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?
(7178 previous messages)
- 10:53pm Jul 18, 2001 EST (#7179
The Bush administration has had such complete party discipline
that it has been able to say outrageous things, and completely quash
dissent or rational consideration of what it asserts. That may be
G.O.P. Moderates Deal New Setback to House Leaders By
ALISON MITCHELL and ELIZABETH BECKER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/politics/19CONG.html
WASHINGTON, July 18 — Faced with a threatened
rebellion by Republican moderates, House Republican leaders today
abruptly delayed voting on President Bush's initiative to funnel
more federal money to religious groups to deliver social services.
- 10:54pm Jul 18, 2001 EST (#7180
The Bush administration is taking positions that seem to be
putting it in conflict with every major stakeholder except itself.
Pushing Agenda for ABM's, Bush Prepares to Meet Putin By
MICHAEL R. GORDON http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/international/19MISS.html
"There's a good reason not to get into 15-year negotiations,
which is what it has taken to create arms control treaties," Ms.
Rice added. "I'm saying it's not necessary."
Comment: This issue of speed is important -- but
in the last four months, some things in international relations
have moved very fast. Perhaps, under the new conditions, Rice's
estimate of the time negotiation takes may be too high by a factor
of ten or more.
"Although Washington does not want another arms negotiation,
it does want Russia's blessing to proceed with its program. That is
not only important for building new ties with Moscow, but it is also
important to soothe European anxieties and to maintain Congressional
support for multibillion-dollar effort.
"Time is running out. The State Department sent a cable to its
diplomats this month advising them that the testing program would
"come into conflict with the ABM treaty in months, not years."
"If it does not obtain Russia's approval to abandon the ABM
treaty, Washington can withdraw on six months' notice. The
administration is hoping that the withdrawal threat will pressure
the Russians to come to an accommodation with Washington. Pulling
out of the accord, however, is a double-edged sword and would have
consequences for the Bush administration that could exceed the
uproar in Europe over the White House opposition to the Kyoto
"If the ABM treaty is changed," a German official said, "it
should be a negotiated solution between the United States and the
Russians. Our concern is that there is a framework that has served
us well and that we should only do away with the old framework if we
have a better one."
- 10:54pm Jul 18, 2001 EST (#7181
We seem to be in interesting times. If technical facts in
the open literature can be examined to closure, much may clarify.
For now, there are muddles on matters of life and death where
reasonable people have a right, and an obligation, to be careful and
expect care from others.
Few Missile Defense Details Emerge After Powell Talks by
JANE PERLEZwith MICHAEL WINES http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/international/19DIPL.html
"Contradictory" U.S. Words on ABM Issue Puzzle Russia by
PATRICK E. TYLER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/international/14RUSS.html
- 10:56pm Jul 18, 2001 EST (#7182
Triangular Diplomacy http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/18/opinion/18WED1.html
"Moscow and Beijing were unsettled by NATO's 1999 intervention
in Kosovo, undertaken to protect ethnic Albanians from persecution
by their Serbian rulers."
Except "undertaken to protect ethnic Albanians from persecution
by their Serbian rulers" part. This is a pure a one-sided propaganda
a-la Mr. Gebbels.
- 11:06pm Jul 18, 2001 EST (#7183
almarst , even if I agreed with you, and, for all the
problems, I don't, you have to give the Times a break there.
The connection of the TIMES with Goebels is disproportionate.
And yes, I know how grossly misleading the reported number of
New York Times on the Web Forums Science