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.
(10268 previous messages)
almarst2003
- 02:35pm Mar 20, 2003 EST (#
10269 of 10272)
Russia expresses regret - http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
China Demands Halt to Attack - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61290-2003Mar20.html
India - "Attack Unjustified" - http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&u=/ap/20030320/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_iraq_india_1&printer=1
Mexico - "Against" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61880-2003Mar20.html
Oh, how could I forget
Albania, Afganistan, and another 33 not less importand
nations (rather heads of), fullpocketly support the war.
jorian319
- 04:11pm Mar 20, 2003 EST (#
10270 of 10272)
IMO it is equally regrettable that those who denounce our
attack on Iraq are called traitors or "pro-Saddam", and that
those who condone it are called "pro-war". I am sure that the
vast majority of Americans who are opposed to our attack on
Iraq are not traitorous in any sense, and I am absolutely
certain that almost nobody supporting the attack is "pro-war".
These rhetorical devices cause people who could benefit
from unity, to talk past each other and turn differences in
persective into false ethical gulfs.
"How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? Nobody
knows - it hasn't been tried."
(2 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|