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?

gisterme - 08:14pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8895 of 8907)

(continued)I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles.

You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon -! not once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

Stand proud, America!

gisterme - 08:24pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8896 of 8907)

gisterme 9/12/01 6:02pm,

rshowalter wrote: ( rshowalter 9/12/01 6:24pm ):

" when did I ever say that our "free society" --- especially the free parts, wasn't worth fighting for?

Never did."

Nope. What you said was even more general...

rshowalter 9/12/01 5:31pm

"The purpose of "winning" fights is to find something worth winning.

A livable situation."

Any reasonable person must interpret that to mean that you know of nothing worth fighting for in your world. Good luck with your search.

rshowalter - 08:26pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8897 of 8907)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

All true! A great deal to be proud of about America.

And I am proud of America.

All the same, we've been threatening first use of nuclear weapons, for many years. When the Cold War should have been ended, in 1991, we didn't know how to end it - - or didn't.

A lot of people, all over the world hate us.

I'm not so proud of that.

We should preserve the good things about America, and make it safer, and stronger.

To do that, it doesn't help, and it isn't logically necessary, to forget about the bad things. Instead, we should work to fix them, to the extent we reasonably can. It is in the national interest to do so.

It seems to me, still today, where so much of human concern, and human hatred is on view, that the concerns in Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness? 1-3 , http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/0 make sense.

MD8827 rshowalter 9/12/01 9:08am

rshowalter - 08:33pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8898 of 8907)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme 9/12/01 8:24pm says something that doesn't follow at all:

" Any reasonable person must interpret that to mean that you know of nothing worth fighting for in your world."

I never said, or meant, anything like that.

I'm taking some quite tangible risks, here.

When we consider the world, and how we'd like to change it, it is good to consider the ideas, memories, and news stories associated with this famous picture, of THE POWER OF ONE http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tank-1.jpg

We need to be careful. And only so "trusting," where nukes are concerned, of either ourselves, or others.

We need to fight for things worth fighting for.

And we need to fight in such a way that, after we win the fight -- we can have peace - - not just another fight -- and another - - - and another, till the sorry story ends.

Which, with nukes now so badly controlled, and with human passions as they are, it could.

rshowalter - 08:41pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8899 of 8907)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme , if you can read at all, you should know that I'm no pacifist.

I've worked to make that clear from the beginning.

Have you looked at my first postings? Postings I've repeated from time to time.

MD266 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am ... MD267 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:33am
MD268 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:35am ... MD269 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:36am

The proposal involves fighting. Fighting that is worth it. It also involves leaving military forces intact.

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense