Welcome to the Party, Glad You Could Join Us!

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia is prepared to make pre-emptive strikes on "terrorist bases" anywhere in the world, the Interfax news agency cited the country's chief of staff as saying.

"With regard to preventive strikes on terrorist bases, we will take any action to eliminate terrorist bases in any region of the world. But this does not mean we will carry out nuclear strikes," General Yuri Baluyevsky said Wednesday.

Baluyevsky added that Russia's choice of action "will be determined by the concrete situation where ever it may be in the world.

"Military action is the last resort in the fight agaisnt terrorism.
Linky

Better late than never. Now how many French will have to be killed before they get it?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia is prepared to make pre-emptive strikes on "terrorist bases" anywhere in the world, the Interfax news agency cited the country's chief of staff as saying.

"With regard to preventive strikes on terrorist bases, we will take any action to eliminate terrorist bases in any region of the world. But this does not mean we will carry out nuclear strikes," General Yuri Baluyevsky said Wednesday.

Baluyevsky added that Russia's choice of action "will be determined by the concrete situation where ever it may be in the world.

"Military action is the last resort in the fight agaisnt terrorism.
Linky

Better late than never. Now how many French will have to be killed before they get it?[/quote]

Why would the terrorists kill the people arming them?

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/28139.htm
 
Yeah, Russia should arbitrarily invade a middle eastern country.
Why should we be the only ones to celebrate 1000 soldiers dead and 10,000+ civilian casualties?
Get in line, Ruskies!
 
First, that article doesn't say where they are going to focus first.
Second, they are, I assume, reacting to the brutal, insane, and terrifying destruction of hundreds of schoolchildren recently. That is 'arbitrary'? It's somehow worse to finally say, 'Okay, we've had it', than to torture and kill 2 year olds?
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Yeah, Russia should arbitrarily invade a middle eastern country.
Why should we be the only ones to celebrate 1000 soldiers dead and 10,000+ civilian casualties?
Get in line, Ruskies![/quote]

Yes arbitrarily after 17 UN resolutions (Odd, but for French financial interests they would have voted for an 18th just like the prior 17 they DID vote for);
12 years of sanctions;
How many years of firing at our planes in the no-fly zone?

Very arbitrary.

Almost as arbitrary as picking domestic targets to be attacked by terrorists.

CTL
 
If one nation flies spy planes over another nations territory than the defending nation has every right to shoot that plane down and kill the pilots.

Think, people.
 
Even now that we all up in Iraq, there is still no proof of a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq and still no WMDs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7336-2004Jul22?language=printer
'Operational Relationship' With Al Qaeda Discounted
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 23, 2004

'Operational Relationship' With Al Qaeda Discounted

One week after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, White House counterterrorism director Paul Kurtz wrote in a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that no "compelling case" existed for Iraq's involvement in the attacks and that links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government were weak.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='CheapyD']Yeah, Russia should arbitrarily invade a middle eastern country.
Why should we be the only ones to celebrate 1000 soldiers dead and 10,000+ civilian casualties?
Get in line, Ruskies![/quote]

Yes arbitrarily after 17 UN resolutions (Odd, but for French financial interests they would have voted for an 18th just like the prior 17 they DID vote for);
12 years of sanctions;
How many years of firing at our planes in the no-fly zone?

Very arbitrary.

Almost as arbitrary as picking domestic targets to be attacked by terrorists.

CTL[/quote]

WORD
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']If one nation flies spy planes over another nations territory than the defending nation has every right to shoot that plane down and kill the pilots.

Think, people.[/quote]

Ah no, rather than your knee jerk response to defend the Hussein Regime, because in the process you can knock the US, you need to remember that a no-fly zone was established by UN SEC RES over Sourthern Iraq to be patrolled by the US and Britian.

Under international law Iraq had no legal right to fire at those planes.

[quote name='CheapyD']Even now that we all up in Iraq, there is still no proof of a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq and still no WMDs.[/quote]

The Left needs to understand there are/were to issues surrounding Iraq. (1) Should we invade and (2) What to do after we invade.

