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
(456 previous messages)
- 02:12pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#457
demos the fact that the US has an imperialist C18 Foreign Policy ...
shows no understanding of the 'needs' and desire for 'political
progress' of the common man. http://www.robincmiller.com/index2.htm
- 02:16pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#458
We have to act like human beings!
The American people do not know - have not faced -- what has been
done in their name - - and other countries need to see to it that
they know. And face the consequences of what they propose to do.
We are using "deterrant" patterns that invite and
assure conflict. We also have cut off contact to so much of
the world, to such an extent -- that we make enemies. And now some
of them are quite real.
For all the work that has been done on this thread since
Almarst came on in the beginning of March of last year - - it
is sad, and scary, that almarst felt he had to post MD434 almarst-2001
We have to do better than that - - because being decent
requires it - - and our own safety does, as well. We CAN'T defend
against everything. On Sept 11 that was demonstrated, using one
attack among countless other possible ones.
- 02:29pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#459
Egypt Will Press Iraq to Accept U.N. Inspectors by REUTERS
- 03:31pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#460
Unless the US policy is directed toward a concept of a "City
Dweller" (Robert may remember) in search of absolute safety, ready
to exterminate all what surrounds him,
The Defense must be justified by specific Tread.
The Tread must be linked to the clearly explained and reasoned
The honest and vigorous effort should be given to the
Resolution of the Conflict. The common sense dictates this should
take even higher priority and resources then Defense itself.
All of the above is sorrely missing in the current and large part
of the past US Policy.
Why it is so and what is wrong?
- 04:00pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#461
Egypt Will Press Iraq to Accept U.N. Inspectors by REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast-cheney-mubarak.html
A pretty clear "Sorry Dic, but NO" (in diplomatic terms) to
the plans to attack Iraq.
- 05:24pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#462
Bush: U.S. Nukes Are Deterrent - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22264-2002Mar13.html
Not so, if to believe the Pentagon leaked document.
- 05:26pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#463
I remember your comment - just a year ago- and I'm posting it
below. And you make key points. I wish you weren't so right
when you say:
"All of the above is sorely missing in the current
and large part of the past US Policy.
You ask: "Why it is so and what is wrong?
If world leaders ask for answers -- at the level of detail
answering those questions would require -- I think they might get
them. Finding those answers would have to be "news." That
would take explicit questions from leaders.
New York Times on the Web Forums