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.
(10378 previous messages)
almarst2003
- 08:59pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (#
10379 of 10412)
"Gee, where's all the weapons of mass
destruction???"
Who cares at a time we bring a Peace and Democracy to those
"backward arabs" sitting on a Gold Mine and waiting for us to
show them what "business" really means.
It is quite simple cycle:
First abstraction (Evil), then destruction,
then reconstruction and back to the start agan.
The most importand thing not to loose sight of the target -
the $shiny$ City on the Hill, preferebly in Bahamas or
Bermudas.
jorian319
- 09:09pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (#
10380 of 10412)
Rob! Thanks for finally showing your wacko face! would you
like me to start dismantling your site's contents piece by
piece, or did you have a favorite delusion you'd like us to
concentrate upon?
fredmoore
- 09:42pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (#
10381 of 10412)
Almarst ...
You are hitting your straps! I appreciate your points and
the sense of indignation they carry.
As for:
"It is quite simple cycle:
First abstraction (Evil), then destruction, then
reconstruction and back to the start agan. "
You have just described a Thermodynamic process.
More often than not, the solution to REAL and difficult
problems of all genres is in ABSTRACTION. What greater
abstraction than Thermodynamics at such a time?
You know Congress called in an independent specialist in
thermodynamics to assess the shuttle disaster. It might not be
a bad idea to do the same in Iraq.
PS Am I the only one who finds the CIA acknowledgement of
'channeling' as great a 'shock and awe' as the bombing
campaign?
almarst2003
- 10:33pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (#
10382 of 10412)
I fully share your view about 'channeling'. It was design
to allow to kill the people while war is designed to carry it
out.
On the other note - The "liberators" are "welcome"
"We don't want Americans here. This is Iraq."
One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and
waved as a convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by.
But once it had passed, leaving a trail of dust and grit in
its wake, their smiles turned to scowls.
"We don't want them here," said 17-year-old Fouad, looking
angrily up at the plumes of gray smoke rising from Basra.
He pulled a piece of paper from the waistband of his
trousers. Unfolding it, he held up a picture of Saddam,
showing the Iraqi leader sitting on a throne with a benign
smile.
"Saddam is our leader," he said defiantly. "Saddam is
good."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15003-2003Mar23.html
Well. A year is 1812, a place is Russia. And the memories
are still fresh.
bbbuck
- 10:45pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (#
10383 of 10412)
you're an idiot.
almarst2003
- 11:02pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (#
10384 of 10412)
Looking at a sky I see some good signs... and some bad
ones... and some that are just "black holes"
almarst2003
- 11:06pm Mar 23, 2003 EST (#
10385 of 10412)
"humanitarians at hard work" - Many of the buildings
that were targeted in last night’s bombardment are
cheek-by-jowl with high-rise apartments. Though we couldn’t
see directly, it seems certain that there were significant
numbers of civilian casualties. http://www.msnbc.com/news/889282.asp?0dm=N14TO
(27 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|