![[F]](../_images/site.gif) 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
Thursday.
 
  (623 previous messages)
mazza9
- 11:51pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#624
of 632)
Louis Mazza
Almarst:
Why should Russian care about the ABM Treaty of 1972? They
weren't a party to that treaty.
LouMazza
almarst-2001
- 11:58pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#625
of 632)
More than 300,000 protest against EU summit - http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020316/1/2lf1h.html
Marching behind a banner that declared: "Against a Europe of
capital -- another world is possible," the boisterous demonstrators
trooped for almost three hours from Placa de Catalunya to the
Mediterranean harborfront.
But for a third straight day, Spanish police at the border
with France turned back cars and buses with people whom they
suspected were planning to join Saturday's march.
"Some people think that they can do things that do not meet
the approval of the vast majority of the population," said Spanish
Interior Minister Mariano Rajoy. "Action had to be taken."
Could the Capitalism at peak of its triumphal march to
Globalization sparked the revival of the indigineus International
Brotherhood of Workers?
The most importand rule of Empire - the "Divide and Comquer", so
successfully used against the Socialist's and Communist's movements
by supporting all kind of ultra-nacionacinalistic and
ultra-religious separatists, particularely the Islamic radicals,
like a classic Frankenstein monster, turned against its creator in a
mids of the Capital Globalisation drive. While at the same time
reviving the sense of Working Class of the common Enemy.
A true double whammy.
almarst-2001
- 12:04am Mar 17, 2002 EST (#626
of 632)
mazza - mazza9
3/16/02 11:51pm "Why should Russian care about the ABM Treaty
of 1972? They weren't a party to that treaty.
The ABM Treaty was signed at Moscow May 26, 1972, and ratified
by the US Senate August 3, 1972. It entered into force October 3,
1972. - http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/
One of the above must be wrong...
mazza9
- 12:16am Mar 17, 2002 EST (#627
of 632)
Louis Mazza
The 1972 ABM Treaty was a treaty between the United States and
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, {USSR}. I guess you haven't
noticed but the USSR doesn't exist anymore.
LouMazza
almarst-2001
- 12:23am Mar 17, 2002 EST (#628
of 632)
mazza,
It could be just curious to know that there are some Americans
shearing your view of the World.
If not for the fact that so many in this country could cherish as
the hero the "stright talking" senator MacCain proclaiming that the
only remorse he has about the Vietnam war was the failor to
"liberate" the Vietnamese. Save couple of millions of successfully
"liberated" by death by the bombs, including those he personally
dropped, on their cities and villages.
The Eichman expressed similar kind of sorry. Could he become the
Hero of the Germans today?
lchic
- 03:29am Mar 17, 2002 EST (#629
of 632)
The USA of 1972 doesn't exist any more either!
Nor does any 1972 Nation ... Nations, Federations change
by the day.
That they do change and move to new and better positions of
service for their constituents is to be applauded. That's
progressive politics.
That the proposed changes from 1972-2002 aren't forward looking
on the part of the USA ... that's what gives cause for concern.
[ mAzzA on the 'diversion diversion' tack here ... what's he
trying to divert attention from .. where's the cover-up ..
??!! ]
lchic
- 03:38am Mar 17, 2002 EST (#630
of 632)
Begorra globalisation of St Paddy ..
 (2
following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
| 
