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
(613 previous messages)
- 07:57pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#614
Because so many stories make sense from several - and often
opposite - points of view, the ONLY way to be sure that a story that
"sounds good" is right is to check what is checkable.
If checking is denied -- if it is systematically denied --
distrust -- not trust - is the reasonable response.
For many purposes, not even the New York Times can be sure of
what it is told - - unless it checks. How often does checking occur?
How often is checking denied? The NYT knows -- and the answer is
that checking is often not done sufficiently for certainty -- and
couldn't possibly be. Sometimes, checking is denied by
"stonewalling" -- but much more often, and more insideously,
checking doesn't happen when checking seems, somehow, "improper."
"Emperor's New Clothes" sequences, such as the missile defense
boondoggle -- can occur as easily as they do because, often enough,
checking is "just not done."
- 08:26pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#615
The tragedy of Vietnam is now called Laos - carpet bombed at a
whim - with land mines inwaiting for little feet. http://www.laoembassy.com/discover/
The tragedy of Afghan is landmines ... 20million people share
10million landmines - that's one between two - wow!
- 08:29pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#616
You just found a good way to explain it.
One should wonder how come no one asks this question stright:
"How come, 10 years after the end of the Cold War, the US faces
(or pretends to face) far more enemies nd feels much less secure in
a more dangerous world? And seems to suggest the same applyes to the
- 08:36pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#617
A Newsnight investigation raised the possibility that there
was a secret CIA project to investigate methods of sending anthrax
through the mail which went madly out of control. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/programmes/newsnight/archive/newsid_1873000/1873368.stm
- 08:39pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#618
I R A Q
Bush isn't getting support :
An australian poll via Sunday Program tv 9 got results
that were approx 86 against/ 14 only FOR .. involvement with Iraq
The UK army is jacking up :
Britain's military leaders issued a stark warning to Tony
Blair last night that any war against Iraq is doomed to fail and
would lead to the loss of lives for little political gain. As the
debate over whether to commit British troops alongside American
forces intensified, the leaders urged 'extreme caution' over any
moves towards war, saying servicemen faced being bogged down in a
perilous open-ended commitment. http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,669008,00.html
- 08:43pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#619
Another case of "inverse" logic?
"Nothing is more important than the national security of our
country. So nothing is more important than our defense budget," Bush
said. "The price for freedom is high, but it's never too high as far
as I'm concerned." - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48007,00.html
- 09:27pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#620
Eisenhower became very concerned about patterns he'd seen, and
warned against the military-industrial(political) complex in his
FAREWELL ADDRESS of January 17, 1961 http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm
Everything Eisenhower was worried about has happened.
People with power are going to have to ask that some key
things be checked.
Don't be certain it was, in every sense "out of control."
Things need to be checked.
If people, including leaders of nation states, get concerned
enough - - concerned enough to ask for checking, in detail, of key
facts - we'd be a lot safer. out.
- 11:21pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#621
we'd be a lot safer. out.
... of ... errr
... the web of lies ..
- 11:30pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#622
Dreams are always so sweet. The discernment came too late.
First, the USA withdrew from the ABM Treaty of 1972. Russia seemed
to be indignant for some time, but admitted the defeat after all.
Vladimir Putin was to have pricked up the ears. The matter is, the
USA withdrew from the Treaty probably to see Russiaís reaction to
such an audacious deed. The USA succeeded then, and no great
resistance arose, that made America more free and easy.
USís next step was occupation of the former Soviet republics,
that was performed without a shot. Under those conditions Russia
understood perfectly well that its influence on the former Soviet
republics had greatly reduced, that is why its protests were weak.
When Americans obtained control over the regionís security, the
Collective Security Treaty, as well as the Shanghai Five
organization stopped their existence. Russia kept silent even then,
although we were to have protested actively.
- 11:34pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#623
"out of control."
The arson of the Reihstag?
New York Times on the Web Forums