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
(5041 previous messages)
- 10:05am Oct 19, 2002 EST (#
5042 of 5047)
of an NYT article
Col. Walter P. Lang, retired, the senior defense
intelligence officer at the time, said he would not discuss
classified information, but added that both D.I.A. and C.I.A.
officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose"
"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a
matter of deep strategic concern," he said. What Mr. Reagan's
aides were concerned about, he said, was that Iran not break
through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution
to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... The American intelligence
officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq's use of chemical
weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they
considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people
involved at the time said in interviews.
Another former senior D.I.A. official who was an expert on
the Iraqi military said the Reagan administration's treatment
of the issue -- publicly condemning Iraq's use of gas while
privately acquiescing in its employment on the battlefield --
was an example of the "Realpolitik" of American interests in
the war. ... One officer said, "They had gotten better and
better" and after a while chemical weapons "were integrated
into their fire plan for any large operation, and it became
more and more obvious." ... The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified
by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It
was just another way of killing people -- whether with a
bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.
Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush
tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq and
spoke out against Iraq's use of chemical arms, but Mr. Shultz,
in his memoir, also alluded to the struggle in the
"I was stunned to read an intelligence analysis being
circulated within the administration that `we have demolished
a budding relationship (with Iraq) by taking a tough position
in opposition to chemical weapons,' " he wrote.
- 10:35am Oct 19, 2002 EST (#
5043 of 5047)
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.
Superb posts by lchic and commondata !
10/19/02 9:38am . . Turn the ideas inside out and
And check every which way !
(You can't check everything - but it right now people are
afraid to check much of anything. If the checking starts -
from several related but different approaches -- there's new
hope. When facts get arrayed together - the chance for
major misunderstandings to "hang together" according to fair
tests gets less and less - and hit happens very fast.
This is a dangerous but hopeful time.
Basic rules and relations of international order -and
morality - are being discussed, rethought, and renegotiated.
Bits of language are going for government to government -
being weighed and discussed.
From my own perspective, things are a lot safer, overall,
than they were two years ago - because people are learning
what there is to fear - what limitations are - - and what
accomodations can be made.
I was impressed by "Understanding Iraq" and "The
Real Saddam" on the Discovery Channel last night - and
think that the NYT should be proud of its involvement.
It surely was wrenching to see that videotape of Saddam
singling out 24 officials for immediate torture and execution.
The consequences were so direct and clear.
A problem we have now - that is direct and practical, is
how to understand and deal with other actions - other agonies
- where the consequences are a bit more scattered - - a bit
less direct - - but in the aggregate involve much more damage
and agony than that particular (heinous) administrative
(Here's a "very indirect" action that we don't much condemn
- the tobacco industry spends 10 billion/year promoting
smoking - - and kills millinos - but indirectly - in ways that
involve much complicity - and (for a long time) without direct
names - and consequences made vivid.)
The arts are essential - to touch minds and hearts - in
populations, and across cultures, all over the world.
In the current coupled crises - there is much more, much
more widely distributed discussion than there has been in past
crises - and that gives us some reason to hope.
This board is part of that - and I hope that some
staffed organizations are aware of it.
So that we can touch hearts and minds, in practical ways -
when situations are complicated - - and when things
have to be balanced.
10/19/02 9:38am . . . comedy can be most useful on things
that are "no laughing matter."
- 10:38am Oct 19, 2002 EST (#
5044 of 5047)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed
laughing gas ?
(3 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums