New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(834 previous messages)
- 01:31pm Mar 26, 2002 EST (#835
Were the processes of WAR examined so, the process would also be
Here's part of an undelivered speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt,
written shortly before his death:
" Today, we are faced with the pre-eminent fact
that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science
of human relationships --- the ability of all peoples, of all
kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at
This quote was on the last page of the American Heritage
Picture History of World War II , by C.L. Sulzberger and the
editors of American Heritage , published in 1966.
President Bush is asking the Arab leaders to consider new "ideas
for peace." It seems to me that such ideas are coming into being --
and that attitudes, especially the need to consider proportions and
consequences - - are providing new reasons for hope.
We need both better patterns of dialog - better information -
less lying -- and, sometimes, carefully adapted force
David L. Phillips wrote a letter to the Editor today "Action
against Iraq" that references Friedman's Pull up a Chair"
and includes these words -- I'm making deletions to add generality
to the objectives Phillips states.
" Military action against ________ is not
intended to take apart _________ . The ideal end-state is a
decentralized democratic federation that does not persecute its
polity, threaten its neighbors, or seek to develop weapons of mass
Do we know enough to achieve such an end state -- and even
if we do, are we using what we know, or could figure out quickly
from where we are?
If all we have to work with is standard military logic, and
procedures - these ideal objectives are hopeless.
But without military force, as a subordinated part of a larger
effort, they may sometimes be hopeless, too.
Could the words in Text: Draft of Saudi Peace Initiative
be part of a realistic peace, that would work for the human
beings actually involved, complicated, charged and ugly as the
situation is? In Pull Up a Chair http://wwwopinion/20FRIE.html.nytimes.com/2002/03/20/
, Friedman has suggested that the US will have to station troops
around Israel if there is to be any real hope of a settlement. That
seems right to me.
Suppose the US said - we support the Saudi draft -- but there has
to be real peace, and during a period of adjustment, we'll support
peacekeepers, including some American troops. We'll fund them with
money we would otherwise give Israel anyway. Half the peacekeepers
would be American, half Russian, under U.N. command. We'd continue
the support, with the troops, until Palestine and Israel both agreed
to have the peacekeepers leave.
No extra cost to the US. Israel gives up something it ought to be
able to afford financially. Both the Americans, and the Russians,
have close ties to both sides - - and "speak the same language" in
some ways, but not in others. It seems to me that useful complex
cooperations would be likely. And the Russians and the Americans
would get to know each other better, as well.
Would the Palestinians and the Israelis agree? If they actually
wanted a workable peace, I think they should consider something
along such lines. Just now, the geometry of the situation, and the
passions, are such that a peacekeeping force ought to make great
sense for all concerned.
I believe that once this mess stabilizes, the chances for real
peace, and real normalization of relations, are quite good.
Japan's Kamikazis didn't all die -- many of them were not used --
and went on to live perfectly ordinary lives thereafter. Sometimes
lives that included perfectly workable cooperation with Americans.
- 05:34pm Mar 26, 2002 EST (#836
"Do we know enough to achieve such an end state -- and even if
we do, are we using what we know, or could figure out quickly from
where we are? "
Is not a question.
The question is: "Who gives Mr. Phillips a RIGHT to interfere
in a foreign nation affairs, to shape its goverment, and even to
break it according to his design?"
Did Mr. Phillips forget that nation-state suverenity is still the
most basic norm of international Law?
Did he forget that the biggest crime attributed to the Nazi
Germany during the Nurnberg Trial was a crime of unprovoked
AGGRESSION against its neighbors. The crime of starting the
To the "credit" of Mr. Phillips, this norm was very foreign to
the US foreign policy since WWII. A complete loss of any sense of
- 05:40pm Mar 26, 2002 EST (#837
"Sometimes lives that included perfectly workable cooperation
I am not an expert in Japanese mentality. If I would be a
Japanese and see the result of hiroshima and Nagasaki ...
New York Times on the Web Forums