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?

rshowalter - 08:48pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8900 of 8907)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

With the world as complicated as it is, and people and nations as exposed, limited and vulnerable as they are, community is an essential part of security. It is the most flexible, most useful defense, most often, -- the thing that keeps the world, at most times and places, from being reduced to a Hobbesian "war of all against all."

Before yesterday's tragedy, Bush was working, and working hard, to keep Australia friendly. He had good reason to do so.

Broad reasons. Bush ought to consider America's role in the community of nations - - and work to build aspects of defense that can only come from community.

To defend against horrors like yesterdays, and things that risk still greater horror that, without motivated friends, we cannot defend against:

. Nuclear Booty: More Smugglers Use Asia Route by DOUGLAS FRANTZ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/international/asia/11NUKE.html

With motivated friends - effective defenses are much more possible.

This is a fact -- this can be checked. The actions of the Bush administration have been enormously effective in distancing the United States from the rest of the world - - destroying the sense that the United States is "part of the community of nations" and that U.S. citizens are "part of the community of people of the world."

It is hard to imagine anything more clearly against the security interests of the United States of America.

Now, we need friends. We should recognize that.

That change should be reflected in changes in the Bush administration's policies.

gisterme - 08:50pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8901 of 8907)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 9/12/01 6:24pm ): "...I don't always like you either - - it seems to me that, quite often, you drag red herrings across the dialog, just to close off conversation whenever you feel you or your colleagues need to pull a fast one, usually for private profit, to the disadvantage of the United States and our allies..."

More blather. Give me one example of some "red herring" I've posted for any purpose, Robert.

The referenced post is your red herring. Firstly because you persist in making implications about me you know are patently untrue like:

"...you drag red herrings across the dialog, just to close off conversation whenever you feel you or your colleagues need to pull a fast one,..."

What colleagues, Robert? I've told you repeatedly that I'm just an individual who expresses his own opinion. You know I have absolutely nothing to do with the US government except being a tax payer and voter...and I have NEVER been a government employee except for a single enlistment in the service when I was a kid...and let's have an example of "a fast one" (don't expect you'll get around to answering that one).

and like:

"usually for private profit, "

That's just as untrue. What besides your own bias could motivate you to say a thing like that? Beyond what I wrote above, you know little else about me except that I have a good technical background. The only profit I derive from my participation on this forum is the satisfaction of knowing that at least one person answers your barrage of BS with some reason...

and like:

"...to the disadvantage of the United States and our allies..."

That's simply a ridiculous claim. Everything I've written here on this forum is there to be read. Let's have an example, Robert (don't expect an answer on this one either).

Secondly, it's you who throws out statements like this when you want to cut off conversation.

So goes the analysis of a Robert Showalter red herring. :-)

gisterme - 08:50pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8902 of 8907)

Out.

almarst-2001 - 08:51pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8903 of 8907)

Gisterme,

The list of America's good deeds may not be shorter then the bad ones. Don't you think that's beside the point of this discussion? For all those suffered, starved, killed, poisoned, burned and destroyed by the US your arguments provide a little comfort.

Do you or don't you agree with my definition of terrorism?

If not - why?

And if yes, you should accept that US was engaged in terrorism for a very long time. In my mind, the broad economical sunctions targeting the entire population in order to topple the regime, like one against Cuba for example, is as much an act of terror as any suicidal bombing attack. With one difference - The US is not willing to risk even a single American life to achieve its goals. Even if the goal is a nobel one.

The terrorism is a mode of operation and not always the evil intention.

If you had a chance to read a Dostoyevsky's "The Karamasov brothers", you may understand where do I come from.

rshowalter - 08:55pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8904 of 8907)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Thanks for commenting, gisterme.

I think there's been a great deal of dialog on this thread where you've been taking stances against the national interest.

And plenty of examples where your response to an argument has been irrelevant diversion.

But I'm also tired, and I've opened my second beer. I'll be back in the morning.

Out.

rshowalter - 08:56pm Sep 12, 2001 EST (#8905 of 8907)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst, sorry to leave.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense