![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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?
    (1204 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 12:43pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1205
of 1211) 
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
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)
lunarchick@www.com
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@www.com
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee80663/4
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee80663/6
lunarchick
- 07:29pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1208
of 1211)
lunarchick@www.com
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 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee80663/4
lunarchick
- 08:08pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1209
of 1211)
lunarchick@www.com
ChomSKY (appologies) -------- How stands the Monroe Doctrine now
now
rshowalter
- 09:11pm Mar 20, 2001 EST (#1210
of 1211)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
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)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Note the hotkeyed "now" in 1209.
  
 
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.
| 
