I don't have time to write a long response complete with cited facts, but for
now I will say
this...what does September 11, 2001 have to do with the war in Iraq? When are
you people (and by
you, I am using a blanket term) going to stop using that as an excuse for our
actions in Iraq?
How many times do our esteemed leaders have to say this to the American public,
before they can
see that THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND BIN LADEN...THEREFORE, THERE
WAS NO CONNECTION
BETWEEN SADDAM HUSSEIN AND SEPTEMBER 11...remember how 15 of the 19 terrorists
were Saudis? Why
aren't we waging war on Saudi Arabia, if this whole thing is a retalliation for
9/11? Your
argument is weak, the government's justification is even weaker, and you all
have one thing in
common - dragging out the names/faces of the 3,000 innocent people who died on
9/11 to justify an
inhumane, illegal, preemptive strike on a country who has already suffered
enough at the hands of
the United States (yes, they suffered under Saddam...please don't think that I
am defending him.
However, the United States has let this go on for the last 20 years with no
intervention. To step
in now proves that a larger agenda is being followed).

And to clarify, I have read your responses to arguments for the past few months
and I have had
plenty of time to form my opinion of you. You always recite the same lines,
never citing
anything, and then jump to bash anyone who doesn't cite every single word of
their post.

Also, check your facts...a majority vote is not needed to elect a president.
Refer to the
election results of 2000. GWB did not have a majority vot, yet he "won" the
election...oh, but I
suppose Katherine Harris and the US Supreme Court played a hand in that one...

--- zarathos81 <evil_s2003@...> wrote:

> Well, seeing as how you seem to think that any response to this is going to be
ignorant,
> especially since I'm very much Pro-America and you have shown that you have a
problem with that
> then I guess there is little point in responding, is there?
> What I will say is this: You need to look at yourself when you post words such
as this. You and
> others like you like to place yourselves above those of us who DO understand
what is going on
> and look at the world through the eyes of a citizen of a Nation who was
unjustly, illegally if
> you like, attacked on September 11, 2001. Unlike many, there are those of us
who have not
> forgotten the 3,000 innocent men, women and children who were murdered that
day for no other
> reason than being Americans and being in or near those Towers. You may want to
make some
> rationalization that makes America the 'bad guy' in this conflict, and yes
that is your right,
> but you have to understand this isnt a Care Bears world anymore. WE were
attacked first, our
> fellow citizens were murdered in cold blood for no reason whatsoever.
>
> So, if wanting my nation to be free and safe, if placing the future of myself,
my loved ones and
> my Nation above those of scum sucking terrorists makes me ignorant, well, for
once, and only
> once, I'm going to be ignorant. But this also changes the meaning of that
word, doesnt it?
> Also, you need, and when I say you I'm using a blanket term so dont think I'm
picking on just
> you, but you need to stop thinking that every time someone disagrees with you
that we are
> questioning your patriotism. But people who want to protect terrorists and
want to afford them
> rights they dont get or deserve have to make me wonder which side they are on.
>
> As for the 'legal' and 'war' remark, it was simply pointing out the stupidity
of that argument.
> It was badly done I admit I was rushed for time.
> Fact is NOONE wants war. But when you have your 'balls to the wall' so to
speak, you have to
> take a stand. No other nation would.
> We did. It sucks it had to be us but at least the US is finally taking a
stand. And I'm very
> proud of that.
>
> Lisa Race <mystical_frog@...> wrote:
> Zarathos~
>
> Glad you remember me from my innocent mistake the VERY FIRST TIME I POSTED
(you were so kind to
> point it out in the way you did)...
>
> In your own very well educated opinion, why are the words "war" and "legal"
incompatible? Do we
> not prosecute people for "war crimes"...by that very idea, does that not mean
that there are, in
> fact, LAWS that must be followed during war time. I believe these laws were
created during the
> Geneva Conventions. If you would like to familiarize yuorself with these
laws, please see the
> following link:
>
> http://www.genevaconventions.org/
>
> In addition, you may find this link helpful:
>
> http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm
>
> From Yale University Law School, the Avalon project, documenting the various
"laws of war"
> created
> throughout the last hundred years or so...
>
> Oh, and here is an excerpt from Michael Byers' "The laws of War, US Style":
>
> More than three hundred Iraqi civilians died on 13 February 1991 when two US
F-117 stealth
> bombers
> targeted the al-Amiriya bunker in Baghdad. Photographs of the charred and
twisted bodies of
> women
> and children shocked a world which, thanks to Norman Schwarzkopf and CNN, had
seen little of the
> horrors of the Gulf War. Pentagon officials, who claimed to have intelligence
indicating the
> bunker was a command and control centre, denied knowledge of the civilian
presence. Had they
> known, the attack would probably have been classed as a war crime.
>
> International humanitarian law, the jus in bello, concerns the way wars may be
fought. It is
> distinct from the law governing when wars may be fought (the jus ad bellum of
self-defence and
> the
> UN Charter). Also known as the 'laws of war', international humanitarian law
traces its origins
> to
> 1859, when the Swiss businessman Henri Dunant witnessed the aftermath of the
Battle of Solferino
> and initiated a movement that became the International Committee of the Red
Cross. Today, the
> rules of international humanitarian law are found in the 1907 Hague
Conventions, the 1949 Geneva
> Conventions and their two Additional Protocols of 1977, as well as in a
parallel body of
> unwritten
> customary international law that binds all countries, including those that
have not ratified the
> Conventions and Protocols. A central principle prohibits the direct targeting
of civilians, as
> well as attacks on military targets that could be expected to cause civilian
suffering
> disproportionate to the specific military goals to be acheived.
>
> As you can see, the words "legal" and "war", while not intertwined in your
mind, are quite
> commonly used to define military offenses.
>
> And, finally, I was not criticizing FOX News, rather I was impressed that for
once they had
> carried a news story that did not portray the United States in the most
glorifying of lights.
> If
> you had the capacity for critical thinking, you may have seen that in my post.
I am not arguing
> with you the justification of the war in Iraq. From your posts, it has become
particularly
> obvious that you are unwilling to intelligently listen to anyone's opinion
that differs from
> your
> own. And, that is fine. You were granted that right by the constitution of
the United
> States...but, keep in mind sir, every other citizen in the United States was
granted that right
> also, and they are no less American or patriotic than you are.
>
> You may have your war, but the rest of the world has opened their eyes to the
horrors the United
> States bestows upon innocent people, and they will not stand for it much
longer. What is going
> to
> happen to the US when the peaceful nations of the world and all the battered
and trampled
> countries we have destroyed rise up? Perhaps it is time for the lawmakers in
Washington to stop
> forcing their rhetoric down the people's throats, and instead recognize that
"democracy" the
> United States way (perhaps I should say dictatorships, as that is generally
what happens when
> the
> US installs a new government somewhere in the world) is not the best thing for
every country.
>
> I don't expect you to listen to this post with an open mind. Rather, I am
quite sure you will
> fire back some totally ignorant response. But, I can't say I haven't tried...
>
>
> --- zarathos81 <evil_s2003@...> wrote:
>
> > I remember you!
> > Ok first of all let's cut the crap, the words 'war' and 'legal' dont go
together. As for
> > justified, well, rape rooms, mass graves, threats made to other parts of the
world including
> > America, supporting Al Qeda and even congratulating Bin Laden after he
masterminded the MURDER
> > of 3,000 Americans in less than 2 hours pretty much sums of the
justification of it all.
> >
> > All these news outlets can pull out anything and everything they want to try
to hurt this
> > country and the troops and our efforts around the world but after all the
lies and falshoods
> and
> > obvious bias the media has shown recently, I don't care what they say.
> >
> > Oh, I loved your description of FOX News, it's cute how obviously biased
news outlets are seen
> > as being fair and honest, and the one group who is actually honest about
itself and actually
> > tries to be soemwhat balanced is seen as being wrong.
> >
> > Lisa <mystical_frog@...> wrote:
> > From the Times Online...the Downing Street Memo, written prior to the
> > war in Iraq.
> >
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html
> >
> > From the beloved news organization of conservative republicans (FOX News)
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158228,00.html
> >
> > I thought this might interest some of you who claim that the war in
> > Iraq is justified and legal...perhaps, the rest of the world does not
> > take such an "enlightened" view of the situation...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Michael_Moore_Talk/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Michael_Moore_Talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very angry and been
> > widely regarded as a bad move." -- The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy
> >
> > It's BLOG, BLOG, it's big it's heavy it's wood:
http://evil2003.blogspot.com/
> >
> > My Yahoo Group:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FanboysUnlimited_2/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Discover Yahoo!
> > Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Michael_Moore_Talk/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Michael_Moore_Talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very
angry and been
> widely regarded as a bad move." -- The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy
>
> It's BLOG, BLOG, it's big it's heavy it's wood: http://evil2003.blogspot.com/
>
> My Yahoo Group:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FanboysUnlimited_2/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail