New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out

 [F] 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.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (5116 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:22pm Oct 22, 2002 EST (# 5117 of 5174) Delete Message
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.

If you take Iraq at its word, subject to checking that if offers - - we are a long way from a justification for war:

Iraq States Its Case by MOHAMMED ALDOURI

"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.

They're saying "you don't have to trust us - - you can check us." We shouldn't be reluctant to do that - and to remember how many different ways there are to check and cross-check. If the UN gets something like active cooperation from Iraq - there may be some hidden residual capacities - but there won't be much - and Iraq will not be in a good position to use anything it has left in any militarily sane way.

Iraq has made major concessions - both moral and practical - in its amnesty.

Iraq Announces Amnesty for Its Prisoners

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- "The Iraqi government announced an amnesty Sunday for all Iraqi prisoners . . "

One need not trust Saddam, nor like him, to think that Hussein and Mobs Virtually Empty Iraq's Prisons By JOHN F. BURNS

and Abrupt Amnesty at Iraqi Prisons: A Joy for Many, Grief for Some By JOHN F. BURNS ( Images of Sudden Freedom and Frenzy ) reports an act of great consequence.

If Iraq can effectively reintegrate those prisoners, it will show a distinct "regime change" in the ways that matter to many, many people.

The Saddam who empties prisons is taking some steps away from some of the bad behavior reported on the 18th in

UNDERSTANDING IRAQ. Carol Williams, executive producer; Jon Schriber, senior producer; produced by NBC News Productions and the Discovery Channel; Forrest Sawyer, correspondent.


THE REAL SADDAM. Ann Derry, executive producer; Ken Levis, producer; co-produced by the Discovery Channel and New York Times Television.

. . .

Iraq has offered to be checked and tested. It has implemented wrenching, risky changes that stress the regime. It says it wants peace, and is more open to checking than the United States is.

Most of the world wants to give Iraq a chance - and wants that without being especially tolerant of past Iraqi behavior.

If under these circumstances - the United States fails to find a way to act in concert with the United Nations - what will this mean for international relations?

International law, and patterns of international order, are being renegotiated - - and it is high time.

But we want to find ways to negotiate and enforce patterns of behavior better than those of the past. And empathy is a central issue.

The US has some horrors it is responsible for, as well. Including many in high places.

Is it clear that Kissinger is a better fellow than Saddam - or does that matter, since he's one of "us?"

More Messages Recent Messages (57 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us