toolbar Bookmark

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

    Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (1204 previous messages)

rshowalter - 12:43pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1205 of 1211) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

If George W. Bush found a way to clean up the messes left by the Cold War, get rid of the terror of nuclear weapons, and use American leadership, in cooperation with other countries, in a way that made the United States safer, more prosperous, and more respected, and all legitimate nation states more secure, he'd go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of the United States.

He'd be respected, even revered, all over the world.

It would be good for American business confidence, and of enormous financial value to the nation.

Nothing could be more in the interest of the Republican Party.

The opportunity to move in that direction is right before him.

He'd have to proceed to seek solutions, for his country, of disciplined beauty - solutions that could be presented, sensibly, to Americans, to allies, and to any people who might contest the real interests of the United States as a NATION - considering those interests in a fair accounting. An accounting consistent with facts that can be checked, and ideas that can be matched against what is known.

_ _

He need not act in these ways. But the opportunity to act in these ways is right before him, and his advisors.

lunarchick - 03:00pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1206 of 1211)

Chomskey has a take on Friedman. It was on a new thread on GU board.

lunarchick - 07:26pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1207 of 1211)

lunarchick - 07:29pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1208 of 1211)

NY Times leading political commentator and Middle East expert, Thomas Friedman, of the "new paradigm" in discussing Israel, replacing the "old paradigm" that prevailed from 1967 to 2000, in which Israel was portrayed as comparable to South Africa under Apartheid and France in Algeria. Apparently, no one laughed. The veracity of the claim can easily be assessed by checking NY Times articles (including Friedman's) to see how consistently the "old paradigm" prevailed. No need to waste time, of course, but it is a remarkable example of how the propaganda system functions, without missing a beat. I think Stalin and Hitler would have been impressed (as they in fact were, in regarding the extraordinary triumphs of Anglo-American propaganda through the last century, which they sought to emulate, but in vain).

"Breaking the silence" is imperative, but it's going to be a long haul, a real re-education program of major scale

lunarchick - 08:08pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1209 of 1211)

ChomSKY (appologies) -------- How stands the Monroe Doctrine now now

rshowalter - 09:11pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1210 of 1211) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

Russia Critical of Bush Aides for Saying Moscow Helps Rogue States.....By PATRICK E. TYLER ........March 20, 2001

By the current rules of journalism, when senior officials make a statement, no matter how out of proportion of unsubstantiated, that is news. And checking, if it is "not instant" is not news. So by manipulating the temporal structure, or logical complexity, or information flows, very biased results can be set out.

Could Rumsfeld stand cross examination? Perhaps the answer is yes - but according to the present usages, he's never subjected to it.

  • ******

    There are important reasons to get FACT straight, and PROPORTIONS straight. Russia, moving to establish facts, in dealings with other nation states, is making important steps toward peace -- because peace requires opennness -- even if, on some details, Russia happens to be wrong. That can be checked.

    How are the assertions reported to be checked ?

    They need to be.

    The story did say some significant things, as usual, right at the end:

    "Mr. Putin is pressing for a one-on-one meeting to deal with a broad agenda of security and economic issues, many of them blocked or stalled by disputes.

    disputes, set out as stoppers, for reasons that do not match reasonable evalutations of US national interest, but disputes that are surely useful if the purpose is to expand the value of military contracts.

    The piece closes with an exemplary statement from some hard-pressed Russians:

    "It is clear that right now what is necessary are not endless propaganda duels and repetition of the labels of the cold war," Russia's foreign ministry said today, "but an immediate beginning to a substantive Russian-American dialogue with the goal of preserving strategic stability and a mutually acceptable resolution of all of the accumulated problems of security."

    If that isn't clear, it should be.

    rshowalter - 09:12pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1211 of 1211) Delete Message
    Robert Showalter

    Note the hotkeyed "now" in 1209.

     Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Post Message
     E-mail to Sysop  Your Preferences

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

    Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
    See the
    quick-edit help for more information.

  • Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

    News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
    Editorial | Op-Ed

    Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

    Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

    Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company