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
(944 previous messages)
- 05:19pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#945
European Leaders Are Alarmed By Rising Turmoil in Mideast
By WARREN HOGE http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/29/international/29CND-REAX.html
is an interesting piece. But I wondered about the almost abject
reliance on the American Bush administration that was expressed
"A French foreign ministry spokesman, François
Rivasseau . . . , called on Washington to step in more forcefully
than it has. "We continue to plead for the Americans to commit
themselves further," he said. "It is they who have the most means
to reason with the opposing parties."
"Igor Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister, expressed
"extreme concern" at today's events . . . . . . He said that
Russia was engaged in "active consultations" with the United
States and Europe over ways to control the violence in the
Mideast. Urgent international action was needed, he said, "to halt
this crisis, which threatens not only regional stability but could
also spill over beyond the region."
. . . .
"Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, made
no mention of Mr. Arafat or Mr. Sharon in issuing a statement
saying: "The situation is extremely critical for the millions of
people who live in Israel and the Occupied Territories. But never
has there been a greater need for restraint to be shown on both
sides. It can only be through negotiation that there will ever be
a peaceful future for the citizens of Israel, for the Palestinians
and for everyone in the region."
"In Berlin, Joschka Fischer, the German foreign
minister, condemned "barbarous acts of terrorism" against Israeli
civilians and urged both sides to return to U.S.-brokered talks.
The Bush administration has made it clear that it does not
want to intervene, to "risk it's capital" (such as that political
capital has become) by acting.
If European and Russian leaders are so sincerely concerned, why
can't THEY go in, negotiate, and attempt to work out a solution - -
perhaps on the basis of http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,675784,00.html
Perhaps, as Agha and Malley suggest - - "A solution is possible
now." Is the United States, led as it is now led, committed as it is
now committed, really so indispensible?
It seems to me that Putin, especially, might find more leverage
than he suspected, if he set out to suggest a package deal. The very
same deal might be more acceptable to the parties if suggested by
Putin rather than Bush -- if Putin, and Europeans who can well
afford it, were prepared to supply some peacekeeping troops.
The United States has gotten away with a great deal, on missile
defense and many other issues, because the rest of the world has, so
often, by default, relied on American leadership and personnel. With
so many nations so dissatisfied with American leadership, perhaps
they should take more initiative themselves.
- 06:00pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#946
President Dwight D. Eisenhower " I like to believe that people
in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than are
governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one
of these days governments had better get out of their way and let
them have it."
The Western "democraties'" answer: ZERO casualties among its
forces using overhelming high-tech equipment and high altitude
bombing, the notions of HUMANITARIAN BOMBING and COLATERAL
DAMAGE and A SEA of highly classified "FACTS" for the
wide media distribution.
Using those tools and "patriotic" mass media gives the US
President almost 90% approval rate for the war on carte-blanshe.
- 06:08pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#947
Am I right in my feeling of your obscession with Bushes?
While I consider the policies of both immoral, I can't find any
difference, at least morally, with this of Clinton. In fact, I
consider the Clinton much more criminal since his actions couldn't
be justified at all. The ugly indeed.
- 06:10pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#948
Rumsfeld - "Even if the detainees were acquitted before a
military tribunal, America would continue to hold them, he said." -
- 06:25pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#949
"As Dick Cheney tours the Middle East in search of support for
an American offensive against the Iraqi regime, Yellowtimes.org has
learned through multiple independent sources that the Pentagon has
already begun planning and building new bases in the region.
The U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress, not the
executive, power to declare war, and the War Powers Act gives
Congress the responsibility of preventing the United States from
stealthy or gradual slides into conflict.
While Congress has given an ambiguous "green light" to the
president in his offensive against Al-Qaeda, no such vote or
consultation has been held in reference to Iraq.
Wou much would you bet on a Congress to stop the "patriotic"
- 06:28pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#950
Pentagon: Military Is Ready for More - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31902-2002Mar28.html
Much more... "And to help me the God";)
New York Times on the Web Forums