New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 11:33am Nov 14, 2002 EST (# 5762 of 5777)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

One hopes humane ways through our problems are possible in this case.

Saddam Hussein's Delusion By AMIR TAHERI http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/opinion/14TAHE.html

U.S., Iraq May Be Nearing Showdown By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 10:59 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iraq.html

"In the letter, Sabri accused Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of fabricating ``the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq'' by claiming that it had or was on its way to producing nuclear weapons and had already produced biological and chemical weapons.

"At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher did not yield an inch.

"``Iraq needs to account for a lot,'' he said. ``They need to account for the programs that they still had when the inspectors left in 1998. They need to account for the procurements that they've made and the new developments that we know have been ongoing. And they need to provide lists of all their holdings, and ... the personnel involved and the organizations involved, as well.''

Face saving, and some muddle are one thing. But a "right to lie" and to flount the UN after so much negotiation - so much expression of willingness to admit inspection "without conditions" is something else.

It may be necessary, and entirely justified, for the United States to take Saddam and all who follow him down - if Saddam and his nation act and speak like this. I'd be glad for the clarifications and negotiations that have occurred - but if Saddam gives no doubt that he is criminally insane - I'll be glad to see him taken down - hoping that it can be done with as little carnage as possible. There will, under the very best of circumstances, be a lot. But if Saddam acts as he seems to be acting - it will be justified.

Here is a direct quote from Iraq States Its Case by MOHAMMED ALDOURI http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/17/opinion/17ALDO.html

"After so many years of fear from war, the threat of war and suffering, the people of Iraq and their government in Baghdad are eager for peace. We have no intention of attacking anyone, now or in the future, with weapons of any kind. If we are attacked, we will surely defend ourselves with all means possible. But bear in mind that we have no nuclear or biological or chemical weapons, and we have no intention of acquiring them.

"We are not asking the people of the United States or of any member state of the United Nations to trust in our word, but to send the weapons inspectors to our country to look wherever they wish unconditionally.

If that's true - checking should proceed. If it is a lie - and Iraq can't adjust to the truth - Saddam's regime richly deserves to be levelled, and I believe will be.

almarst2002 - 01:42pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (# 5763 of 5777)

U.S. fears inspection whitewash, could press for Blix replacement - http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_9.html

The US will pile up demand after demand untill it will be to shamefull or impossible to meet.

rshow55 - 02:09pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (# 5764 of 5777)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

It is important to see that that doesn't happen - and Russia and other nations have strong interests - moral, geopolitical, and financial - to see that it doesn't.

At the same time - there are questions of good faith on Iraq's side, as well.

When people or groups are just at the point of fighting - that is a good time to consider what the fight is about -- and to consider the Golden Rule.

What would Saddam have Bush do - if the situations were reversed? Thinking in realistic human terms. What would Bush have Saddam do?

What's worth fighting about?

Some things are.

Though neither side has a right to ask for perfection.

There's a saying that

"It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool - - than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Did Saddam have to write that confrontational letter? If he feels he had to - and feels he has to behave in similar ways in the future -- he may have classified peace and his own survival out of existence.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Bush administration is lying about some key things. The effective ways to show that effectively would be diplomatic. Dignified. Clear. Saddam's lashing out didn't help - and a leader with so much at stake should do better.

- - - -

I'm trying to get some things coherent about international law - but this much is clear - a lot of things are being renegotiated - and as negotiation, Saddam's letter left much to be desired.

(13 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense