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 (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.

More Messages Recent Messages (20 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