The Left needs to understand that despite the political hay they may seek to make by continuing to debate should we have invaded, that discussion is closed. Unless of course they continue the discussion to risk American lives and to seek political gain. The only legitimate discussion at this point is what to do with Iraq.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']
The Left needs to understand there are/were to issues surrounding Iraq. (1) Should we invade and (2) What to do after we invade.

The Left needs to understand that despite the political hay they may seek to make by continuing to debate should we have invaded, that discussion is closed. Unless of course they continue the discussion to risk American lives and to seek political gain. The only legitimate discussion at this point is what to do with Iraq.
CTL[/quote]
Good point

(2) What to do after we invade
Fire the guy who got us into this mess.
 
[quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='CTLesq']
The Left needs to understand there are/were to issues surrounding Iraq. (1) Should we invade and (2) What to do after we invade.

The Left needs to understand that despite the political hay they may seek to make by continuing to debate should we have invaded, that discussion is closed. Unless of course they continue the discussion to risk American lives and to seek political gain. The only legitimate discussion at this point is what to do with Iraq.
CTL[/quote]
Good point

(2) What to do after we invade
Fire the guy who got us into this mess.[/quote]

Fair enough. That made me chuckle.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']The Left needs to understand that despite the political hay they may seek to make by continuing to debate should we have invaded, that discussion is closed. Unless of course they continue the discussion to risk American lives and to seek political gain. The only legitimate discussion at this point is what to do with Iraq.

CTL[/quote]

After he loses in November (again), we draft Bush & Co. into the Peace Corps, pack them off to Iraq and let them clean up their own mess. They're not going to learn any other way.
 
Have the Russians specified attacking Iraq? If they have not, then most of these posts are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
If they have, and they can link the schoolchild murderers to Iraq, more power to them.
If they have, and they cannot link it, well then, the left should be glad that another large nation in the world is going to helping us in Iraq, since we're apparently all alone over there and we should try to get as much help as possible, even to the point of asking nations who financially benefit from the dictator-at-large.
And yes, we went to Iraq. There's no changing that now. It's pointless to continue saying Should we have or Shouldn't we have. Now the issue is what do we we do now, and inthe immediate and far future, to mnimize casualties, maximize liberty, and minimize the chance of another psychotic dictator taking over and continuing the torture of innocents.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']The Left needs to understand that despite the political hay they may seek to make by continuing to debate should we have invaded, that discussion is closed. Unless of course they continue the discussion to risk American lives and to seek political gain. The only legitimate discussion at this point is what to do with Iraq.

CTL[/quote]

After he loses in November (again), .[/quote]

sigh....

[quote name='MrBadExample']we draft Bush & Co. into the Peace Corps, pack them off to Iraq and let them clean up their own mess. They're not going to learn any other way.[/quote]

I thought a draft was bad? Or is it bad unless, like Charlie Rangel thinks, its the rich white man who gets drafted?
 
Even now that we all up in Iraq, there is still no proof of a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq and still no WMDs.

Um, so what?

We still had every right to enforce the sanctions put in place by the UN... All 17 of them.

Not to mention the cease-fire they broke after trying to shoot down our planes every freaking day.

Stop ignoring the REAL reasons we were completely justified in attacking Iraq.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Stop ignoring the REAL reasons we were completely justified in attacking Iraq.[/quote]

Nobodies ignoring anything. We're just shooting down the reasons Bush has offered up for invading Iraq. I think your beef is with him.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']We still had every right to enforce the sanctions put in place by the UN... All 17 of them. [/quote]
We did not have to invade their country to enforce the sanctions.
In fact, they were working. Perhaps you missed this from above

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']The Left needs to understand that despite the political hay they may seek to make by continuing to debate should we have invaded, that discussion is closed. Unless of course they continue the discussion to risk American lives and to seek political gain. The only legitimate discussion at this point is what to do with Iraq.

CTL[/quote]

After he loses in November (again), we draft Bush & Co. into the Peace Corps, pack them off to Iraq and let them clean up their own mess. They're not going to learn any other way.[/quote]

You really lack any factual basis for your claim:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/2071226.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june01/recount_4-4.html
 
From the article in the first link:

There is some ammunition in the review for Gore supporters -- though it requires calling into question the manual recounts in Broward and Palm Beach counties.

The review found that canvassing boards in those counties discarded hundreds of ballots that bore marks no different from those on scores of ballots that were accepted as valid presidential votes.

Had those ballots instead been counted as valid votes, allowing dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads, Gore would be in the White House today.

EDIT: Both articles mention this.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']We still had every right to enforce the sanctions put in place by the UN... All 17 of them.[/quote]

Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't automatically mean you should. Common sense should play a part in starting a war.

The weapons inspectors were in Iraq, doing their job, when Bush chose to pull them out and invade. They hadn't found anything because, as we now know, there wasn't anything to find. Bush was worried that our war fever would cool if the public found this out, so he yanked the inspectors and attacked. Attacked without a plan to win the peace, because all he cared about was fighting the war.

Look at the mess we're in....and the blood on Bush's hands....and the rising tide of violence in Iraq....and the fact that this has done nothing to quell terrorism....and then tell me America did the right thing in Iraq.
 
Or heck, even forgetting the UN, since they technically have the power to enforce their own resolutions. This is enough for me:
e579vnph.jpg

An Iraqi citizen examines one of the bodies found in a mass grave, one of many resulting from Saddam Hussein´s brutal regime.
_39108909_graves_wide_body203.jpg

Kurdish officials say the dead are victims of Saddam Hussein
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2956129.stm
 
[quote name='CTLesq']You really lack any factual basis for your claim:
[/quote]

Sometimes pissing of Republicans is its own reward.

And he did lose the popular vote (how's that for some GOP-style hair-splitting?)

Edit: damn apostrophe
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Or heck, even forgetting the UN, since they technically have the power to enforce their own resolutions. This is enough for me:
e579vnph.jpg

An Iraqi citizen examines one of the bodies found in a mass grave, one of many resulting from Saddam Hussein´s brutal regime.
_39108909_graves_wide_body203.jpg

Kurdish officials say the dead are victims of Saddam Hussein
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2956129.stm[/quote]

And we added over 10,000 to that number.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']You really lack any factual basis for your claim:
[/quote]

Sometimes pissing of Republicans is its own reward.

And he did lose the popular vote (how's that for some GOP-style hair-splitting?)

Edit: damn apostrophe[/quote]

Two words for you:

Electoral College.

And if you think an internet message board pisses me off you couldn't be more wrong. This just amuses me.
 
"There is some ammunition in the review for Gore supporters -- though it requires calling into question the manual recounts in Broward and Palm Beach counties.

The review found that canvassing boards in those counties discarded hundreds of ballots that bore marks no different from those on scores of ballots that were accepted as valid presidential votes. "

Two counties? Out of how many in the country? If we were to be 'fair' about it, let's recount EVERY ballot in EVERY county. Don't forget the military absentee ballots. Oh yes, and the dead in Chicago only get one vote.
They were reaching too hard to read some votes on many of those. It's not that hard to punch out a damn piece of paper; if you didn't notice if it were punched out or not, you must not have cared that much. And every polling place I've ever been to has said 'If you need help please ask'. Don't wait till you stuck your thing in the box and left the building.

Did America do the right thing in Iraq? Yes.
is everything going perfectly? of course not.
is there room for improvement? Yes. Just like in everything.
We've lost just over 1000 soldiers. Soldiers who volunteered to join the military. I admire and respect all of our soldiers, living, dead, wartime or peacetime, and mourn all their deaths. Just like I do that of a policeman or a firefighter.
One of those graves I showed above had 2 thousand bodies in it. Saddam killed an estimated 100,000 Kurds, who were doing nothing but being Kurds. Why is it okay for Saddam to do that, but not okay for, say, Hitler to do it for the Jews and Gypsies? If we attacked Hitler in 1939, would you be saying the same things?
 
[quote name='CheapyD']From the article in the first link:

There is some ammunition in the review for Gore supporters -- though it requires calling into question the manual recounts in Broward and Palm Beach counties.

The review found that canvassing boards in those counties discarded hundreds of ballots that bore marks no different from those on scores of ballots that were accepted as valid presidential votes.

Had those ballots instead been counted as valid votes, allowing dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads, Gore would be in the White House today.

EDIT: Both articles mention this.[/quote]

You mean of the most obscure of methods was used?

Sure. Why not. The fact that under virutually every other method Bush still wins means what?

And if we do discount the hand counting where does that get us?

I wonder.

CTL
 
Had those ballots instead been counted as valid votes, allowing dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads, Gore would be in the White House today.

Those kinds of ballots had never been allowed before so why should they have been allowed then?

Gore being a sore loser doesn't justify changing the rules that have been in place for years.

And this kind of liberal spin is repugnant.
 
Funny how this devolved into a Bush/Iraq debate as opposed to welcoming the Russians to the party.

I honestly can't wait to see what they do over this and how ballistic the European socialists and American left goes. The Russians will have much less regard for collateral damage and their public will accept widespread carnage on their behalf if it's inflicted on their enemies.

You have to understand the Russian mentality. They still have not forgotten that they lost 25 million people to Nazi fascism. They clearly recognize fascism when it shows its face, this time in the guise of Muslim "freedom fighters". The Russian bear may be slow to wake and clumsy when it awakens but when its fighting mad there aren't many nations in arms that could confront it and make it back down.

Religious fanatics will not bring Russia down. Afghanistan is not an example of a Russian defeat either, it was a Soviet withdraw. Groups, nations and armies have tried to bring Russia to her knees for centuries and none have succeeded. Napoleon and Hitler both learned the folly of attacking Russia on their home soil.

I think we should just give them Iran. They've always wanted a warm water port.
 
In response to CheapyD's dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads statements.

If you can't take a metal poker and make a complete punch hole in a ballot you're too dumb for your vote to count. I've voted with punch cards for the last 5 years it's not hard to do. Oh, same with the "confusing butterfly ballot". If you can't follow an arrow to a hole? You're too dumb for your vote to count.

Thank you for playing.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']You mean of the most obscure of methods was used?
[/quote]

Yep, that obscure method of COUNTING THE VOTES![/quote]

Yes counting the votes using the most obscure standard possible.

CTL
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']In response to CheapyD's dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads statements.

If you can't take a metal poker and make a complete punch hole in a ballot you're too dumb for your vote to count. I've voted with punch cards for the last 5 years it's not hard to do. Oh, same with the "confusing butterfly ballot". If you can't follow an arrow to a hole? You're too dumb for your vote to count.

Thank you for playing.[/quote]
You didn't read it the first time, so I will post it again. This is from the articles that CTLesq posted:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/2071226.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june01/recount_4-4.html

The review found that canvassing boards in those counties discarded hundreds of ballots that bore marks no different from those on scores of ballots that were accepted as valid presidential votes.

Had those ballots instead been counted as valid votes, allowing dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads, Gore would be in the White House today.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how this relates to anything but selective interpretation/counting of the ballots.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Please explain to me how this relates to anything but selective interpretation/counting of the ballots.[/quote]

And that was the entire problem with the manual count under ALL of the standards for disputed ballots. A group of people sought to determine the voter's intent.

Which in and of itself is selective.

The whole thing sucked. The networks shouldn't be able to call how a state is going to go with .001% of 1% of the counties.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='CheapyD']Please explain to me how this relates to anything but selective interpretation/counting of the ballots.[/quote]

And that was the entire problem with the manual count under ALL of the standards for disputed ballots. A group of people sought to determine the voter's intent.

Which in and of itself is selective.

The whole thing sucked. The networks shouldn't be able to call how a state is going to go with .001% of 1% of the counties.

CTL[/quote]

Agreed. Fox especially sucks as they were the first network to give Florida (and the election) to Bush. Of course we know that John Ellis, the head of the Fox News' "decision desk", is Bush's first cousin. He also admits to being on the phone with George and Jeb several times that evening.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/14/politics/main249357.shtml
 
[quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='CheapyD']Please explain to me how this relates to anything but selective interpretation/counting of the ballots.[/quote]

And that was the entire problem with the manual count under ALL of the standards for disputed ballots. A group of people sought to determine the voter's intent.

Which in and of itself is selective.

The whole thing sucked. The networks shouldn't be able to call how a state is going to go with .001% of 1% of the counties.

CTL[/quote]

Agreed. Fox especially sucks as they were the first network to give Florida (and the election) to Bush. Of course we know that John Ellis, the head of the Fox News' "decision desk", is Bush's first cousin. He also admits to being on the phone with George and Jeb several times that evening.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/14/politics/main249357.shtml[/quote]

Fox, CBS, ABC - whoever. Someone put a bullet in fat Tim Russert.

And worse imagine of you are in CA, HI, or Alaska and the race is basically won or lost based on projected electoral votes...why bother to vote.

No projections untils all polls close including the far western states.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='CheapyD']Please explain to me how this relates to anything but selective interpretation/counting of the ballots.[/quote]

And that was the entire problem with the manual count under ALL of the standards for disputed ballots. A group of people sought to determine the voter's intent.

Which in and of itself is selective.

The whole thing sucked. The networks shouldn't be able to call how a state is going to go with .001% of 1% of the counties.

CTL[/quote]

Determining the voter's intent is required by Florida law. Overvotes according to Florida law are supposed to be counted. If someone voted for Bush, and wrote in Cheney on the write in candidate line, that vote was supposed to be counted for Bush. The media consordium that looked at the uncounted votes according to nine different standards. On eight of the standards, Gore won. The funny thing is, the one standard that Gore lost on was the one he wanted.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='CheapyD']Please explain to me how this relates to anything but selective interpretation/counting of the ballots.[/quote]

And that was the entire problem with the manual count under ALL of the standards for disputed ballots. A group of people sought to determine the voter's intent.

Which in and of itself is selective.

The whole thing sucked. The networks shouldn't be able to call how a state is going to go with .001% of 1% of the counties.

CTL[/quote]

Determining the voter's intent is required by Florida law. Overvotes according to Florida law are supposed to be counted. If someone voted for Bush, and wrote in Cheney on the write in candidate line, that vote was supposed to be counted for Bush. The media consordium that looked at the uncounted votes according to nine different standards. On eight of the standards, Gore won. The funny thing is, the one standard that Gore lost on was the one he wanted.[/quote]

I want to see a link. I have not seen a single report suggesting Gore won under 8 of 9 potential methods for counting the votes.

As for Florida law requiring a determination of voter intent that is assinine.

CTL
 
Here's something interesting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435

"Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year."

Further proof that the war on Iraq was truly a vital component of the War on Terrorism... The evidence is right in the numbers.

Even now that we all up in Iraq, there is still no proof of a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq and still no WMDs.

Um, so what?
Click to expand...

"So what?" Well, those are the reasons we were told that Iraq was a threat to us. That's what.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Dick Cheney, August, 2002

"There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name a few -- but no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." - Donald Rumsfeld, September, 2002

"He's got weapons of mass destruction." - George W. Bush, October, 2002

"We know for a fact there are weapons there." - Ari Fleicher, January, 2003

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." - Colin Powell, February, 2003

"The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed." - George W. Bush, March, 2003

These were our reasons for going to war. They were not true. Does that not bother you at all?

PS. the UN withdrew support for the Iraq war, so any arguments involving their sanctions as justification, I think, are null-and-void. I think they know better how to enforce the sanctions they made than we do - and to assume otherwise is pure arrogance. It's so ironic that we went without the support of the UN - then immediately turned to them to help us clean up our mess and rebuild Iraq.
 
[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']Here's something interesting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435

"Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year."
[/quote]

How many of them occured within the US, and how many occurred within or to other nations, who didn't react proactively?
 
It's in that link.

"In the past 10 days, in fact, the number of dead has risen by 142 people in places as diverse as Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel."

Now let me ask you a question:
Considering that 58% of these attacks happened this year - do you believe they still would have happened if Operation: Iraqi Freedom had never occurred?
 
[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']It's in that link.

"In the past 10 days, in fact, the number of dead has risen by 142 people in places as diverse as Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel."

Now let me ask you a question:
Considering that 58% of these attacks happened this year - do you believe they still would have happened if Operation: Iraqi Freedom had never occurred?[/quote]

If the enemy didn't fight back it wouldn't be a war now would it?
 
Well look at this quote, which Bush made just 3 days before the ar began:
"The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."

Obviously, that wasn't true. And this was part of the reason: the Iraq war is vital to the War on Terrorism (at that time it was, "the Iraq war is vital to the War on Terrorism because they have WMDs," but now it's changed a little). Well, if the Iraq War is a "Mission Accomplished," and there are now more terrorist attacks than there were before, isn't that actually a "failure"?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']In response to CheapyD's dimples, pinpricks and hanging chads statements.

If you can't take a metal poker and make a complete punch hole in a ballot you're too dumb for your vote to count. I've voted with punch cards for the last 5 years it's not hard to do. Oh, same with the "confusing butterfly ballot". If you can't follow an arrow to a hole? You're too dumb for your vote to count.

Thank you for playing.[/quote]

Yeah, they should make you pass an intellegence test before you can vote. But wait, they did have this and they had to get rid of it because it was racist!
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='CheapyD']Please explain to me how this relates to anything but selective interpretation/counting of the ballots.[/quote]

And that was the entire problem with the manual count under ALL of the standards for disputed ballots. A group of people sought to determine the voter's intent.

Which in and of itself is selective.

The whole thing sucked. The networks shouldn't be able to call how a state is going to go with .001% of 1% of the counties.

CTL[/quote]





Determining the voter's intent is required by Florida law. Overvotes according to Florida law are supposed to be counted. If someone voted for Bush, and wrote in Cheney on the write in candidate line, that vote was supposed to be counted for Bush. The media consordium that looked at the uncounted votes according to nine different standards. On eight of the standards, Gore won. The funny thing is, the one standard that Gore lost on was the one he wanted.[/quote]

I want to see a link. I have not seen a single report suggesting Gore won under 8 of 9 potential methods for counting the votes.

As for Florida law requiring a determination of voter intent that is assinine.

CTL[/quote]
You might think it is assinine, but that is the law in Florida.

Unfortunately, the article is behind a pay site, but here it is:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydaily...R&desc=FULL+FLA.+RECOUNT+FAVORED+GORE+-+STUDY

You could read this article that references other articles
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
 
Its 360 word article. I find it hard to believe that, that one small article successfully contradicts a variety of other sources.

Nor did you provide a report as you claimed that in 7 of 8 methods used to count votes that Gore won.

How about this? You provide the report you claim allowed Gore to win in 7 of 8 standards?

Alternatively you may conceed you were wrong.

CTL
 
Here are three methods that would have supported Gore winning:

"Use of Palm Beach County standard

Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore.

Inclusion of overvotes

In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes.
 
The butterfly and caterpillar ballots

One of the most controversial aspects of the Florida election was the so-called butterfly ballot used in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County. Many voters came out of the polls saying they were confused by the ballot design.

According to the study, 5,277 voters made a clean punch for Gore and a clean punch for Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan, candidates whose political philosophies are poles apart. An additional 1,650 voters made clean punches for Bush and Buchanan. If many of the Buchanan votes were in error brought on by a badly designed ballot, a CNN analysis found that Gore could have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.

Eighteen other counties used another confusing ballot design known as the "caterpillar" or "broken" ballot, where six or seven presidential candidates are listed in one column and the names of the remaining minor party candidates appeared at the top of a second one. According to the study, more than 15,000 people who voted for either Gore or Bush also selected one candidate in the second column, apparently thinking the second column represented a new race.

Had many of these voters not marked a minor candidate in the second column, Gore would have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.

However, the double votes on both butterfly and caterpillar ballots were clearly invalid under any interpretation of the law."

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Its 360 word article. I find it hard to believe that, that one small article successfully contradicts a variety of other sources.

Nor did you provide a report as you claimed that in 7 of 8 methods used to count votes that Gore won.

How about this? You provide the report you claim allowed Gore to win in 7 of 8 standards?

Alternatively you may conceed you were wrong.

CTL[/quote]

How about this, READ what I sent. I am sorry that you can't face facts. The consortium report was not put on the web, so I can't give you a link to that, and I am also not going to pay for an article to convince someone who can't face facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top