New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(256 previous messages)
- 09:26pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#257
You may criticise her. But you have to accept that she talked to
other people. People who liked her, respected her, and reacted. And
you can't be too indignant that she didn't instantly quit her job
and leave - wouldn't her rapists have hoped for that?
If, by some standards (not necessarily mine) she was imperfectly
impartial - - we live in a very imperfect world.
We need to find ways to make the world more just and peaceful - -
- step by step.
Criticisms of the Kosovo bombings DID have an effect on practice
Don't expect people to agree with your morality and moral
weightings - no matter how sure of them you may feel.
It is hard enough to agree on facts - - and logic clear enough
for stable relations. I'd be grateful if we could get that far.
To significantly reduce the risks of weapons of mass destruction
-- we need to get that far.
It is easy to pick fights - - and sustain fights. What we need is
enough presence of mind to look at common ground, and common facts -
and come up with enough wisdom to make mass murder much less likely.
- 09:30pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#258
In my view, the US mass media lacks the most critical ingredient
- HONESTY. It showed clearly the inability to be impartial.
The "liberal, left wing" is unable to criticize the Democratic
President. And the "right wing" is afraid to be seen as unpatriotic
and criticize any president eager to bomb some other country. Which
makes a perfect cicumstances for a Democratic President to commit
any War Crimes at will. He will surelly be praised as long as there
are no US casualties.
- 09:38pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#259
"It is hard enough to agree on facts ... To significantly
reduce the risks of weapons of mass destruction"
How such "imperfect" media can establish the FACTS!
Did you asked here if she saw genocid in Kosovo? 100,000 dead
Albanians the Pentagon reported as detecting by their satelites?
Before bombing have started?
Is she still reporting? Today!?
- 09:39pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#260
Who is going to present those in absence of the honest media?
- 09:40pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#261
I understand your anger - and can see your point of view - but I
don't feel as you do an all respects -- coming from another place.
There are problems with yelling "shame".
Often, there is more than enough shame to go around.
It seems to me that the usages of diplomacy have evolved for some
very good reasons.
For the world to be safer, we need to fight less .
Secretary Annan was looking for a way around resistance to the
fact that "most countries did not want to hear from outsiders
about potentially serious problems within their borders."
That's an important goal. To achieve it -- communication has to
avoid fights - - not yell "shame."
- 09:42pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#262
I don't think she's still reporting today.
. . . .
We need to find patterns that work better -- and we've discussed
some of them. To get beyond a certain point, some political leaders
need to ask for answers.
- 09:53pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#263
"bad public relations"
It was BAD. Not a "bad public relations". But it was much
worth what the US did in Dresden, hiroshima and Nagasaki! And dosens
of other places on Earth costing millions of innocent lives. The
people who did not harm a single American before the attack. The
people who die till this day as result of those crimes in Japan,
Vietnam and Iraq.
"bad public relations"...
The good public relations today are just too expencive. As the US
just recently complained about a cost-effectiveness of the
"International War Crimes Tribunals". If you follow the trial of
Milosevic by the source (not was is selectively and scarcely
reported in US) - you will understand. And believe me, Milosevic is
not my hero.
- 10:02pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#264
"most countries did not want to hear from outsiders about
potentially serious problems within their borders."
And who are those IMPARTIAL outsiders?
And why are they so concern about the problems BEIONG
their borders while having plenty to solve WITHIN?
And why don't they leave the other nations to sort their things
out themselve? Do they believe they are in any way BETTER? Do you
believe they are better? I DON'T!
And why their concern of the well-being of the other's cost those
others their lives and property? And leaves them with a broken
country? Rulled by a corrupted dictators?
- 11:00pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#265
I wish you would get your facts straight regarding
supposed United States wartime activities.
Let's start by adding up the deaths on both sides:
1. Stalin - 35 Million
2. Hitler - 8 Million
3. Pol Pot 3 Million
4. Kim Il Jung and son 2 Million
5. Various despots in Africa 1 Million
6. The Soviet Gulag ??? Fiddler on the roof was on this past
We're talking outright murder by starvation, machette, firing
squad, gas chamber and a bullet to the back of the head.
Where do you come from that your hands are so clean?
New York Times on the Web Forums Science