy would fix itself and basically did nothing. With no change or progress, the liberal canidate, Roosevelt, took over the adminstration. He created jobs, set in motion massive public works projects, and beefed up welfare. While the reform created minor improvements, it was a step in the right direction for the time. I could keep giving you examples, but they prove the same point, liberal power stems from the need for change in policy.

WOW, there are about 15 different topics in your post, all worthy of debate. I will comment on the interesting relationship between conservative (not republican) and liberal (not democrat) policy deployment that you included in your comments because it speaks directly to the Iraq conflict.

Technically the definition of liberal and conservative have no party ties. A liberal policy would be one that would support progressive (drastic) change while a conservative policy would be one that support measured (limited) change. Technically the US getting involved in a war in Iraq was actually a liberal policy because it was in support of drastic change. The conservative position was to take limited action or allowing the existing policies to continue to take their course. Therefore the Dems took a conservative position and the Repubs took the liberal position. As the war started the extreme left never accused Bush of being too conservative on action in Iraq. They were accusing him of be far more liberal than even they were willing to be. Currently as the war rages in Iraq the Dems are now pushing the liberal policy of drastic change (redeployment) and accusing the administration of “staying the course” because he is taking measured tactical changes instead of major strategic changes.

The truth is, Dems and Repubs are constantly moving between conservative and liberal positions. It is true however that mostly Dems are liberal and Repubs are conservative but not always.

 

[ProudAmerican]

In fact, Iraq was not a threat for one single country.

A lot of decent people opposed the war against Iraq long before it started. The UN did not disagree with Lena and Scott Ritter did not disagree with Lena. Republicans were lieing because they had an agenda, Democrats were lieing because this is what they usually do.

or the more logical scenario is that everyone truly believed he was a threat.


and maybe you can give us a direct quote from someone that opposed the war before it started. since so many did, as you claim, a quote shouldnt be that difficult.

I have many quotes proving you wrong however.

from ritter, pelosi, clinton, and many others.

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

looks to me like Ritter dissagreed with both of you.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

I still have not seen any evidence that the "insurgency" you describe in Italy either was happening after WWII, or was a consequence of the US liberation of Italy (as opposed to something that independently sprang up from movements in the late 60s and early 70s) or was directed at US troops in Italy, or that the scope of it was anything comparable to Iraq.

The number of deaths is also not sole criteria of a successful "war." But if you want to do that, I could tick off a number of them -- Panama, Grenada, Bosnia or any number of US interventions would be more successful in terms of number of US casualties and the comparative lack of a resulting insurgency.

As I have said to others you do not have to like my argument. I assure you.. if you do a little research you will find the insurgency issues that plagued Italy for 30 years. For me, in my argument, the data that is the most compelling is not deaths or populations alone... it is also timetables.

As for your argument.. Panama might be a good example. You would have to present the facts that would support the argument that the success in Panama indicates that the Iraq operation is indeed a failure.

As for Genada... hmmm... ok. Can't see the comparison for that one. Bosnia, was not a ground war. But feel free to post some numbers would be interesting.

 

[MSR]

hum hum! just let me take a really deep breath, first of all why are you comparing Iraq with Italy ?! they are two different countries with a bunch of hole another stories. second of all; do you call it succes when a lot of people die,?? I understand your point that it took much shorter time etc to invade Irak then it took for Italy. But I dont think that the word is succes. Nice to see your comparison, but dont play with war ....

I am trying to compare wars.. not debate the value or ethics of war. Apples to Apples. Your point is very true.. no two wars are exactly a like. But I think these two are enough a like that they actually give us insight in to what to expect in this kind of nasty endeavor.

No one likes war... but when there are wars people die, to assume or expect anything different is very very naive.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

What is wrong with you?! How can you call any war successful?! Besides, you can't compare WWII to the war in Iraq, not only because the technology is far better now, making it a lot easier to invade a country, but also because it's a totally different situation, since Iraq wasn't a threat to the whole world, before the invasion!

One can compare them where they are similair... I am not comparing WWII to Iraq... I am comparing the liberation of Italy to Iraq. Technology has little to do with the argument. When you completely remove a government and then have to rebuild it in a new or different vein. The social implications and reactions are not impacted by technology.

But please... if you want to define Iraq as a failure present an example of a more successful military operation with similar goals and of similar size and scope. I have been asking for this from the very first post.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
and maybe you can give us a direct quote from someone that opposed the war before it started. since so many did, as you claim, a quote shouldnt be that difficult.

How's this for pre-war objections?
These pictures were taken on 10-2-02:

LOOK AT THE PHOTOS OF THE CROWDS AT THE ANTI-WAR PROTESTS. COUNT THEIR NUMBERS. SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE MEDIA LIE OF POPULAR SUPPORT FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ LAID BARE BEFORE THE WORLD.

Anti-war protest in Washington D.C.

Anti-war protest in Denver, CO.

Anti-war protest in New York, NY.

And just to be fair...

Pro-war rally in New York, NY

 

[Jack Pott]

I have many quotes proving you wrong however.

from ritter, pelosi, clinton, and many others.

1.

In the late 1990s and before the war, most people (including Democrats) assumed that Iraq has WMD because the weapons inspectors left the country in 1998. But the difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration is that the Bush administration knew the evidence was weak. The CIA told the White House before teh war that there's no hard evidence that Iraq has WMD or ties to al Qaeda, which means the Bush administration misled the Congress and the American people by presenting conjecture as evidence.

2.

In 1998, Democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger predicted that Saddam Hussein, if unchecked, would again use WMD. However, those comments were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq. The comments were also used to justify air strikes. They weren't used to justify an invasion of Iraq.

3.

On October 11, 2002, the Senate passed a resolution 77-23 in favor of giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq if (Note, IF) Saddam Hussein did not give up his weapons of mass destruction.

Bush said before the vote that: "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

4.

John Kerry stated before the vote that:

"As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

 

[Jack Pott]

looks to me like Ritter dissagreed with both of you.

The quote from Ritter was from 1998.

Here's what Ritter said in 2002:


"Since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited..."

"If Iraq were producing chemical weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple."

"As of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter