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 (10635 previous messages)

rshow55 - 12:23pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10636 of 10642) 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.

And what we say is that we will protect Iraq's territorial integrity. We will support representative government that unites Iraq on the democratic basis of human rights and the rule of law. That we will help Iraq rebuild--and not rebuild because of the problems of conflict, where if it comes to that, we will do everything we can to minimize the suffering of the Iraqi people, but rebuild Iraq because of the appalling legacy that the rule of Saddam has left the Iraqi people.

And then in particular, Iraq's natural resources remain the property of the people of Iraq. And that wealth should be used for the Iraqi people. It is theirs and will remain so, administered by the U.N. in the way we set out.

This isn't that language of a bandit. The use of force was being denied - at least in the very significant sense of put off indefinitely.

International law barely exists now, when it matters most, and has to be renegotiated.

Almarst and Commondata set out some standards of international law that are clear, and on the books, but that are being renegotiated - in large part for reasons I support, even though I have many reservations about Bush and the military-industrial complex. 9859 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.Bh4dasqb65z.0@.f28e622/11402

There has to be some exception handling to reinforce but modify a basic rule. I suggested the law of homicide, as an analogy in 9859

commondata - 12:58pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10637 of 10642)

Thanks for the Blair speech. Let me quote Chirac back at you:

Declaration by Jacques Chirac, President of the Republic

Elysée Palace, March 18, 2003

Ever since the beginning of the Iraq crisis, France has endeavoured to make possible the necessary disarmament of Iraq under United Nations authority. This disarmament is under way, as the inspectors have been demonstrating. France has acted in the name of the primacy of the law and in accordance with her conception of relations between peoples and between nations.

True to the spirit of the United Nations Charter, which is our common law, France considers that recourse to force is the last resort, when all other options have been exhausted.

France's position is shared by the great majority of the international community. The most recent debates have clearly shown that the Security Council was not prepared, under present circumstances, to approve a precipitate march to war.

The United States has just issued an ultimatum to Iraq. Whether, I repeat, it's a matter of the necessary disarmament of Iraq or of the desirable change of regime in that country, there no justification for a unilateral decision to resort to war.

Regardless of the forthcoming developments, this ultimatum is calling into question our idea of international relations. It affects the future of a people, the future of a region, world stability.

It is a grave decision, at a time when Iraq's disarmament is under way and the inspections have proved to be a credible alternative method of disarming that country. It is also a decision which jeopardizes future use of methods to resolve peacefully crises linked to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq does not today present an immediate threat warranting an immediate war. France appeals to everyone to act responsibly to ensure the respect of international legality. It appeals to them to maintain the Security Council's unity by staying within the framework set by UNSCR 1441.

To act outside the authority of the United Nations, to prefer the use of force to compliance with the law, would incur a heavy responsibility.

Chirac only denied the use of force as a real end point while there were credible alternatives. And there were credible alternatives.

lchic - 02:02pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10638 of 10642)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

bbc | Mulgabe - his thugs are BEATING innocents with cables

Bi-election this weekend

Doctors say hundreds of people - beaten tortured humiliated ... one woman had to drink the urine of her children ... another watch as they sexually abused her mother with rifle butt ...

Women are abused in the milita camps - raped

How long can Zimbabwee endure these horrors?

The Westphalian neighbours are supportive of Mulgabe

'If change comes it will have to come from within'

bbc

lchic - 02:06pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10639 of 10642)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Rummy

" POW's must be treated according to Geneva Conventions

" Syria - trafficing of supplies to Iraq - should stop

" Iran - Iranians in Iraq will be treated as combatants

More Messages Recent Messages (3 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