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.
(10740 previous messages)
almarst2003
- 10:27pm Mar 29, 2003 EST (#
10741 of 10762)
jorian,
You are free to make your oppinion about me as you like.
But I can assure you, I would never came here 15 years ago if
I knew what I know today. And i don't believe I am unique.
Its indeed too late for too many things to be different.
Unfortunatly, at this point, my fate and even much more
importantly, fate of my family is tied to this country. And I
am not suicidal to wish to see it destroyed. I still have some
little hope left, all may turn out better then I forsee. Its
just too frightening to contemplate the worst.
But its clear to me, we already passed the point of a
possible good outcome. What is left is either prolonged bloody
war in an epicenter of a world-wide fire bomb or shamefull
crushing retreat NOW. Neither of those options give me any
optimism about future of this country. And Israel. The country
I left 15 years ago after being its citizen for 14 years and
serving in the army, the home of my parents, relatives and
most of my real friends. The country which most probably will
pay the price of following American policies. God forbid.
almarst2003
- 10:54pm Mar 29, 2003 EST (#
10742 of 10762)
They see no blood but chessboard - http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/Today/Comment/News_Analysis301.html
And so we have a war. If you listen to American President
George W. Bush, this is a noble war, indeed. It is about
freeing Iraqis from the shackles of a cruel dictator. It is
about creating a model for democracy in the Middle East. It is
about eliminating terrorism from its roots.
Don’t listen to this stuff too early in the morning; you
may lose your breakfast. If you believe America is merely
reacting to the horrific, unprovoked terrorism emanating from
Arab nations, here’s something interesting to consider. The
author George Monbiot recently chronicled the activities of
the Project for the New American Century, a pressure group
established by, among others, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Jeb Bush and Paul Wolfowitz. These gentlemen are now
high-profile members of the US Government, and have been
instrumental in orchestrating the lead-up to the war.
More than five years ago, these men urged the "removal of
Saddam Hussein’s regime from power". They stated, even then,
that "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a
misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."
In 2000, their inner plan was seeing light. A confidential
report said: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides
the immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein." The wider strategic aim was
"maintaining global US pre-eminence".
These people are in power now, and their elevation made
this war truly inevitable. Saddam is merely a pawn whose
previous atrocities made him an easy target. September 11
provided the excuse and the means to rally Americans behind
this madness. Iraq is merely step one. The ultimate goal is
‘full-spectrum dominance’ by the US. America will feel the
backlash to this leadership for generations to come.
Britain is another country that has been championing the
war. Listen to Prime Minister Tony Blair: "These tyrannical
states do not care for the sanctity of human life". And: "(We
shall) put the money from Iraqi oil in a UN trust fund so that
it benefits Iraq and no-one else". I believe him; don’t you?
Consider the activities of an earlier British Government in
Iraq. The Guardian newspaper revealed recently that a chemical
plant that the US says is a key component in Iraq’s chemical
warfare arsenal was secretly built by Britain in 1985.
Documents show that ministers in Mrs Margaret Thatcher’s
government knew that the Falluja 2 chlorine plant was likely
to be used for mustard and nerve gas production. Yet, the
ministers secretly gave insurance guarantees to the British
company involved. Why? Because, said Mr Paul Channon, then
Trade minister: "A ban would do our other trade prospects with
Iraq no good".
And so Saddam went on to develop lethal gases and use them
on Kurds and Iranians. And the British ministers sat back and
commended themselves on protecting British trade prospects.
So when their leaders speak to us of "the sanctity of human
life", we know to which humans they refer: as the war broke
out last week, the Queen of England excelled herself in saying
that she would be praying for the British troops involved.
You’ll forgive me, then, for taking the words of these
oh-so-righteous moralisers with truckloads of salt. How they
wax lyrical in their moral crusade now, when the same demon
Saddam was their favourite Arab in the 1980s! How gallantly
they come dashing in on their white chargers to rid the world
of evil! The same evil they were busy installing and
supporting not so long ago.
Let’s state facts. This war is about flexing US muscles. It
is merely a warm-up exercise in a bigger game. It is the
pre-cursor to total domination of the Middle East and its oil
reserves. Iraq is a pitifully easy target on which to
practice.
(20 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|