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
(5764 previous messages)
- 04:06pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (#
5765 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.
Looking at things that have been said and done since the
10th, I can't help but feel moderately optimistic - everything
considered. A lot of interesting things have happened - some
of them pretty good. The Iraqi government has shown some real
competence and coherence about some things - and paperwork,
though it may be imperfect in spots, is even ahead of
11/10/02 7:52am includes this:
"Could Saddm be stumped?"
. . . .
"If Iraq can disarm, as it has agreed to do
- and do it gracefully, credibly - smoothly -- there will
have been a regime change in a lot of ways that matter.
Given real options - just now - it seems to me that
regime improvement might be better than regime
"There are some issues of status
exchange that are going to be very important if the UN
disarmament is to succeed - and they need to be considered
carefully enough for workable results.
Saddam's letter the the UN had the status exchange parts
almost exactly backwards - almost every sign wrong for his
purpose. That's something to fix - because it guarantees
instability where there should be stability.
11/10/02 8:37am quotes some things about stability that
might interest specialists - and ends with this:
" . . . There's plenty of time, with the
schedules now agreed to.
That still seems right. So far, it seems that things have
been working out fairly well, considering. There's still
plenty of time to avoid war, and sort out some big things in
the interest of everybody involved. Things may be going just
as well as could reasonably be expected.
A key thing is that Iraq and other Arab nations have to
figure out decent solutions for themselves - - in
Arab terms --- they have to do that, no matter what
Now, they don't have solutions to the most fundamental
problems they face - or even recognize their core problems.
They'd fight better if they did, and if they did, there might
be much, much less to fight about.
From everything I hear, Saddam is, speaking in American
vernacular, a sonof_bitch in a lot of ways - but also
maybe one of the best administrators in any Arab government.
He might be able to sort out a lot - not only for himself and
Iraq, but for the whole Arab world. A lot of American general
officers would root for him if he did. Occupying Iraq, if it
has to happen, will be a tragedy and a mess.
Saddam's shown a cool head and a lot of intelligence before
- and if he showed it now - and acted in his own real
interest, the interest of Iraq, and in the interest of honor
and success for the Arab world - he could sort out a lot. If
he does that - he'll have honored a lot of promises that he's
made to his own people - and justified a lot. If he blows it -
I don't see how he can survive, or why anybody would want him
If Saddam denies that he's told some lies - that people all
around him have done plenty of lying - and that some key
things in his regime have involved deceptions and
misjudgements - - - then he's classified hope out of
He doesn't have to defer to the Bush administration's
claims of virtue or wisdom. In fact, if he'd set an example of
real honesty - he could serve the whole world by insisting on
getting some facts sorted out that Americans now conceal.
But is seesm to me that Saddam does have to be able to
straighten enough out so that peace is possible - and
reasonable from an American point of view. The UN has worked
very hard to give him that chance - and to do it - he's got to
do some intellectually and politically difficult things. He's
done some intellectually and politically difficult things
Russians, and others, have every incentive to help with
- 04:22pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (#
5766 of 5777)
- 05:10pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (#
5767 of 5777)
Possible but unlikely. Why whould one disclose such plan
other then in attempt to cause a panic and turn the attention
to the wrong direction?
- 05:13pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (#
5768 of 5777)
Can you justify a war where possibly hundreds of thousends
of people will die and the country destroyed because their
leader is a lier?
If that's a criteria, not too many nations would gave a
right to exist. Including the US.
(9 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums