More Bad News for Russia

[Boethius]

Tony Blair has pretty much said WMD didn't exist.  He hasn't said it directly, he can't, but his CNN interview confirms that.  He is now blaming it on faulty intelligence.

[Brasscasing]

Tony Blair has pretty much said WMD didn't exist.  He hasn't said it directly, he can't, but his CNN interview confirms that.  He is now blaming it on faulty intelligence.

Thank you. Watch the vid of the interview and how Zakaria (spelling?) words the question. I think that puts how Blair answers the (loaded) question in context.

Blair states the "programme in the form we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought." Not that WMDs did not exist 'period'.

Brass

[Boethius]

It's a distinction without a difference.  Blair is never going to admit he sent British men to their deaths on flimsy intelligence, notwithstanding the fact several British inquiries have concluded Iraq had no WMD before the invasion.

[Brasscasing]

It's a distinction without a difference.

I don't know about that. Maybe for those who wish to see him prosecuted or are looking to establish that the war was started under false pretenses. However, taking what Blair didn't say and substituting with what some want him to say seems to be the order of the day.

  Blair is never going to admit he sent British men to their deaths on flimsy intelligence, notwithstanding the fact several British inquiries have concluded Iraq had no WMD before the invasion.

Actually, none of the previous inquiries concluded there were no WMDs in Iraq. Only that the intelligence gathering should have been more thorough.

Yet, the British keep commissioning inquiries. Odd if you think about it. Seems there is pressure from some or several quarters to get the answer they want.

 I wonder if they'll commission another inquiry if this latest one doesn't deliver a 'no WMD' finding.

Men and women have been placed in harms way on flimsy intelligence ever since organized combat began, Bo. It is the nature of warfare.

Brass

[fathertime]

Of course you don't. That would be counter to your Putin worship. How can you fluff your hero if you admit he would have backed down stopping all this nonsense then instead of later when it's going to cost the West more all round.

Wrong again, If you can find anywhere I posted/claimed any outcome of military intervention with Russia as fact, link it or this is nothing more than you making stuff up in your head again.

Which doesn't negate my comment you quoted and says nothing. I see we're falling into out and out trolling mode now won't be long until your parroting my comments...


Comically predictable of you... I didn't "misjudge how Russia would react". I was well aware that Putin would/will continue his aggression as long as he remains unchallenged. What I posted was...

...it was the West I misjudged in that we would stand by and do nothing. 

Yeah, I know. You can't elaborate. There's no way you could validate/substantiate those asinine comments you posted. I've got to admit I got a chuckle  when I first read them.

I don't think the Russian Troll Factory is getting their money's worth from you. 

Brass

Not a one of your comments is fully accurate.  You HAVE misjudged every situation thus far, and I'm certain you will continue to do so.  You can blame the 'putin troll' or the 'parrot' but can not admit you don't really know very much, which IS the case. 


Your weakness for anything the western nations do continues to show up.  I reiterate, most of the planet would have been ruined and most would be dead if we followed your ridiculous ideas of what is right. 


Now lets hear a bit more about these 'fluffing fantasies' you try to load onto me.  What else can be rattling around in that little bean you have upstairs?


Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

I have no idea why you posted the news article...


Brass

She probably posted it because she WANTED to post it....did you really think your attempts at intimidation would work forever?  [size=78%] [/size]


Fathertime! 

[Brasscasing]

Not a one of your comments is fully accurate.  You HAVE misjudged every situation thus far, and I'm certain you will continue to do so.  You can blame the 'putin troll' or the 'parrot' but can not admit you don't really know very much, which IS the case. 

Well don't just sit there staring at your computer screen, son. Commence to substantiating this remark (my bolded). Otherwise you're just blathering.

Your weakness for anything the western nations do continues to show up.  I reiterate, most of the planet would have been ruined and most would be dead if we followed your ridiculous ideas of what is right. 

Nope, I base what I think is the right course of action on my experience, judgment and world history as it pertains to aggressor nations and dictators past and present.

You continue to try and deride what I advocate while at the same time applauding your hero Putin's aggression. I'd say you are a hypocrite.

Now lets hear a bit more about these 'fluffing fantasies' you try to load onto me.  What else can be rattling around in that little bean you have upstairs?

Finally looked the word up, eh? All anyone has to do is refer to your posts to determine if the description fits and I definitely think it's appropriate.

Brass

[Gator]

It's a distinction without a difference.  Blair is never going to admit he sent British men to their deaths on flimsy intelligence, notwithstanding the fact several British inquiries have concluded Iraq had no WMD before the invasion.

In your argument saying there was no proof of WMD, you should include  the 2003 Hans Blix UN  investigation.  I found it  convincing.

In 2003 the evidence suggesting Iraq was capable of WMD was stronger than the term "flimsy" you used.    Saddam had  produced and used chemical weapons in the past.    He had the means to produce and deliver WMD.  In addition to chemical weapons, he had programs to develop nuclear and biological weapons.

One must factor that Saddam was a tyrant and an international outlaw, and thought capable of any horrific act. 

Did Saddam have WMD at the start of the Iraq war?  I answer, "not of any significant magnitude." Nevertheless, the NY Times reports for several years after the start of the Iraq War in 2003,   "thousands of chemical minitions" were indeed found in Iraq and destroyed.  He had some weapons but chose not to use them. 

A question, not a fact:    What was the source of chemical weapons used by Syria in its civil war?    Could these have been  Iraqi weapons shipped into Syria prior to the invasion to be hidden in storage and later retrieved?

Finally, we can not turn back the clock and keep pointing fingers.    So what is the answer given the current situation in Iraq, Syria, and the Middle East?

[Brasscasing]

She probably posted it because she WANTED to post it....did you really think your attempts at intimidation would work forever?  [size=78%] [/size]

LOL, you're really grasping at straws now Mr. Russian Troll. It was a legitimate question. I sincerely doubt I could intimidate Bo, even if I wanted to. She's far too intelligent and I have too much respect for her to even try in the first place.

Brass

[fathertime]

Well don't just sit there staring at your computer screen, son. Commence to substantiating this remark (my bolded). Otherwise you're just blathering.

Nope, I base what I think is the right course of action on my experience, judgment and world history as it pertains to aggressor nations and dictators past and present.

You continue to try and deride what I advocate while at the same time applauding your hero Putin's aggression. I'd say you are a hypocrite.

Finally looked the word up, eh? All anyone has to do is refer to your posts to determine if the description fits and I definitely think it's appropriate.

Brass

Your judgement are fatally biased and therefore pretty much worthless.  I think you probably know this, but will stand by your statements regardless.  I get it, but obviously most of the world is not in agreement anymore. 


No I haven't looked up your word or what your fantasies are regarding Putin, nor do I care.  But it is humorous that you have these fantasies, and think they are important enough to bring up.   


Fathertime! 

[fathertime]

LOL, you're really grasping at straws now Mr. Russian Troll. It was a legitimate question. I sincerely doubt I could intimidate Bo, even if I wanted to. She's far too intelligent and I have too much respect for her to even try in the first place.

Brass

Obviously she has shown that you can't intimate her, but it most certainly IS a part of your feeble attempt, not necessarily towards her though, but as a whole.... and I doubt you have much genuine respect for anyone but yourself. 


Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

Finally, we can not turn back the clock and keep pointing fingers.    So what is the answer given the current situation in Iraq, Syria, and the Middle East?

The solution doesn't include us dictating terms to Sovereign nations, just because they aren't aligned with us...and making pronouncements like "Assad must go".  If we aren't going to offer genuine assistance...then we can stay the christ out of there...had we stayed home, the mess wouldn't be near as bad as it is becoming.    Of course by now the dollar may have fallen out of favor if we actually let all the nations choose, which may very well be a reason why we foment chaos, as leadership may feel it is a better alternative than the sovereign states being strong and not aligned with us. [size=78%] [/size]


Fathertime! 

[Brasscasing]

Your judgement are fatally biased and therefore pretty much worthless.  I think you probably know this, but will stand by your statements regardless.  I get it, but obviously most of the world is not in agreement anymore. 

No I haven't looked up your word or what your fantasies are regarding Putin, nor do I care.  But it is humorous that you have these fantasies, and think they are important enough to bring up.   

In other words, just more unfounded fathertime smack talk. 

Brass

[Brasscasing]

Obviously she has shown that you can't intimate her, but it most certainly IS a part of your feeble attempt, not necessarily towards her though, but as a whole.... and I doubt you have much genuine respect for anyone but yourself. 

The respect I hold for Bo also extends to not discussing her in the third person. 

Poor effort, Mr. Russian Troll. Why do I find it not surprising you'd hide behind the legs of a lady member to do your trolling.

Brass

[fathertime]

The respect I hold for Bo also extends to not discussing her in the third person. 

Poor effort, Mr. Russian Troll. Why do I find it not surprising you'd hide behind the legs of a lady member to do your trolling.

Brass

...but I see your 'respect' ends, when you see an opportunity to try to use her as a prop. 


Fathertime!   

[calmissile]

The respect I hold for Bo also extends to not discussing her in the third person. 

Poor effort, Mr. Russian Troll. Why do I find it not surprising you'd hide behind the legs of a lady member to do your trolling.

Brass

My only question is why you continue to  engage this troll that the rest  of us have on 'ignore' ?  Do you enjoy in arguing with stupidity or have much more time than most of us?

[Brasscasing]

...but I see your 'respect' ends, when you see an opportunity to try to use her as a prop. 

On the contrary it is you using a 'prop'. It's called a "Red Herring". Best you stick to making a fool of yourself trying to defend your asinine comments directly instead of mewling from behind the cyber legs of another member.

Brass

[fathertime]

On the contrary it is you using a 'prop'. It's called a "Red Herring". Best you stick to making a fool of yourself trying to defend your asinine comments directly instead of mewling from behind the cyber legs of another member.

Brass

Seem a little concerned for being called out.  [size=78%]  [/size]


Fathertime! 

[Brasscasing]

My only question is why you continue to  engage this troll that the rest  of us have on 'ignore' ?  Do you enjoy in arguing with stupidity or have much more time than most of us?

I just don't like the idea of his infecting then derailing any significant discussions with his particular brand of trolling, Cal.

I get that there's an ignore function. However, it gives the impression this Fathertime character's lies/disinformation/misrepresentations left unchallenged are given credence.

He get's away with his trolling by employing his tactic of the endless nonsensical response which wears down his target any time he's caught out posting false facts or mis/disinformation.

Seems to me someone should stand up to him every now and then and show him for what he is.

Brass

[Brasscasing]

Seem a little concerned for being called out.  [size=78%]  [/size]

You haven't got anywhere near calling me out. This is just you creating another diversion. I'm still waiting for you to withdraw those asinine statements you can't clarify or substantiate.

Brass

[Gator]

I'm still waiting for you to withdraw those asinine statements you can't clarify or substantiate.

He never will based on my experience.  He ignores facts and  throws wild  stuff on the wall hoping something will stick.   And when he comes across some facts, he tends to gloss over if not misanalyse them.  And if you present facts debunking his opinion, he will not admit his error.   

So I suggest you follow Doug's advice.   Is he a troll who enjoys stirring  reactions?  Or perhaps he  has some sort of learning disability and depends upon  us to teach him.   Maybe he is on an unrelated board where he  cuts and paste your material to make him appear smart. 

The bottom line:  debunking his statements is like shooting fish in a barrel.   It becomes tedious.  Save your reasoning energy for challenges that enliven an open mind, i. e., the type of discussion where we learn something. 

[Gator]

It's a distinction without a difference.  Blair is never going to admit he sent British men to their deaths on flimsy intelligence, notwithstanding the fact several British inquiries have concluded Iraq had no WMD before the invasion.

I saw parts of the interview today.

Blair impressed me as someone with strong enough character to admit a mistake.  Everybody makes mistakes, yet to admit mistakes is very rare among politicians. 

Blair expressed  that he is not sorry to see Saddam removed from power. 

In the interview, Blair made a pragmatic point in identifying three alternative models for regime change in countries ruled by tyrants:

1.  Iraq - Troops on the ground.

2.  Libya - No troops on the ground, but strong  support of opposition groups to include air combat missions. 

3.  Syria - Minimal support of opposition groups (essentially not meddling). 

Will enduring stability ever  be reached in any model?  If so, which is quicker?  Or results in fewer civilian deaths and refugees?  Has fewer adverse consequences on nations?     

[Brasscasing]

He never will based on my experience.  He ignores facts and  throws wild  stuff on the wall hoping something will stick.   And when he comes across some facts, he tends to gloss over if not misanalyse them.  And if you present facts debunking his opinion, he will not admit his error.   

So I suggest you follow Doug's advice.   Is he a troll who enjoys stirring  reactions?  Or perhaps he  has some sort of learning disability and depends upon  us to teach him.   Maybe he is on an unrelated board where he  cuts and paste your material to make him appear smart. 

The bottom line:  debunking his statements is like shooting fish in a barrel.   It becomes tedious.  Save your reasoning energy for challenges that enliven an open mind, i. e., the type of discussion where we learn something.

I can try, Gator. I can only manage to hold my cyber nose for so long when he stinks up legitimate topics with his poopy fallacies and misinformation though. 

Brass

[fathertime]

I get that there's an ignore function. However, it gives the impression this Fathertime character's lies/disinformation/misrepresentations left unchallenged are given credence.
 

YES!  I'm sure some of what I've said IS given credence, not because it is disinformation, but because there is some accuracy to it.  That said, I feel exactly the same about the ridiculous crap posted by quite a few posters here, so I will continue to do what I can to set the record a little straighter, according to what I see as accurate! 

    Maybe he is on an unrelated board where he  cuts and paste your material to make him appear smart. 

Haha, that was a good one...no chance though of that though....


 

I can try, Gator. I can only manage to hold my cyber nose for so long when he stinks up legitimate topics with his poopy fallacies and misinformation though. 

Brass

Fear not, you won't be given the chance to 'ignore'.


Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

He never will based on my experience.  He ignores facts and  throws wild  stuff on the wall hoping something will stick.   And when he comes across some facts, he tends to gloss over if not misanalyse them.  And if you present facts debunking his opinion, he will not admit his error.   

You are wrong on each count.  At times, what you consider facts, are NOT facts.  YOU tend to gloss over 'mistakes' (which often aren't mistakes) by our representatives, you tend to misanalyze situations, which is no crime, but does happen....and boy do you throw a fit when somebody brings these things up!   


Fathertime!