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.

rshow55 - 07:36am Mar 31, 2003 EST (# 10824 of 10826)
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.

Almarst points to an article that does bear reading. Not only the parts he cites above.

Blair seeks to defuse Arab anger Mark Tran Sunday March 30, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,925989,00.html

" Tony Blair today waded into the battle for hearts and minds in the Arab world by arguing that the United States and Britain were right to go to war in Iraq In an article for newspapers in the Middle East, including the influential Egyptian weekly al-Ahram, Mr Blair wrote: "I believe that history will judge that we made the right choice. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people but with Saddam, his sons, and his barbarous regime which has brought misery and terror to their country."

"The prime minister's letter came amid concern that the US and Britain were losing the propaganda war with Baghdad. TV images of dead or injured civilians have inflamed Arab opinion, while dogged Iraqi resistance has stirred Arab nationalist pride despite President Saddam's reputation as a tyrant.

- - - - - and also speaks of an interesting program

"On the same programme, the former UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali urged the international community to try to prevent the war spreading across the Middle East.

" "What is more dangerous [is] that this war is reinforcing the position of the fundamentalist in the Arab world," Mr Boutros-Ghali said.

In his article, Mr Blair painted an idyllic picture of a future Iraq.

" "I want all Iraqis - Arab, Assyrian, Kurd, Turkoman, Sunni, Shiite, Christian and all other groups - to share in the fruits of this new, prosperous Iraq, united within its current borders," he wrote. "An Iraq free from tyranny, fear and repression, where thousands each year are no longer forced from their homes or imprisoned, tortured or executed."

The article, like many Guardian articles, includes superb links.

rshow55 - 07:39am Mar 31, 2003 EST (# 10825 of 10826)
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.

This bears another look, as well.

The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club By BILL KELLER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/08KELL.html

The idea that there needs to be a reframing - a change of patterns - has been repeated again and again on this thread. The alternative is uncontrolled fights without end.

Nobody wants that. So everybody ought to be prepared to do some thinking, and some work.

9509 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.2trXayJf6q2.2461121@.f28e622/11048 makes the point that we need reframing, with many links.

Some basic things about order, disorder, contradiction, checking, and fitting things together have to be better understood than they are.

Almarst says "THE PEACE WAS NOT A PART OF A WAR-GAME. " and he's wrong about that. Peace was part of the intention. And there was a lot of very good reasoning connected to the plan Bush and Blair settled on. Along with some imperfections.

I don't think that indignation and chaos at the level I sometimes see it from Almarst are the ideal response. Though some of his posts are wonderful - this one, for example: http://winstars.free.fr/english/bush.html

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense