Scott75

Exactly. Like the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I can't see Russia retreating from its main objectives in Ukraine. That, in turn, has led me to the following conclusion as to the most likely outcomes of this war: Russia achieves its main objectives in Ukraine, or things escalate to the point of nuclear armageddon. I think most people would prefer the former result.

i'm sorry... what fabricated political ideological belief system are you coming from? The United States' military doctrine of full-spectrum dominance is no fabrication. Quoting from Wikipedia's article on the matter: ** Full-spectrum dominance also known as full-spectrum superiority, is a military entity's achievement of control over all dimensions of the battlespace, effectively possessing an overwhelming diversity of resources in such areas as terrestrial, aerial, maritime, subterranean, extraterrestrial, psychological, and bio- or cyber-technological warfare. [snip] US military doctrine As early as April 2001 the United States Department of Defense defined "full-spectrum superiority" (FSS) as:[1] The cumulative effect of dominance in the air, land, maritime, and space domains and information environment, which includes cyberspace, that permits the conduct of joint operations without effective opposition or prohibitive interference. [snip] Critics of US imperialism have referred to the term as proof of the ambitions of policymakers in the US and their alleged desire for total control. Harold Pinter referred to the term in his 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature acceptance speech Art, Truth and Politics:[4] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance No, I'm pushing for the United States' to recognize the folly of its arrogance in thinking it can tell the world what to do, as well as my hope that the United States' reluctance to acknowledge the failure of this strategy doesn't result in nuclear armageddon. Like the Cuban missile crisis, the Ukraine world has already drawn as perilously close to this. A good example: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/19/scott-ritter-72-hours/

Yes, you are. Your attempts to avoid responding to most of what I actually say are sometimes so transparent, it makes me wonder if even you realize what you're doing. For the audience, this is the full block of text from which User snipped out 6 words: ** As I made clear in post #50, I am not relitigating the case. Since you never responded to that post, I suspect you didn't even read it. Just in case that's what happened, I've decided to quote the relevant portion of that post below: ** Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that: ** verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions. ** Perhaps you can respond to the contents of this post this time around. **

Agreed. The thing is, Mr. Ritter did nothing of the sort. Making bad analogies doesn't make your arguments persuasive. You are the one who keeps trying to defend him by saying he did not intend to do anything... I said nothing of the sort. I -have- said that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor. To date, I have yet to see you present a shred of evidence to the contrary. Which is why your analogy was so terrible.

If you wish to make an argument as to how it is relevant, do so. Just posting a link doesn't do that. I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again: ** Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before. “She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.” A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial. ** Source: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it: https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm

Once again, it's irrelevant. Absolute balderdash. One particular charge that Mr. Ritter was convicted of strongly suggests that evidence -was- found that he acted innapropriate with a minor, particularly the charge of "unlawful contact with a minor". As I've said before, I've seen no such evidence. Have you? This alone strongly suggests that what happened in Mr. Ritter's case was a travesty of justice.

Hence the ability to bankrupt them by outspending. Fine, but the Soviet Union no longer exists. Russia has definitely made some improvements to its structure. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, but it -does- mean that the Russians learned humility after the breakup of the USSR and have been acting in a way that supports a multi polar world at this point. The U.S. has yet to have its fall, and so still thinks it can essentially do what it pleases. By almost every metric the US and its allies are so far beyond Russia and China I'm curious to know what metrics you're using. Care to share? Here's some metrics I think you should be aware of: ** Statistics published by FAS estimated Russia's total nuclear inventory, which includes stockpiled and retired weapons, to be 5,889, while the U.S. has 5,244 warheads. The next-closest nation is China with 410, followed by France (290), the United Kingdom (225), Pakistan (170), India (164), Israel (90) and North Korea (30). [snip] Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia's Security Council, said during a recent appearance at a national expo in Moscow that Russia's nuclear prowess bests all other nations. He touted the national security benefits "for decades to come." "For the first time in the history of the existence of nuclear missile weapons, our country is ahead of its competitors in this domain," Patrushev said, according to the state-owned RT television channel. ** Source: https://www.newsweek.com/russias-nuclear-weapons-stockpile-compared-us-1841936 Economically, BRICS has around half as much clout as NATO at this point, but over 3 times its population: ** Comparative Analysis Feature NATO BRICS Type Military Alliance Economic Cooperation Bloc Established 1949 2006 (as BRIC), expanded in 2010 Members 31 countries 10 countries Total GDP ~$38 trillion ~$17 trillion Population ~900 million ~3 billion Focus Collective defence Economic growth and cooperation Demographics Ageing populations Younger populations ** Source: https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/brics-vs-nato-countries-who-is-more-powerful-check-details-here-1738319004-1 BRICS has only been around for less than 2 decades, however, and its membership continues to grow. It's also important to note that being a member of BRICS doesn't preclude one from being a member of NATO. Furthermore, their focus is economic, not military. Some more information on the differences between BRICS and NATO from the same article: ** Formation: Initially formed as BRIC in 2006, with South Africa joining in 2010 to create BRICS. The group aims to enhance the economic and political influence of emerging economies. Membership: As of 2024, BRICS includes ten countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, and the UAE—representing a significant portion of the world’s population (around 42.58%) and approximately 22% of global GDP. Economic Focus: Unlike NATO's military emphasis, BRICS focuses on economic cooperation among its members to promote trade, investment, and development. The bloc seeks to challenge Western dominance in global financial institutions. Demographic Advantage: BRICS nations have younger populations compared to many NATO countries. This demographic trend may lead to faster economic growth as BRICS harnesses its large labour force. ** One final thing I'd like to mention is the energy crisis in Europe, which is a direct result of its sanctions on Russia: Europe Grapples With Energy Crisis, Three Years After Ukraine Invasion | The New York Times Some have already realized what this means for Russia's war in Ukraine: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-01-31/europe-s-splits-may-help-putin-with-trump-over-war-in-ukraine

Ah, so google finally coughed up that link, good. Like many Wikipedia pages, it has its flaws, but it does have some good information, such as the introduction to his biography: ** Between 1983 and 1990, Jacques Baud was a member of the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service , in charge of the Warsaw Pact forces east of the Iron Curtain and throughout the world 1 , 2 . In 1995, because of his knowledge of Africa and anti -personnel mines , he was assigned to a mission 3 , 4 with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Goma (then in Zaire ), as head of security for Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire 5 , in order to prevent ethnic cleansing . In 1997, he was assigned to found a project to contribute to the fight against anti-personnel mines . He was sent as an expert 6 to the Mine Action Service of the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York. In 2002, he was hired 7 at the Centre for International Security Policy (CPSI) at the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs , a newly created Swiss institution. In 2005, the United Nations asked him 8 to head 9 the first multidisciplinary civil-military intelligence centre ( Joint Mission Analysis Centre (JMAC)) of the United Nations Mission in Sudan ( Khartoum ) 10 . In 2009-2011, he was called to New York as Chief of Policy and Doctrine 11 , 12 , 13 in the Office of Military Affairs of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). There, he worked in particular on civil-military operations, improving operational intelligence, the integration of women in peacekeeping operations and the protection of civilians. In 2011, he was called by the African Union to head the Research Department 14 of the International Peace Support Training Centre (IPSTC) in Nairobi ( Kenya ). At the end of his mandate, he was appointed 15 Head of the fight against the proliferation of small arms and against mines 16 of the Political Affairs and Security Policy Division at NATO 17 , in Brussels. ** As with many Wikipedia pages, it also has some shoddy research, but that's frequently par for the course when it comes to Wikipedia.

If you want to spread BS, the least you can do, is not source some irrelevant nobody. I searched Google for "Jacques Baud," and found literally nothing (except a bunch of YouTube videos, and him promoting his book). That just speaks badly for google. I use duckduckgo, and the first link that came up was his french Wikipedia page, which can be seen here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud Google Chrome can translate it if, like me, french isn't a language you are fluent in. The second link that came up was one of his books: The Russian Art of War: How the West Led Ukraine to Defeat | Amazon The title of the book is remeniscent of something American Professor John Mearsheimer said long before Russia's military operation in Ukraine. Quoting from an article that brings him and others up who warned the west that their path would get Uraine wrecked years before it happened: ** It is not as if no one knew about the dangers. From Henry Kissinger to Zbigniew Brzezinski to George Kennan, experienced American statesmen have warned that even talking about Westernizing Ukraine through NATO might be fatal to peace. As John Mearsheimer cautioned us in September 2015, “the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.” Mearsheimer’s prescient speech has received 21 million views on YouTube, almost half in the last few weeks, with Washington insiders and media poohbahs excoriating him as a Putin apologist, even as a petition campaign was launched to get Mearsheimer fired from the University of Chicago. We would have better off heeding his warning. Compounding the damage, Washington’s loud championing of the Ukrainian cause has recently been accompanied by contrary signs of weakness and appeasement, from the humiliating botch of the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan last summer to President Biden’s hint that a “minor incursion” into Ukraine might not occasion a decisive response. Like Chamberlain veering between irrational extremes in 1938-1939, the West’s Ukraine policy has blatantly provoked Russian anxieties and offered Ukrainians the false promise of an American security umbrella, while doing nowhere near enough to actually deter Russia. Ukraine may not suffer as badly as Poland did from 1939 to 1945, but much of the country has already gotten wrecked. ** Source: https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-primrose-path-to-catastrophe/

Yeah, and we soundly rejected your absurd arguments trying to defend this guy. No, you debated some points for a bit and then you abandoned the thread back in November. I see you're giving it a go once more. For the audience, this is the thread in question:

If by the West, you mean the western elites, I'd agree. The issue you might want to ask yourself is, does this current war benefit your average western citizen? I'd say that the answer there is a resounding no. It sucks money out of things that they actually need, such as infrastructure and a good education. Most -NATO- members of Europe may want that buffer zone. It doesn't even apply to all NATO members. An article on this: https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/russia-gas-pipeline-hungary-slovakia-czech-republic-t6nnxtfrz I strongly disagree. I believe they won the Cold War because the Soviet system wasn't as good as the American one. I believe that once the USSR dissolved, resulting in several states and Russia, Russia's system became better in many ways. I think their best improvement is their wish for a truly multi polar world, one not dominated by a single country. The U.S., unfortunately, still pines for full-spectrum dominance. The world is begin to strongly allign with the multi polar model. Hopefully the U.S. will allign itself with this new reality. Let's not leave Russia out of things. And yes, you're right. A lot of the world is tired of the United States' "full-spectrum dominance" arrogance and is in favour of a more multi polar world, as exemplified by the growing support of BRICS. The way I see it, the U.S. really only has 2 choices- it can accept this new reality and join this new system or it can go kicking and screaming as its full spectrum dominance fantasy diminishes. The only real danger is that as it has its tantrums that it takes a good chunk of humanity with it, vis a vis nuclear weapons. Guess we'll see what happens.

Look, you can continue to snipe at someone who I didn't even bring up in the opening post, or you can discuss Mr. Ritter in the thread I made for the subject. The choice is yours, but I for one would greatly appreciate it if you would please stop polluting this thread with your vitriolic statements of the man. Again, the thread to discuss Mr. Ritter is here:

Yes, when you have a country like Russia waging war against you, targeting your infrastructure, fighting the war like it is WWII and just firing as much artillery as they can get their hands on and warp their barrels with... it tends to wreck a country. So why do you support Russia doing this? I support Russia's defense of the people of the Donbass, which I believe was the main reason Russia started its military operation when it did to begin with. Putin himself mentioned the people of the Donbass in the speech he gave on the day he started the military operation in Ukraine. Quoting from it: ** This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain. As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics. [snip] Let me remind you that in 2000–2005 we used our military to push back against terrorists in the Caucasus and stood up for the integrity of our state. We preserved Russia. In 2014, we supported the people of Crimea and Sevastopol. In 2015, we used our Armed Forces to create a reliable shield that prevented terrorists from Syria from penetrating Russia. This was a matter of defending ourselves. We had no other choice. The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help. In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation. The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation. ** Full transcript: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/statements/67843 What I'd like to know is what you know of the Ukrainian civil war prior to Russia's military operation in Ukraine. I highly suspect you haven't seen the following documentary from a german team of journalists: Why not give it a try? Or, if you'd prefer to only read articles on the subject, I recommend the following one from Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett: https://www.mintpressnews.com/under-fire-from-ukraine-everyday-life-in-the-donetsk-peoples-republic/262363/

Irrelevant. No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

That is irrelevant to the crime he committed. I believe there's a very compelling case that he didn't commit a crime at all. As I've already pointed out, people are wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit all the time. Here's a website that can help educate you on this phenomenom: https://eji.org/issues/wrongful-convictions/ Had he had another judge and another jury, he might have won his case, as another defendant I've mentioned previously did. An article on said case can be seen here: https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy Agreed. The thing is, Mr. Ritter did nothing of the sort. Making bad analogies doesn't make your arguments persuasive.

As I said... feel free to relitigate this to your heart's desire... As I made clear in post #50, I am not relitigating the case. Since you never responded to that post, I suspect you didn't even read it. Just in case that's what happened, I've decided to quote the relevant portion of that post below: ** Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that: ** verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions. ** Perhaps you can respond to the contents of this post this time around. Surely you have at least heard of the term miscarriage of justice? If not,I found a Wikipedia article that you may find to be helpful in understanding the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice No, I've simply been pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever did anything sexually inappropriate with a minor.

Agreed. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Mr. Ritter even met a minor at a bar? I have plenty of evidence of how you don't understand an analogy. Your analogy is terribly misleading. I suspect this was your intent, at least unconsciously. I have seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter was ever shown any compelling evidence that any of the undercover officers he chatted with online were actually minors. If you have any such evidence, by all means, present it. In 3rd sting operation, there's even strong evidence that the undercover officer was -not- a minor, as their profile said that they were 24 years of age.

Yet again... we don't use real minors to try to trap and lure these perverts. As I've mentioned before, I heard a case where American law enforcement did in fact use a real minor to try to arrest one or more classmates who I believe had assaulted her before. I still haven't been able to find the article, though I did find one for the United Kingdom: https://metro.co.uk/2024/07/09/sexually-abused-a-child-police-used-bait-21185547/ I also found the following case of an American prosecutor using his own daughter as bait: https://www.nydailynews.com/2019/11/20/california-prosecutor-who-allegedly-used-13-year-old-daughter-as-bait-for-accused-child-molester-has-been-put-on-leave/ And then there are all the police officers themselves that sexually exploited kids: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/police-officers-child-sexual-abuse-in-america/ But all of this is besides the point. I'm not saying that law enforcement use minors as bait, and I'm certainly not suggesting they should. I -am- saying I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever did anything innapropriate with a minor. As to the 3 stings that Mr. Ritter was involved in, I don't know enough about the first 2, but in the third one, the one where Mr. Ritter was charged and convicted, law enforcement did a classic "switch-a-roo". It's a tactic that has at least one case where a defendant won against the prosecution in a case that was very similar to Mr. Ritter's case. Quoting below: ** Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before. “She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.” A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial. ** Full article: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/defendant-wins-in-federal-internet-sting-prosecution/

We have already gone in circles with this bad argument of yours... The statement of mine that you quoted above isn't an argument, it's a statement of fact. I now see that I should have said that I've seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever contacted a minor online. Have you seen any evidence of this nature? Oh, I know how stings generally work, although I've read that cops aren't always above board like this. I heard of one case where an actual female minor was not only been put at risk, but was actually been raped during a sting. I can't find the story right now, but if true, I'm sure we can agree that this is a terrible thing for law enforcement to do. So yeah, I'm not arguing to use actual minors. I -am- pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever had a sexual interaction with a minor as an adult. If you have found evidence of this nature, by all means, present it.

Yet again... another bogus argument you have already made here... the issue is not if he went looking for one or not, but that he certainly did not care when he found one and continued anyway. Some people I've argued with have said that Mr. Ritter was in fact looking for minors, despite bringing absolutely no evidence to the table. If you're not doing this, then that's at least one point in your favour. As to your second point, there's no evidence that he didn't care that he "found" one. For starters, I've seen absolutely no evidence that he ever found one. But more importantly, he testified that he never believed he found one either. In his testimony, he made it clear that he never believed that any of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors. He was right, too. While I don't know about the first 2 stings, the fact that the last undercover officer even stated in their profile that they were 24 probably helped him reach this conclusion.

Too many negatives in that sentence, but I think I get your drift. Let's just say that I hardly think he's the only one who has skipped really verifying someone is the age they sometimes say they are online. I'm thinking of all those "Are you 18?" clicks minors have made to get into whatever they'd like to see. Again, we already had this argument. Just because you have to be 21 to get into a bar and drink doesn't mean you get to ignore that a girl looks like she is 14 and is telling you she is 14 and you still take her home and have sex with her. Agreed. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Mr. Ritter even met a minor at a bar?

It doesn't matter what he believes, the facts show otherwise. No, the facts actually validate his professed beliefs. None of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors. Again, we already went round and round on this stupid argument of yours. We've gone round and round here because you refuse to acknowledge what's patently obvious to anyone who's looked at the case in detail. No evidence was presented in Mr. Ritter's trial that any minors were even involved.

Again, you have already made this argument and it has already been refuted. Again, making unsubstantiated assertions is easy. Providing evidence for assertions is the hard part. Not unsubstantiated. He was found guilty on the evidence presented in a court of law. Yes, but that doesn't mean the jurors made the right decisions, or the judge for that matter. Let's take a look at what some of the charges were, courtesy of Wikipedia: ** Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".[2] Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in county court in Rochester, New York on April 14, 2011.[7][53] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter The thing is, there's absolutely no evidence that he ever contacted a minor online. As to "criminal user of a communications facility" and "criminal solicitation", those just relate to whatever the law considers to be a crime- in this case, being a victim of entrapment apparently qualifies. The judge, for her part, decided that Scott Ritter should be classified as a sex offender for the rest of the life. Matt Bai, writing for the New York Times had this to say about that: ** After hearing testimony from dueling psychologists, Judge Sibum decided that Ritter met the state standard for being classified as a violent predator — despite having never displayed a sexually violent tendency. This meant that he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. ** I have a subscription to the New York Times and so have the option to share some articles. I've decided to share this one so you can read his words for youself if you like: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html?unlocked_article_code=1.tU4.DdrL.hITMQffgSUYE&smid=url-share What I'd like to know is, why would this judge make such an illogical decision? Perhaps we'll never know. What we -do- know is that Mr. Ritter has some powerful enemies.

Again, you have already made this argument and it has already been refuted. Again, making unsubstantiated assertions is easy. Providing evidence for assertions is the hard part. No, the facts actually validate his professed beliefs. None of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors. Too many negatives in that sentence, but I think I get your drift. Let's just say that I hardly think he's the only one who has skipped really verifying someone is the age they sometimes say they are online. I'm thinking of all those "Are you 18?" clicks minors have made to get into whatever they'd like to see. Mr. Ritter went to an -adult- chat room, not a teen chat room, or even an all ages chat room. That alone suggests that he wasn't looking to meet any minors. I've also never seen any evidence that Mr. Ritter wanted to role play with an adult pretending to be a minor. In the one detailed case, that is, the one from 2009, the undercover officer even said they were 24 in their online profile. It was only -after- Mr. Ritter started chatting with them that they said they were a minor. So what we have here is Mr. Ritter not looking for any adult woman roleplaying as a minor but rather finding himself in a situation where he apparently thought this was happening and decided to go along with it.

You have already made this argument and it has already been refuted. Anyone can make an assertion, the important thing is whether you can back it up. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Mr. Ritter was embarassing political officials long before his arrest, and not just the Bush Administration. Mr. Ritter himself pointed to an example of a staffer for then Senator Joe Biden not liking his revelations- they were embarassing the Clinton Administration, you see. Quoting from Mr. Ritter's article where he mentions this: ** Article Distributed to Congress I used these documents to write an article that was published in the June 2000 issue of Arms Control Today which was subsequently distributed to all members of Congress. As I previously wrote in an article published in TruthDig, then-Senator Joe Biden dispatched a senior member of the minority staff of the Foreign Relations Committee to meet with me. “This meeting,” I wrote, “was a singular disappointment. The staffer began by calling me a traitor for speaking out about Iraq and took umbrage when I backed up my claims with documents. ‘You are not supposed to have these materials,’ he said. ‘They are classified, and you are a traitor for publicizing the information they contain.’ “After reminding the staffer that he was walking a very dangerous line in calling a former officer of Marines a traitor, I pointed out that the information I cited was from my time as an inspector and was not classified in any way. No U.S. intelligence sources or methods were compromised by my efforts. While U.S. policymakers may have been embarrassed by my revelations, this was only because truth did not comport with the policies they were pursuing. I reminded the staffer of Biden’s stated desire to call on my ‘knowledge and expertise in the future,’ [note: this desire was expressed in a personal letter written by Biden to me in September 1998, following his much-publicized clash with me during my testimony before the U.S. Senate] noting that this meeting was supposed to be conducted in keeping with that intent in mind. “Senator Biden will not be meeting with you,” the staffer declared. “You’re too controversial.” I slid the Arms Control Today article across the table. “How are facts controversial?” I asked. “Point to one thing in this article that you believe to be false or misleading.” The staffer agreed that the article was fact-based, even if he disagreed with its conclusion. “But this isn’t about facts. This is about politics, and Senator Biden will not go against the policies of the Clinton administration, even if those policies are failing.” I couldn’t think of a more damning indictment of a public official. ** Source: https://scheerpost.com/2024/08/17/scott-ritter-a-farewell-to-truth/ The article also has a lot of examples where he embarassed the Bush Jr. Administration as well. I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter was ever soliciting sex. Secondly, as I mentioned before, in the 2009 incident, "Emily" stated that she was 24 in her online profile. Mr. Ritter may have thought that this was her true age and that she was just role playing when "she" said that "she" was 15. As mentioned previously, he testified that he never believed that "Emily" was actually 15 and he was right. He certainly broke no laws in going to an online adult chat room.