[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 (1417 previous messages)

almarst-2001 - 03:24pm Apr 17, 2002 EST (#1418 of 1450)

Losing Latin America by PAUL KRUGMAN

"Surely the worst thing about this episode is the betrayal of our democratic principles; "of the people, by the people, for the people" isn't supposed to be followed by the words "as long as it suits U.S. interests."

It seems for a very long time this country motto has being "As long as it suits U.S. interests, anything goes"

What is really dangerous and FASCIST in nature is an attempt to mask the most appaling acts of selfishness and ruthless criminal behavier under the banners of Democracy and Humanity.

The words written on the Buchenwald concentration camp where "The Work makes the man FREE".

At least the British Empire was honest by declaring that it "Has no Friends or Enemies. Just Interests"

The nation which brainwashed its population to the degree of moral degradation and blindness while in position of the World ultimate Superpower is ULTIMATLY DANGEROUS.

almarst-2001 - 03:32pm Apr 17, 2002 EST (#1419 of 1450)

George W. Sadat by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN -

"Mr. Bush has to do the same right now. He has to be the Anwar el-Sadat of this moment, because no one else will be. That means laying down a clear American peace plan calling for a new U.N. mandate for the West Bank and Gaza to develop a new Palestinian Authority capable of ruling those areas; a phased withdrawal of Israeli troops, la the Clinton plan; and U.S. or NATO forces to cement the deal."

This comes from THE major idea-setting man in US media? What a poor country.

rshow55 - 04:12pm Apr 17, 2002 EST (#1420 of 1450) Delete Message

Rich country -- in many ways -- imperfect in spots. Richer for having Friedman's work - - though neither Friedman, nor any other columnist, can deliver totally perfect, ideally balanced perfection from all points of view.

Almarst , don't you think, from the perspective of the world as a whole, and world safety overall -- that there's been a lot of progress in the last year? A major thing is that people all over the world are looking at problems that they weren't attending to before.

There's plenty to be indignant about -- more than enough to go around. A lot of things could be made better.

It would surely be a far safer world if we looked carefully at the horrors that have become "standard" since WWII - -

How many things would have to change to make the world much safer? Maybe not too many.

Many of the most serious problems include very basic, blatant distortions about facts and proportions. The "missile defense" boondoggle is an example.

The truth doesn't always get buried. And you , almarst , can make mistakes too.

And correct them. Others do, too. Friedman has corrected his own mistakes, once he understands he's made them, many times.

almarst-2001 - 04:18pm Apr 17, 2002 EST (#1421 of 1450)


Any solution has to come from within to be durable and acceptable.

The only solution I personaly can see is INTEGRATION Palestine into the Israel under some lose confederation. All the resources have to be equaly distributed and shared. The defence should be a common one accross Israel-Palestine external borders. True equality among all people. While each part of federation may maintain its own cultural-linquistic characteristics. The may be taken Swiserland as a model.

The drowback for the Israel may be some loss of its strictly Jewish identity. But, honestly, it seems to have being lost for a very long time now. Another is a loss of its external European-American appearance. But I personally would concider it to be a positive change.

That could be a country I would like to return and live in.

almarst-2001 - 04:30pm Apr 17, 2002 EST (#1422 of 1450)

"Friedman has corrected his own mistakes"

Agree. Since I started following him at a time of "humanitarian" bombing and Globalization "go-go", he seems to grow up. A bit.

Can I be wrong on many occasions? Absolutly. Fortunatly, I don't have responcibility for shaping this country's public oppinion. On a matters of lives and death of thousends if not millions of people.

In a last couple of years I changed as well. I lost the naivity I had coming to live in US. I see the World with much more cynical and critical eyes. I see that the ultimate Truth is dictated by the prevealing Force. As suitable. That there is no such thing as MORALITY above the position of street-cleaner. For better or worst.

almarst-2001 - 04:33pm Apr 17, 2002 EST (#1423 of 1450)

The real question about Friedman for me is this: Is he as fool as he frequently presents himself or is it a pose required to advance his career?

More Messages Recent Messages (27 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company