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
(5166 previous messages)
- 04:37pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (#
5167 of 5168)
"Well, we're agreed that it would be good to get rid of
weapons of mass destruction.
But that can only happen, as a practical matter,
with broad agreement."
What does the term broad agreement mean to you,
Robert? Does that mean that everybody is in agreement?
Can't mean that. That would be unanimous agreement.
So in a group does a numerical majority who are in
agreement constitute broad agreement? No? How about
eleven out of a group of 12 in agreement? How about 99 out of
100 in agreement? Would that be broad agreement?
Guess what...by any of those definitions broad
agreement means almost nothing. The whole world might agree
that Saddam Hussein is a bloody tyrant but unless he cares
enough to stop being a bloody tyrant the broad
agreement of everybody else is meaningless.
In a jury, eleven of twelve can agree that a person is
guilty but the one dissident is enough to prevent the
If the vast majority of a group of fools agrees that a
foolish thing is not foolish...that doesn't make the thing not
Why do you say broad agreement is needed as if that
is some sort of end in itself?
"...For myself, I wonder how many people around the
world consider the US blameless for the deaths in Iraq due to
Why do you wonder that, Robert? Anyone who knows the facts
knows that the US is blameless. Saddam could have ended
those sanctions at any time by doing the very same thing that
he says he's going to do now... honor UN resolutions he
agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. I hope he does.
But, why would Saddam put his people through all the hell
they've been through just to relent when his own personal
power becomes threatened? The man is a sadist. He's done this
before. After years of war with Iran and thousands of Iraqi
lives lost for tiny territorial gains, Saddam gave those
territories back to Iran just before the Gulf War. How must
the families of those lost young men have felt when their
tyrant gave back the territory that they'd been told they
sacreficed their sons for? Saddam is irrational. He just likes
to see suffering and blood spilling. It makes him feel
god-like to know it's in his power to cause them.
I takes a bit more than broad agreement to deal with
- 04:43pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (#
5168 of 5168)
And your statement was quite untrue. What you said
More Iraqis were killed in the Gulf War than have been
killed by all weapons of mass destruction.
Bert Sacks took a journey in 1998 to deliver medicine to
Iraq. Interviewed by Mazza (no, can't be) he's well worth
UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund is one of the
sources of these statistics. (Data from a U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization study placed the overall death toll
of sanctions to December 1995 at 567,000 children under the
age of five.)
"The most thorough scientific-medical study that I'm
aware of was done in 1991, covering the first eight months
after the end of the Gulf War. The report which appeared in
the New England Journal of Medicine in September 1992 said
that 47,000 children under the age of five had died in those
eight months. That comes to roughly 6,000 children every
month. So from multiple sources, this clearly comes to
hundreds of thousands of children's lives. It may be argued
whether the number is 400,000, or as the Chicago Tribune put
in a front page story of March this year, 700,000. But beyond
any reasonable doubt the number of children who have died is
many times more than the number of soldiers who died, and more
than all the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
"...I am able to see very clearly that I am living in a
country where a great many people have learned not to care
about what's right and what's wrong."
And yet Gisterme, you've never heard of more than 100,000
people being killed deliberately by US policy?
I think your problem with your figures may be that
you've bought into the Iraqi propaganda that blames present
sanctions on the US. The blame for those sanctions and the
suffering and loss of life that may be associated with them
lies squarely at the feet of Saddam Hussein as you well
So I suppose it doesn't matter whether it's 100,000,
700,000 or 20,000,000 people who were killed and are being
killed deliberately by US policy? What's a few naughts between
friends? - it's their fault anyway. I've watched Saddam as
often as you and I'd be delighted to see the back of that
regime. But you are wrong to make 22 million people culpable.
New York Times on the Web Forums
Enter your response, then click the POST MY
MESSAGE button below.
See the quick-edit
help for more information.