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 (10666 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:09pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10667 of 10674) 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.

"The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America's primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats.

"And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a "statement of principles," signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials — Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41's realpolitik and shaping what would become 43's pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," with America extending its domain by challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values."

"Saddam would be the squealing guinea pig proving America could impose its will on the world.

"With W., conservatives got a Bush who wanted to be Reagan. With 9/11, they found a new tragedy to breathe life into their old dreams.

- - -

A week into the war, these objectives - which make more sense to me than oil, after doing some arithmetic - look well on their way to being discredited.

lchic - 04:14pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10668 of 10674)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Have any of the NEO-CONS ever been near a 'battlefield' ?

almarst2003 - 04:18pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10669 of 10674)

Ready to switch from "stimulation" tax cuts to "liberation" tax increases?

lchic - 04:20pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10670 of 10674)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

It seems weird that so many 'Neo-Cons' are 'wrapt' on and around GWB!

Seems that certain sectors in the USA can overly represent themselves in positions of power

This 'aspect' of the Jewish Lobby

And yet

6% of the USA only is Jewish ... and the Jews will say only half are actively so ... and of these the NEO-CONS are only a fraction

and yet

that teeny weeny fraction

is 'wrapt' on GWB

has snuck in through the left ear and as yet failed to exit!

almarst2003 - 04:30pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10671 of 10674)

Robert,

it seems likely that Bush is frightened. Inconsistent. Zombied. Transfixed. Lost in a space between 2 y/o child fear and Napoleonic Syndrom.

But, here are the questions:

WHO IMPLANTED THIS FEAR INTO HIS "BRAVE" HEART?

WHY, OF ALL OTHER FEARS, IRAQ WAS A CHOOSEN ONE?

WHO MADE A CHOICE AND FOR WHAT REASON?

VERICT:

My explanation is likely to be correct but the policy does not come from a President who, may be even today, will not name all the neighboring Iraq countries.

I believe Cheiney is very familiar with those and other usefull "evils".

tlawrens - 05:02pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10672 of 10674)
It is the business of the future to be dangerous...The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur.

Turkish Airlines Flight Hijacked

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 4:41 p.m. ET

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- A Turkish Airlines flight from Istanbul to Ankara was hijacked Friday, the Anatolia news agency reported.

The plane was hijacked after takeoff from Istanbul and was heading toward Greece, private NTV television reported.

The plane at first diverted course and began heading toward the Aegean coastal city of Izmir, but later changed course for neighboring Greece, NTV reported.

There was no information on the hijackers.

CNN-Turk television said 203 people -- 194 passengers and 9 crew members -- were aboard.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 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