New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (10204 previous messages)

almarst2003 - 12:09pm Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10205 of 10215)

People in Baghdad prepare for war while members of the "coalition of the willing" show their colours, writes Brian Whitaker

Wednesday March 19, 2003

Tony Blair need not go into exile just yet. Last night his government won formal backing for war with Iraq when parliament voted 2-1 in favour. This was despite the biggest ever revolt by MPs. Among the ruling Labour party, 139 members rebelled, and 16 Conservatives, 53 Liberal Democrats and 11 others joined them. But because of Mr Blair's massive built-in majority, it was still well short of the total that might have forced regime change in Britain.

In other developments overnight, the Turkish government said it will try again to get permission from parliament for US warplanes to fly over its territory, and the White House suddenly changed the terms of its ultimatum to Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi leader had earlier been given 48 hours to avert war by fleeing Iraq along with his two appalling sons, but last night White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said US forces would invade "no matter what". The excuse, apparently, is that they need to hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

The official UN weapons inspectors, meanwhile, have all been evacuated from Iraq - several of them complaining about the curtailment of their work and the aspersions that have been cast on their professional abilities. What chance they'll sue President Bush for constructive dismissal?

Colin Powell claimed last night that 45 countries have now joined the "coalition of the willing" against Iraq. They include such key players as Afghanistan, Latvia, Lithuania, Nicaragua and Uzbekistan, but 15 of them have asked not to be named until they see which way the war is going.

In some cases, calling these countries supporters of the war would be extremely generous with the truth - a bit like describing concrete posts that hold up a football stadium as "supporters" of Manchester United. Spain, whose smiling little prime minister managed to get his photo taken next to George Bush and Mr Blair at the weekend, has confirmed that it won't actually be sending any troops.

Talking of support, an opinion poll this morning by the Washington-based Pew Research Center finds rapidly declining enthusiasm for the United States in Europe. In Italy, only 34% view the US favourably, compared with 70% in 2002. The current figure for Britain is 48%, Spain 14%, France 31% and Germany 25%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,917444,00.html

almarst2003 - 12:38pm Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10206 of 10215)

VOTE NO ON WAR http://www.votenowar.org/

UNITED EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN: This Week

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19: No Business as Usual! No War on Iraq! NATIONAL CALL TO ACTION

Tuesday, March 18: Emergency Convergence in New York City in Union Square at 5 pm

George W. Bush has promised to unleash an all-out war against Iraq, possibly as soon as Wednesday, March 19. We join with peace-loving people all over the world in challenging this 48 hour war ultimatum. At this critical moment, we urge all people of conscience to oppose this illegal war of aggression by participating in the following actions:

1) Tuesday, March 18, 5 p.m. Emergency New York City convergence at Union Square

2) Wednesday, March 19: Walkout! No Business as Usual! Converge and demonstrate on the day of the Bush ultimatum.

  • New York City, March 19: Converge at 12 noon at Union Square. March and converge at Times Square at 5 p.m.

  • Washington DC, March 19: Converge at 12 noon on the north side of the White House and stay there all day until a march at 5 p.m.

  • San Francisco, March 19: Gather at 5 p.m. at Powell and Market

  • and at central locations in cities and towns around the country

    3) Saturday, March 22: New York City march, 11:30 a.m. Assemble at Broadway, between 41st and 36th St.

    If war has begun, there will also be a March 22 regional demo at the White House in Washington DC at 12 noon, San Francisco, Los Angeles and in other cities around the country.

    If war is launched, no business as usual that day. Converge at 12 noon and into the night.

    rshow55 - 12:54pm Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10207 of 10215) Delete Message
    Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

    Iraq's ultimate option Surrender to the United Nations Leader Wednesday March 19, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,917276,00.html

    Iraq must surrender. It really has no other viable choice. The Baghdad regime should agree to relinquish power and place the country under the protection of the UN security council. Saddam Hussein, his sons and chief cronies should accept the American offer of safe conduct and go into exile while they still can. Iraq might then be peacefully occupied by military forces operating under UN auspices and with a fresh UN mandate. If Iraq's dictator does not immediately follow this course of action, it is certain that President George Bush will not rest until he has been forcibly removed from power and in all probability killed. For the greater good, but also for his own wretched survival, Saddam must give it up. Surrender is now the only way to avoid a devastating, imminent onslaught that may claim thousands of lives and will have but one ultimate outcome.

    - - -

    European press review Sandra Smith and Sam Jones Wednesday March 19, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,917038,00.html

    More Messages Recent Messages (8 following messages)

     Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
     Your Preferences

     [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





  • Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


    Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us