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?

almarst-2001 - 05:06pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4403 of 4466)

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone..." - Jesus Christ

And I see only one source of stones right now. Unfortunatly, it is not free from a great sins. In the past, those since where attempted to be justified (not by me though). But to still justify them in a present?

This, in my view, goes far beiong the hypocricy. This is a cold-blooded crime by design.

almarst-2001 - 05:10pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4404 of 4466)

gisterme 5/31/01 4:29pm

"none of this stuff you've posted today, interesting as it is, justifies your claim that the US only intervenes militarily in a place when it sees big $$ at the end of the road."

I guess that leaves us with a "humanitarian" reason as an explanation?

Am I expected to lough or to cry here?

almarst-2001 - 05:19pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4405 of 4466)

gisterme,

The conversation I had so far with you convince me more and more on the effects of this society on the people.

It works to substitutes the brain with a calculator and a heart with a walet.

I am sure, therefore, this oppinion of mine will not insult you;)

possumdag - 05:30pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4406 of 4466)
Possumdag@excite.com

So if the heart has a mind of it's own ... that's additional?

possumdag - 05:39pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4407 of 4466)
Possumdag@excite.com

Reading through above, it struck me that it's sometimes 'hard' to determine why interventions occur.

Reasons may include a bid for power, a desire to support one of two parties - the upsurge of popular unrest v the staus quo, a response to extreme need, a need to push some weapons through and then ask for money to build more and give private companies profit.

So there are always multi-aspects to past history.

Is it worth the energy? What do we learn from history ... especially when it's bad-history ?

Is it better to look to today's problems and devote the limited enery available to trying to sort things out. Most often there are civillian populations who have needs, want peace, need to visualise a better future.

rshowalt - 06:02pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4408 of 4466)

We need to have the past sorted out just well enough so that everybody involved can make decisions about the future -- which is all we can hope for, and all we can change.

Because human beings are complicated animals, who are nearly always close to the edge of their capabilities (and courage) when they have to change things, and because the world, and our social relations are so complicated -- lies are prohibitively dangerous when we have to make decisions about the future.

So facts have to be established - and we have to deal with these facts SO THAT WE CAN GO ON.

Anybody but me read THE GULAG ARCHIPELIGO ?

It doesn't make a lot of sense for both sides to argue (eloquently and, quite often, correctly) about how brutal and blind the other side is -- when both sides have plenty to do, going on, and living as they have to do, doing the best they can.

Nobody has to lie, so long as everybody knows the full score, well enough to go on working.

In my opinion, speaking from the perspective of historical time -- the world almost just ended - a blink ago -- or the world would have been about to end -- just a blink in time from now.

Doubt it?

Look at this thread, and the wrenching misunderstandings, and perspectives, and attitudes, both emotional and practical, that it shows.

Both the Russians and the Americans, who have been eying each other obsessively for years, in fear of their lives, have found out amazing and wrenching things about each other, with understanding just beginning.

There is plenty to do - there won't be enough competent engineers or other competent people to do it all, if we negotiate skillfully, and cut deals now cuttable -- and the world can get a lot better - rather than end.

We could clean up global warming, for one thing. Feed ourselves better, for another. Be less afraid, for another.

It still seems to me that the simplicity of a proposal on this thread, #s 266-269, might bear thinking about -- and we ought to figure out a way to get enough trust, and well enough checked distrust, to keep ourselves and each other alive.

gisterme - 07:30pm May 31, 2001 EST (#4409 of 4466)

almarst wrote:

"On US hypocricy.

So, the Arabic Kingdoms are just too peacefull to drow the US attention for their human rights violations and dictatorships?

They're kingdoms, almarst not political dictatorships. Don't forget the context of this discussion...Gen. Powell's comments WHILE TRAVELING IN AFRICA. You'd have to agree, almarst, that there's quite a difference in terms of human suffering between Congo and any of the Arab kingdoms. Read the article that possumdag posted a while back about conditions in the Congo. Noting like that going on with those kingdoms.

Well, how about Turkey slouhgtering thousends of Kurds under the US-British watcheful eyes? What about Israel? What about genocide in Rwanda, the US did not want to get involved? What about Indonesia, the US gave just a small lip-service to events in E. Timor?"

Are you saying the US should have intervened in all those places, but not intervened in others? Come on, almarst. You're really hard to please. We're back to "damned if you do, damned if you don't". What do you think the US should have done differently in those cases, almarst, given the lessons of Kosovo and Somalia?

Actually, if you follow the list of US-lead conflicts, you can see that it was a source of by far the most of the death since WWII.

As far as the concept of "source of by far most of the death" goes, almarst, there is one death for each birth. Most "death" in the world comes by disease, natural disasters or other natural causes. The US has nothing to do with that. Wars, pogroms and murders are shameful wasters and ruiners of life but they do not increase death. Did the US lead Chairman Mao? How about Pol Pot? The US didn't start the Korean War. The US didn't start the Viet Nam war. Those had cold war roots. The US didn't start the cold war. The US didn't start the Gulf War. Your statement seems ill considered to me, almarst.

If that's not a hypocricy, what is?"

I have to agree almarst. Your comments do seem a little hypocritical, but I'd stop short of calling them outright hypocracy. I'll just stick with "ill considered".

(57 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense