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 (10211 previous messages)

rshow55 - 01:07pm Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10212 of 10226) 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.

Almarst , if Saddam had been willing to really disarm - this wouldn't be happening. And if other nation states had been willing to get organized, and deal with fundamentals in a workable way - this wouldn't be happening.

Bush and Blair, even at their worst, are a long way from Hitler. And the leaders standing against resolution of this problem in a way that would make the UN mean something at the level of enforcement are a long way from angels.

There are analogies to Poland - or any other case of invasion. But huge differences, too.

almarst2003 - 01:10pm Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10213 of 10226)

This is a GRAB for OIL. An open agression. Supported by misinformation and propaganda. This is not a fight. This is a cold-blooded murder.

almarst2003 - 01:13pm Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10214 of 10226)

There was no prove Saddam has WMD. But, even if he would have some, didn't he need it to protect his nation against US-British occupation. After all, just because he probably does not have any significant WMD, that's exactly the reason US cowardly rushes to grab the OIL.

rshow55 - 01:19pm Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10215 of 10226) 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.

I think it is important for the other nations of the world to check carefully and see to it that Bush and Blair do not execute an oil grab. With the way international trade is organized - and the way a great deal of international commercial law (and lawlessness) is organized - it is quite practical for them to do so - and they should.

We need to get past Treaty of Westphalia standards - making sure of this matter of oil equity is an example of why we have to - and how mechanisms now in place make that change possible.

More Messages Recent Messages (11 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