New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(325 previous messages)
- 01:05pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#326
"So you're a Leninist."
I wonder if you read my post at all. And, if you did, you clearly
(mazza) - "I subscribe to Jesus the prince of PEACE."
I wonder if you realy understand or take seriously the Jesus
phylosophy. We all witnessed that quoting the Jesus does not prevent
the humans to commit crimes. The most disturbing example would be
the inquisition. If you know what I am talking about.
Again. I don't question your personal moral believes which I have
now idea of by not knowing you personally. I question your positions
expressed in your statements and try to show the cosequences of
such. As well, you may recall that "The road to Hell is pawed with a
good intentions". This is a direct result, in my view, of a
Christian interpretention of the Golden Rule I was trying to show
again and again. To think differently means to appropriate a GOD's
Wisdom. Is it so hard to understand?
As for your Space related activities, particularely the
importance of such to the Humans as promoted by our group, is out of
my comprehention. At a time when this Planet faces probably, the
most critical period of its existance. When millions of people die
needlesly, the vast majority live in povetry and misary, lacking the
most basic things like food and clean water, education and medicine
- to establish the Space exploration priority as you did is quite
- 01:29pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#327
I did not participate in the Inquisition and since you speculate
".. I wonder if you realy understand or take seriously the Jesus
phylosophy.", I'm curious regarding you philsophical underpinnings.
Your labelling of everyone with these predigested opinions call
into question your ability to synthsize rather that propogandize.
Name calling and disparaging people who don't hold your views is
- 01:55pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#328
Deflection Deflection Deflection Deflection
mAzzA is deflecting to past philosophy Deflection
Deflection Deflection Deflection
rather than looking
US current military strategy ...
too hot in the
Sunday Roast-ing ....
Bill Keller discusses why 9/11 made things ----------------------------------------------
for military reformers.
• More Conversations
- 02:03pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#329
Mazza, I believe that the level of coherence and respect for
evidence almarst has shown far, far exceeds yours. Your
purpose, almost always - is to distract, and defocus the coherent.
As it has been for a long time. Some key issues aren't being
denied any more - - but people in power, in the United States and
Europe, aren't seeing them clearly still. The Missile Defense
program is essentially a fraud - a boondoggle
Almarst has asked me about the military-industrial
complex. The print part of the NYT Magazine leads
. "3.10.02 In this week's issue, two lumbering,
bureaucratic dinosaurs -- the Coca-Cola Company and the United
States armed forces --- wrestle with institutional intertia and an
uncertain, occasionally terrifying future. . . . . . . . Inside
the Pentagon, as Bill Keller explains, the beleaugered theorists
in the Pentagon's new Office of Force Transformation are up
against defense contractors who "have so thoroughly dispersed
their subcontracts" that no congressman can oppose these outdated
weapons systems. As the defense budget grows and battlefield
tactics shift, our nation's primary strategic enemy, Keller
writes, may not turn out to be not Al Queda terrorists but "the
vested-interest politics and sclerotic culture governing military
affairs. The Fighting Next Time http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/magazine/10MILITARY.html
If enough people recognized how strange our
military-industrial-political complex is, and how many assumptions -
some horrible, some silly, it is based on - - the United States, and
other countries, might come to some better decisions.
Sometimes it is a matter of "connecting the dots." If we looked
more clearly at some of the most basic horrors of the world - we
could be safer than we are today.
The "missile defense" fraud-face-boondoggle involves an
especially good body of facts to connect, because so many key things
are so clear -- and so many key lies and evasions have been made to
Americans and the leaders of other nations.
That "connecting of the dots" would be both practical and
effective if real leaders, with real power, wanted it to be. If they
asked for the focusing, it would happen, and attract enough
attention to make a differnce.
New York Times on the Web Forums