posted March 26, 2003 06:59 PM              

NE, who on earth says the bombs look pretty?

posted March 26, 2003 07:43 PM              

During the Cold War, we were counter-balancing Soviet power in the region.

posted March 26, 2003 09:21 PM              

for crying out loud make your minds up!

jwhop - if you recall the during the countdown period iraq was destroying the cruise missiles capable of carrying the nerve toxins. Logically, if they were destroying these missiles surely they would lose almost all of their first-strike capability?

posted March 26, 2003 11:22 PM              

There ya go, N_w.

posted March 27, 2003 12:22 AM            

Iraq doesn't have any cruise missiles and never did. They were going through their charade of destroying an Al Samoud 2 missile a day because it had a range of more than the 93 miles allowed by the cease fire agreement. They removed the rocket motors, crushed the missile shells and put the motors back into stock.

The missiles they do have that can reach all the way to Israel is the Scud, which they began firing at Kuwait the first day of the war.

Good idea banging your head "Evil", that's what my little girls used to do too but they grew out of it naturally.

posted March 27, 2003 06:59 AM            

I am offended that you seem to think the Israel/Palestine conflict isn't even a 'skirmish'. In the Occupied Territories, there are 2,181 Palestinians dead and 22,218 wounded since Sept 29, 2000 to March 14, 2003 at the hands of the IDF and it doesn't even qualify as a 'skirmish'??

(Interesting side note- Israel is in violation of 64 UN resolutions as opposed to Iraq's 17.)

I think the conflict there sharply and sadly epitomizes the tendancy of violence only creating more violence that has characterized human civilization since Babylonian times, proven time and again.

I wonder how things will change over there now that an American activist has died at the cold blooded hand of the IDF for the first time. http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,919973,00.html

posted March 27, 2003 07:00 AM            

Why can't we covertly empower the Iraqi people to liberate themselves?

It certainly isn't that the Iraqi people lack strength, physical or in spirit... I mean, look at the way they are fighting back over there. Things are certainly not going as the Pentagon planned. It's like when Germany tried to invade Russia, thinking that since the people had been so brutalized by Stalin that they would revolt against him but infact they fought tooth and nail to protect their homes inspite of despising Stalin..they would rather have a dictator of their own kind than an outside invader imposing their own sort of control.

That's exactly what we are seeing in Iraq right now..er..I mean that's what the rest of the world is seeing...the Pentagon wants the Americans to take comfort in watching that same footage of a dozen or so Iraqi people jumping for joy that they aired over and over and call that evidence the whole of the Iraqi civilian populace is gleefully welcoming US forces.

Oh, and you took what I said out of context. I said that a person could live almost as freely in Bagdad as they could in NYC if they stayed out of politics.

Personally I wouldn't live there for a great number of reasons, not the least of which is that I would never live in a desert. I must remind you I'm from Alaska. I would melt. Just trying to lighten things up a bit.. cause now I have to respond to LL. I'm going to take a break, sleep on this..it is almost 4AM here!.. and compose myself..
*deep breaths*

posted March 27, 2003 08:15 AM              

quote:

---

I don't know where you get your news "Evil" but if you're paying for it, they owe you a refund.
Iraq doesn't have any cruise missiles and never did. They were going through their charade of destroying an Al Samoud 2 missile a day because it had a range of more than the 93 miles allowed by the cease fire agreement. They removed the rocket motors, crushed the missile shells and put the motors back into stock.

The missiles they do have that can reach all the way to Israel is the Scud, which they began firing at Kuwait the first day of the war.

Good idea banging your head "Evil", that's what my little girls used to do too but they grew out of it naturally.

jwhop

---

posted March 27, 2003 10:09 AM            

Why would you feel attacked? It was you who insisted Iraq has no missiles that would reach further than Iran. Is the truth an attack on you?

posted March 27, 2003 10:26 AM            

Your arguments are so predictable they can be anticipated in advance. I knew you would attempt to equate the Israeli/Palestanina skirmishes with war. It isn't war Harpyr. If it were, every male Palestinian between the ages of 12 and 60 would be in a prisoner of war camp. Every home would have been searched for weapons and every business would have been searched for weapons producing capability. Every Palestinian would have been interrogated. Yassir Arafat and his corrupt plotters would be in custody spilling their guts about which countries have been supplying the money and materials to make their bombs.

Fact is Harpyr that war, real war that produces a decisive victory for one side or the other does bring peace. That's the lesson of history.

Sloganeering isn't a substitute for reasoned discussion. Neither is posting long winded, self serving propraganda from anti-freedom groups like Democracy Now.

jwhop

posted March 27, 2003 12:17 PM              

Harpyr, are you the official advocate/spokeperson of the anti-war movement? You speak that way sometimes (I don't mean offense by that)

I have boiled this conflict in this forum down to one thing... Realist vs Liberalist
Realist seeing the world how it is, & liberalist seeing the world how it ought to be.

Unfortunately ALL SO FAR from the peace camp really don't seem to grasp of the reality of this world we live in...

There should be no wars, violence begets violence, give peace a chance, every life matters, blah blah blah... To implement your policies would be impossible.

PRESENT SOME POLICY SOLUTIONS AS TO HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE GLOBAL CRISES OTHER THAN JUST POINTING FINGERS & NIT PICKING FAULTS OF GOV'Ts.

Please, I beg of you, I have an open-mind let's talk about alternatives to war, what else could we have done?
Let's change the thread to make it constructive, then if we come up with anything we'll email it to the president.

So I'm switching sides for a moment...

How could we have gotten Saddam out of power peacefully?

- Well for me... UN pressure wasn't working, inspectors... in my opinion, weren't working.

- I guess the best way may have been pressure from other Arab states... but how could we have round that up?

Anyone else have any realistic ideas on how we could have removed him from power?

Question #2:

How can we be most successful in installing a new gov't in Iraq?

- Personally, to me... I think the US should pull outta this one. Too much animosity in the Arab people, no trust for US... which is understandable.

- I guess let a UN peacekeeping force come & set things up... the only thing is I would feel guilty starting the mess & having the UN clean it up... BUT, it would help to reinstill credibility & power in the incapacitated institution.

- Ideally, much like my other answer to the first question, I would say that we need to have the Arab states do most of the guiding for the gov't. That would cut down on the animosity & instill a cohesion among the new state & its neighbors... the trick is, which Arab states...
Lebanon is the most Democratic; can't do Turkey.. its biased; Saudis can't, they are an authoritarian regime themselves; I'm guessing something between Egypt/Lebanon/Qatar/U.A.E/Kuwait & other liberal Gulf States-type delgation that works with the Iraqis waiting to take power.

But even that is nearly impossible...

posted March 27, 2003 08:31 PM            

"*bangs head on desk*

he doesnt HAVE any missiles that can reach further than Iran, and its highly unlikely since the sattelite and general air surveillance on most hotspots in the country are likely to notice any movements as soon as they happen."

"i didnt insist anything, please don't overlay your own arrogance on me, anything i say is always just a suggestion."

Is there nothing you're sure enough about to comment on with any degree of certainty?

By the way, Saddam fired another of those missiles he "doesn't have" into Kuwait today.

jwhop

posted March 28, 2003 06:15 AM            

quote:

---

"Unhappily, we all know that this "accurately surgical attack thing" doesn't exist"
....
2) You can watch a demonstration of how accurate this technology is on CNN everyday.
...
You really aren't an expert so you should make generalized statements, they make your argument have less impact & merit, just a thought

---

And do you think watching that propaganda machine, CNN, makes you an expert?

If they are really so surgically accurate, how come one of them went far enough astray to strike Iran?

quote:

---

But from observing your statements... to me, you are just so far out there to the left that you're about to fall off a cliff.

---

quote:

---

I think it's safe to say, and I'd like to here a consensus on this... that you could quite possibly anti-American?

---

quote:

---

Has the gov't done something to you personally that has upset you? Where is all this anger & (what I would observe as) fanaticism coming from?

---

Saddam was a murderous dictator back in 1983 when he was shaking hands with Rumsfeld, as proxi pointed out, but that didn't stop us from supplying him with weapons of mass destruction then. Our gov't didn't give one lick about the plight of the Iraqi people then, what makes you think they've sprouted compassion all of a sudden? Oh right, because CNN or MSNBC told you so?

Am I angry? Is it that obvious? Am I fanatical? Sometimes, yes. But jeez, somebody has to be extreme in feeling called to do their civic duty just to counterbalance the extraordinary apathy I see all around me while we drive ourselves to oblivion in our SUVs.

I'm not this way because I want to be or because it's fun. I'm passionate about trying to create a just, sustainable society before we annilate ourselves because time grows short...I don't know how to be any other way than empassioned about protecting this sacred planet and by extension, ourselves.

Believe me, I would much rather live in my straw bale house in the country painting, studying astrology and riding horses than arguing and struggling to change the world but I can't in good conscious sit idle while we teeter on the brink of disaster. Which is obvious to anyone with a degree of sensitivity.

quote:

---

It seems more like a personal mission to discredit & destroy this nation & what it stands for more than anything else...

---

" Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
-- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1908

quote:

---

I respect how firmly you fight for your beliefs & stand up to people, I respect it a lot.

But it's gotten to the point that I'm starting to wonder if there's something more there... it just seems to me that there is...

Is there something you would like to share?

Or maybe my Pisces Moon is working in overdrive again & is way off.

---

Thanks, I respect your tenacity as well. I think your Pisces Moon is definetly trying to tell you something and I suspect it's that perhaps something of what I've been saying has struck a chord with that psychic Pisces infinite compassion. Could it be warning you that you are being lied to by the powers that be and that having blind faith in their leadership is extremely dangerous?

I do want to share something with you..I've already mentioned it on another thread but I doubt you followed the link, so I will post it here. It's the statement of principals by the Project for the New American Century. Take a good look at who signed on to this thing..

June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz