War on Truth

  • News
  • Thread starter Adam
  • Start date

Do you believe there was any truth in the USA's/Britain's accusations against Iraq?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 9 52.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 8 47.1%

  • Total voters
    17
  • #1
Adam
42
1
In both England and Australia, various political factors are trying to instigate investigations into all that mumbo-jumbo crap the governments spewed to drum up war-fever prior to the USA's invasion of Iraq. The general public (most, at least) knew all along that it was all crap, but the government speakers continued pulling the Party line all along, regardless of the lack of evidence. Now the invasion is completed, and still no evidence, and the idiots in Parliament are finally saying what everyone else already knew: no justification for war.

Now, I know a lot of people were swayed by emotions, and assuemd all sorts of nasty things about Iraq after that 9/11 thing in America, but the fact is Iraq had nothing at all to do with it, and such emotional reactions by so many idiots was just ridiculous.

Brief list of events:
  • USA accuses Iraq of supporting Al Qaeda and such. No evidence supporting the accusations is produced.
  • President Bush made repeated mentions of "9/11" while discussing Iraq. Rather than expressing any actual link, he merely mentioned the two things in proximity, forming a connection in the easily-swayed minds of the masses.
  • USA accuses Iraq of possessing illegal NBC weapons. No evidence supporting the accusations is produced.
  • USA accuses Iraq of trying to build nuclear weapons. No evidence supporting the accusations is produced.
  • Britain accuses Iraq of trying to buy uranium from Niger. The evidence supporting this accusation is proven to be a forgery.
  • USA offers Australia a new trade deal, worth an extra four billion Australian dollars per year, and Australia in return supports the USA plans for war.
  • Without UN support, the USA, Britain, and Australia invade Iraq.
  • Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, is given the contract to look after Iraq's oil fields, without even having to bid for the contract.

So, after three or four thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed, over 160 American soldiers have been killed, an unknown number of Iraqi soldiers have been killed, and the oldest artifacts of civilisation have been stolen in the disorder that comes with warfare, we still have no evidence that any of it had any justification whatsoever. IF those deaths and losses can be justified at all.

Perhaps they will find something soon, conventiently. Remember that barge full of weapons floating down a river in Vietnam, used as a reason for the USA invading there? They showed pictures of the barge, and said "See? The North are sending weapons downriver to supply the rebels! We need war!" And it turned out it was the CIA who had bought the barge, bought the weapons, loaded the weapons on the barge, set the barge floating downriver so they could find it later themselves... So yeah, they might find something in Iraq, which for some reason Iraq never used in battle, even when losing control of their own nation... Riiight...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
In the Orwellian view of the far radical right-wing, they are 'right', therefore anything they do to further their goals is also 'right'. Lying is fine, and something to be proud of, so long as it is successful.

Isn't that the way sociopaths think?
 
  • #3
FZ+
1,599
3
There is probably "some" truth in there, but whatever truth there was was exaggerated out of all proportion.
 
  • #4
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
This thread is ridiculous.
You people are completely out of touch with
the reality of the world. Until someone flies
a plane or blows up a bus with you or your family
in it or releases poisnous gas in the subway
you simply won't get it, will you ?
Today's world has come a long way and in some
countries (aspecialy the "west") it feels as safe
and secure as any place on Earth ever did in history.
But this stable world is not reflective of the
way the vast majority of the population on the
planet know and are familiar with it.
Now go read your dental cord instructions or something...:wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #5
Originally posted by drag
This thread is ridiculous.
You people are completely out of touch with
the reality of the world. Until someone flies
a plane or blows up a bus with you or your family
in it or releases poisnous gas in the subway
you simply won't get it, will you ?
Today's world has come a long way and in some
countries (aspecialy the "west") it feels as safe
and secure as any place on Earth ever did in history.
But this stable world is not reflective of the
way the vast majority of the population on the
planet know and are familiar with it.
Now go read your dental cord instructions or something...:wink:

Live long and prosper.

This is the language of fear, not logic. Again, where is the evidence? And why is so much of the 'evidence' Bush and Co. presented false, misleading, forged, or later proven to be incorrect?
 
  • #6
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Greetings !
Originally posted by Zero
This is the language of fear, not logic. Again, where is the evidence? And why is so much of the 'evidence' Bush and Co. presented false, misleading, forged, or later proven to be incorrect?
Even if that were the case (Are you the head of
a relevant investigation commity and have
the proper security clearence ? :wink:), who cares ?
The basis of today's international laws is in
democratic societies and indeed it is mostly
relevant to such societies. It has poorer applicability
when it comes to other types of societies.
In short, if you stick to the rules when they
weren't even designed for such cases and the
other side doesn't, you're just providing the
other side with an advantage. And since the great
majority of people have no doubt as to the side
that's preferable, what's the big problem ?
In fact, the major opposition to the war came from
(I'm talking about democratic countries) the countries
that had direct material interests involved.
It's no that there aren't material interests on the
other side, but again - who cares ? If the right
thing was done and the price is reasonable then
what's the problem ?

Peace and long life.
 
  • #7
FZ+
1,599
3
Are you the head of a relevant investigation commity and have the proper security clearence ?
This pretty much captures the problem. What is the point of any evidence, if you cannot see it yourself? What if I said I have evidence that Bush is Bin Laden, but for purposes of national security I can't show it to you?

These arguments can often be reduced to "Trust me, I'm the president". A government based on faith instead of an open relationship is not a good thing. And it certainly isn't part of the democratic ideal.

In fact, the major opposition to the war came from (I'm talking about democratic countries) the countries that had direct material interests involved.
Again we try to bring this into it. Did you know who was the biggest company selling arms to Iraq in 2001? Good old Haliburtons. The major support from the war came from countries that benefited most in terms of material from it. Oh... let's go into conspiracy theory mode.

Let me just debunk one of those quotes that have been taken way out of context - the idea that Chirac said he would veto any second resolution. If you look at the full sentence, the second (very important) half of which is snipped in most quotings, what he actually said was:
"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq."
Despite the confusing mention of regardless of circumstances, Chirac never meant that he would never allow the war. Rather that at the moment of the interview, there were no reason for the war to occur for Iraqi disarmament. This is perhaps one example of those "grain of truth exaggerated out of all proportion" cases.

All I know is that Saddam never offered me any cash or oil. And I believe that you are not getting paid in Iraqi oil as we speak. So please bin all those ad hominem arguments.
 
  • #8
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Originally posted by FZ+
Again we try to bring this into it.
I'm not the one trying to do that. On the contrary,
what I'm trying to say is that this should be
irrelevant when you personally decide whether
this was right or wrong for the PEOPLE involved.
And I certainly see that it was.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #9
FZ+
1,599
3
Actually, your stats are wrong. The majority of people in polls taken of the coalition of the willing did not want to go to war, many even with an UN resolution.

The argument is still open on whether the right thing was done and the price was reasonable, but this discussion is mostly on what we knew at the time. You don't do something and THEN justify it.
 
  • #10
kat
39
0
FZ- when you said "biggest company selling arms to Iraq in 2001? Good old Haliburtons" did you mean "biggest company selling" or that it sold the most? and are you sure about arms? or oil pumping equipment? if arms, do you have links, sources? I had not read anything about arms sales during the 2001 period, not contesting, just curious.
 
  • #11
Dissident Dan
237
2
Originally posted by drag
The basis of today's international laws is in
democratic societies and indeed it is mostly
relevant to such societies. It has poorer applicability
when it comes to other types of societies.
In short, if you stick to the rules when they
weren't even designed for such cases and the
other side doesn't, you're just providing the
other side with an advantage. And since the great
majority of people have no doubt as to the side
that's preferable, what's the big problem ?

Are you saying that international laws weren't made to be applicable to the USA's actions?

It's no that there aren't material interests on the
other side, but again - who cares ? If the right
thing was done and the price is reasonable then
what's the problem ?

A problem lies in the fact that we were lied to. If we don't care that the governmetnal officials lie to us, then why even have a representative government at all? Also, I disagree with you in your conclusion that the price was reasonable. It was not worth the strained relations and bad rap that this country has gained.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Even if that were the case (Are you the head of
a relevant investigation commity and have
the proper security clearence ? :wink:), who cares ?
The basis of today's international laws is in
democratic societies and indeed it is mostly
relevant to such societies. It has poorer applicability
when it comes to other types of societies.
In short, if you stick to the rules when they
weren't even designed for such cases and the
other side doesn't, you're just providing the
other side with an advantage. And since the great
majority of people have no doubt as to the side
that's preferable, what's the big problem ?
In fact, the major opposition to the war came from
(I'm talking about democratic countries) the countries
that had direct material interests involved.
It's no that there aren't material interests on the
other side, but again - who cares ? If the right
thing was done and the price is reasonable then
what's the problem ?

Peace and long life.

First Russ, now you, admit that lying and deceit, and illegal activities, are ok, so long as it serves Republican causes...what a breath of 'fresh air'(comparatively).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Greetings !
Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, your stats are wrong. The majority of people in polls taken of the coalition of the willing did not want to go to war, many even with an UN resolution.
?!
No, I think your stats are wrong.
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
It was not worth the strained relations and bad rap
that this country has gained.
You people should listen to yourselves sometimes ?!
Even if that was correct, and I disagree with that
not to mention that the influence of the US has
certainly increased overall, tell the above to the
free people of Iraq.
Originally posted by Zero
First Russ, now you, admit that lying and deceit, and illegal activities, are ok, so long as it serves Republican causes...what a breath of 'fresh air'(comparatively).
I don't care about Republicans or Democrats or whatever,
I care about the right thing for the people (and again - I'm
NOT talking about the US population here).

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
21,954
8,990
Originally posted by Zero
First Russ...
Is that a Freudian slip or do you really think drag and I are the same person? Drag and I don't always post in the same thread for a simple reason:
This thread is ridiculous.
Though I sometimes get sucked in, I try to avoid ridiculous threads. There is nothing of substance in this thread to argue against.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by russ_watters
Is that a Freudian slip or do you really think drag and I are the same person? Drag and I don't always post in the same thread for a simple reason:
Though I sometimes get sucked in, I try to avoid ridiculous threads. There is nothing of substance in this thread to argue against.

I was saying "First Russ said it, and not you(drag) have said it"...

And, of course, now you are saying that truth that contradicts your ideology has no substance.
 
  • #16
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Originally posted by russ_watters
Is that a Freudian slip or do you really think drag and I are the same person? Drag and I don't always post in the same thread for a simple reason:
...
Though I sometimes get sucked in, I try to avoid ridiculous threads. There is nothing of substance in this thread to argue against.
LOL
 
  • #17
russ_watters
Mentor
21,954
8,990
Originally posted by Zero
I was saying "First Russ said it, and not you(drag) have said it"...
Wonderful. I get words put in my mouth now in threads I don't even participate in.

edit: You know what - I'm going to try a different approach here. Zero, I'm just plain not going to try to correct you anymore when you post lies about me. I'll just have to trust the others in this board to interpret my posts correctly.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
FZ+
1,599
3
FZ- when you said "biggest company selling arms to Iraq in 2001? Good old Haliburtons" did you mean "biggest company selling" or that it sold the most? and are you sure about arms? or oil pumping equipment? if arms, do you have links, sources? I had not read anything about arms sales during the 2001 period, not contesting, just curious.
Oops. 1 year out.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm

Hmm... Where did that arms thing come in? Some synapses must have shorted out. Of course the US was a prime exporter of arms prior to the period, and there was limited arms trade (and Britain too. I've see the declassified documents) In fact in the old CIA world fact book the US is listed as the primary export partner of Iraq.

No, I think your stats are wrong.
Really? From the Guardian: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,900725,00.html

(Feb 22 issue)
Britain:
Since last weekend's worldwide demonstrations, the opposition to war seems to have grown. A poll found that 52% were against the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein.
Italy:
Recent newspaper polls showed that more than 80% of Italians were against a war and 70% would object even to an attack authorised by the UN.
Australia:
n the most recent poll, on February 3, three-quarters of Australians declared themselves against a war in Iraq without UN backing. Forty per cent said they would oppose it even with UN approval.
Spain:
At the same time, however, he has also seen at least 2 million protesters take to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona while polls show more than two-thirds of Spaniards oppose war. His conservative People's party has lost its poll lead over the anti-war opposition Socialists.

In reality, war support only really began with the declaration of the war, when the old "support our boys" thing went on.
 
  • #19
Shadow
19
0
These arguments can often be reduced to "Trust me, I'm the president". A government based on faith instead of an open relationship is not a good thing. And it certainly isn't part of the democratic ideal.


We must elect leaders whom we can trust, is that not One of the main points of holding elections? We should not trust a leader blindly but when he says he has evidence and gives ample proof that what he says is true, we should believe him because he was elected to lead our country and if we can not trust the elected leader of our country, how sad has this world become?
 
  • #20
Originally posted by russ_watters
Wonderful. I get words put in my mouth now in threads I don't even participate in.

edit: You know what - I'm going to try a different approach here. Zero, I'm just plain not going to try to correct you anymore when you post lies about me. I'll just have to trust the others in this board to interpret my posts correctly.

Go with the Republican strategy, that you supported numerous times, where lies and truth don't matter, so long as the agenda is served.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by Shadow
We must elect leaders whom we can trust, is that not One of the main points of holding elections? We should not trust a leader blindly but when he says he has evidence and gives ample proof that what he says is true, we should believe him because he was elected to lead our country and if we can not trust the elected leader of our country, how sad has this world become?

The world is a pretty sad place. The attack on freedom began in 1990, when Clinton first gave hint of running for President, and hasn't stopped since. With media complicity, the right wing has subverted truth, liberty, and freedom for their own twisted goals.
 
  • #22
Hi guys/girls.
DRAG:You people are completely out of touch with the reality of the world.
Dear friend, physical aspects fo reality are easily quantified in numbers, and the numbers reported by the govmnt (TONS of vx, biological agents, etc., as well as the completely fraudulent nuclear weapons report) have been demonstrated untrue. You say that that's irrelevant, and the ends justify the means. Now that Iraq is liberated, we're free of the great threat that it imposed. Yet young US soldiers die nearly EVERY DAY there.

The thread asks if there is ANY truth at all to the govmnt's (really Pentagon's) reasons for war. Well there's always a small kurnel of truth to any lie, correct? The problem is that the lying is so ubiquitous that it calls into question every angle and motive for the plan.
-The military KNEW that there was no nuclear weapons program there, else they would've secured the active nuclear sites that they left for looters.
-The administration KNEW that there was no intention to place a democratic government there, else they would've sent police into keep order and would've established a Bill of Rights.

Ciao
 
  • #23
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Greetings !

FZ, I appologize, I was wrong.
Nevertheless, it's just that these people are mostly
stupid because they don't care about other people
and they are so used to their ussual lives that they
don't realize how the world really works.
Too bad they're suh morons. :wink:
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Now that Iraq is liberated, we're free of the great threat
that it imposed. Yet young US soldiers die nearly EVERY
DAY there.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's all that
matters to you, isn't it ?

You don't care about millions of people now able to
live in a free country because of the war. Why ?
Because they're not US citizens ? Where's all that
beautiful moral talk you people like so much ?

You do not even understand that the reason that you
can have such a reduclously advanced lifestyle is
because of extermely competative and violent international
politics including moves like this one without which it
would never exist.

In short, again - you people only care about yourselves
and you do not understand how the world works.
Sad but true.

Peace and long life.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

FZ, I appologize, I was wrong.
Nevertheless, it's just that these people are mostly
stupid because they don't care about other people
and they are so used to their ussual lives that they
don't realize how the world really works.
Too bad they're suh morons. :wink:

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's all that
matters to you, isn't it ?

You don't care about millions of people now able to
live in a free country because of the war. Why ?
Because they're not US citizens ? Where's all that
beautiful moral talk you people like so much ?

You do not even understand that the reason that you
can have such a reduclously advanced lifestyle is
because of extermely competative and violent international
politics including moves like this one without which it
would never exist.

In short, again - you people only care about yourselves
and you do not understand how the world works.
Sad but true.

Peace and long life.
Again, you are using emotion to avoid the fact that the government lied to everyone...the end does not always justify the means...and when they lie this much, can you trust what they tell you about the outcome?
 
  • #25
Shadow
19
0
I think you mixed things up. (a) most people didn't vote for Bush. (b) It's we elected him because we thought he was trustworthy, not he is trustworthy because we elected him. The price of democracy is vigilance. You don't vote to lose your responsibility in a fall guy president. (c) he hasn't given ample proof. In fact, there is ample evidence he is wrong.


It is true that the majority did not vote for him, but the states witht he greatest population did, for they have the greatest amount of electoral votes unless I am just very confused. He did still win the election and the people of the United States are fine with this way of voting and those who are not don't vote. So people have accepted it and Bush is not the only president that this has happened with. Or is it we elected him because he IS trustworthy? As for the ample proof that he is wrong, I have not seen this "ample proof" but it seems your Prime Minister agrees with President Bush. In fact, in a speech he gave thispast week he said British Intelligence has uncovered several things although I can not remember the whole speech so I cannot remember what these things were, only that they had to do with the Iraqi weapons situation.
 
  • #26
FZ+
1,599
3
Or is it we elected him because he IS trustworthy?
Hitler was elected. Being elected does not make you trustworthy. That's not how the world works.

So people have accepted it and Bush is not the only president that this has happened with.
Acceptance does mean apathy.

As for the ample proof that he is wrong, I have not seen this "ample proof" but it seems your Prime Minister agrees with President Bush.
Ample proof? Colin Powell has said about his lack of faith in the evidence. Rumsfeld has said that the WMDs were probably destroyed. MI6 leaks have suggested government pressure to change in the evidence. And governments on both sides of the Atlantic are working hard to avoid any independent and open inquiry. In fact, the only people who still have the same sort of confidence in the existence of the WMDs are Mr Bush and Mr Blair. And Mr Bush is trying to avoid this now, because he knows he doesn't win. Meanwhile, Blair is trapped because he made the WMD issue the primary legal cause for the war, and people are starting to accuse him of deception, which is an act of treason. The agreement of these two are because they are in close to the same situation, and their own facades of confidence is hardly any evidence.

In fact, in a speech he gave thispast week he said British Intelligence has uncovered several things although I can not remember the whole speech so I cannot remember what these things were, only that they had to do with the Iraqi weapons situation.
In his speech, which was fairly hilarious, he said that there were "rogue elements" in the intelligence services which were working to undermine his leadership. He said that people were lying to make him look bad, because they can't stand his excellence leadership. (Ha!) He said that the discovery of the trucks containing fermenters were evidence of WMD production, despite the fact that all experts have rejected that since the trucks had canvas sides that made it impossible for biological weapons to be made in them. He said that documents about Iraq's alleged nuclear arms programme was true, though a month ago the UN weapons inspectorate had found that they were complete forgeries.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Shadow
It is true that the majority did not vote for him, but the states witht he greatest population did, for they have the greatest amount of electoral votes unless I am just very confused. He did still win the election and the people of the United States are fine with this way of voting and those who are not don't vote. So people have accepted it and Bush is not the only president that this has happened with. Or is it we elected him because he IS trustworthy? As for the ample proof that he is wrong, I have not seen this "ample proof" but it seems your Prime Minister agrees with President Bush. In fact, in a speech he gave thispast week he said British Intelligence has uncovered several things although I can not remember the whole speech so I cannot remember what these things were, only that they had to do with the Iraqi weapons situation.
1) Bush didn't win under any standard. He was selected because the Supreme Court knew that, even with all the ways the vote was illegally fixed, Gore STILL won Florida.

2)Ample proof that he is wrong is simply in that WMD in quantities that justify war have NOT BEEN FOUND!
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Shadow
Gore did not win Florida the first 2 times that the votes were counted and he did not win in the long wrong when he demanded they be recounted yet AGAIN. After Bush was appointed and Florida straitened out the votes, it was shown the Bush really DID win and that he had the most votes. Where are you getting your information from?
That would be the associated press, actually. Even though the newspaper articles were headlined that Bush won, if you actually read the articles, it turns out that Gore actually got the most votes. When the recount was stopped, Gore had been gaining on Bush all week...of course they stopped it!

Where do YOU get your news? Fox?
 
  • #29
FZ+
1,599
3
I am saying it is POSSIBLE (so please do not twist my words around) that he was elected because he IS trustworthy, not that being elected MAKES him trustworthy.
No. You said that we should trust him over Iraq without evidence and over real evidence to the contrary because florida was worth more points that it deserved on population. I am saying that this is non-sequitor. Trustworthiness wasn't a big election issue as far as I remember, and maybe he is trustworthy is irrelevant in the discussion. The fact that he is in office is not a reason to trust him blindly, and to say that we should do so is an insult to the principle of democratic representation. George Bush is not supposed to be a dictator. He does not "know best".

And by the way, Hitler was not officially elected, he self appointed himself into several offices along his path to dictatorship.
Source? Do you study history? Hitler was kept undemocratically out of power by article 48 of the weimar consititution through 1930, though he have by far the majority of the votes. After he entered the chancellorship, he carried out a further election that gave him even greater majority in the reichstag. Next, he proposed the enabling act, giving himself the right to make laws without parliamentary support, which only the social democrats opposed. The remaining parties supported the law, and was brought through with the necessary majority for a consitutional change. Another election put his majority at over 90%. With the death of Hindenberg, Hitler consolidated two chairs into one - the fuhrer, as the enabling act allowed. All through this, he was 100% legal under weimar law, and enjoyed the trust of his people. Hitler remained a popular leader until it was clear the war was going wrong, hence there were little public resistance from german people.
 
  • #30
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Originally posted by Zero
Again, you are using emotion to avoid the fact that the government lied to everyone...
Which is not proved so far so you're the one with
the emotional responses.:wink:
Originally posted by Zero
the end does not always justify the means...
Oh, NO ! The government could've LIED to us !
HOW HORRIBLE ! LET'S SHOOT'EM !
It MUST'VE been the FIRST time !
Originally posted by Zero
and when they lie this much, can you trust what they tell you about the outcome?
Do you trust your eyes ? :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #31
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Originally posted by FZ+
Hitler was elected. Being elected does not make you trustworthy. That's not how the world works.
This is not the first time you're using this
inadequate example. Hitler was elected but then
he became a dictator. Also, Hitler was chosen
at a time of great instability in Germany and
the democratic process there was not that evolved
to deal with extreme views at that time.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #32
I love teh shrugging of shoulders towards the Bush administrations constant lies...
 
  • #33
FZ+
1,599
3
Originally posted by drag
This is not the first time you're using this
inadequate example. Hitler was elected but then
he became a dictator. Also, Hitler was chosen
at a time of great instability in Germany and
the democratic process there was not that evolved
to deal with extreme views at that time.

Live long and prosper.

Would you mind looking at the argument. Because you are saying there that being elected makes someone completely trustworthy. You want other trustworthy elected people? Clinton. Yep, let's all trust him when he says he did not have a sexual relationship with that woman, right? Why did we have a full public inquiry over that pretty pointless issue if clearly he was so trustworthy because we voted for him. You want other examples? Nixon, elected overwhelmingly for several terms, until it turned out he lied over the Watergate scandal.

Throughout the history of democracy in any country there has been idiots and liars, people abusing the faith of the people. Please stop looking at irrelevant details and notice the key point. Politicians often betray the trust of the people, and being elected is not a reason for trust. Openness is the only reason for trust. Please stop making a case for the myth of the glorious infalliable leader, because that is a piece of pointless propaganda that is more comfortable in a dictatorship than a supposed democracy.
 
  • #34
russ_watters
Mentor
21,954
8,990
Originally posted by Zero
1) Bush didn't win under any standard. He was selected because the Supreme Court knew that, even with all the ways the vote was illegally fixed, Gore STILL won Florida.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html [Broken] wasn't as widely reported as it should have been because it didn't have the result the media wanted. But it shows that under a number of different criteria - most importantly, the criteria that Gore fought for in court - Bush *DID* win the election. There was ONE recount criteria under which Gore could have won, but it wasn't something Gore tried to have done.

In any case, the thing to take from that election is that punch card ballots aren't capable of the accuracy required in a close election. The systems need to be updated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Originally posted by russ_watters
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html [Broken] wasn't as widely reported as it should have been because it didn't have the result the media wanted. But it shows that under a number of different criteria - most importantly, the criteria that Gore fought for in court - Bush *DID* win the election. There was ONE recount criteria under which Gore could have won, but it wasn't something Gore tried to have done.

In any case, the thing to take from that election is that punch card ballots aren't capable of the accuracy required in a close election. The systems need to be updated.

Too bad that the voting machines are being made by people with deep ties to thr Republican party...one would hope for a neutral 3rd party, to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest...but that doesn't matter, so long as the right-wing wins, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Suggested for: War on Truth

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
243
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
651
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
907
Replies
1
Views
677
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
140
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
519
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
273
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
300
Top