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.
(10999 previous messages)
robkettenburg03
- 09:52am Apr 3, 2003 EST (#
11000 of 11005)
The first casualty of war is innocence - http://www.palsolidarity.org/rachelphotos.htm
The second casualty of war is the truth - http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/robkettenburg
lchic
- 09:54am Apr 3, 2003 EST (#
11001 of 11005) ~~~~ It got understood and exposed
~~~~
2/3 of Saddam's guys are 'missing' .... possibly inside the
city of Baghdad.
That along with all residents having guns and being
'trigger' happy ....
.... may mean that services will be CUT
lchic
- 09:58am Apr 3, 2003 EST (#
11002 of 11005) ~~~~ It got understood and exposed
~~~~
The logic of the Iraqi matter
would have been for the 'regime'
to have stepped back
saved on infrastructure and lives
...
It was the ONLY logic!
rshow55
- 10:00am Apr 3, 2003 EST (#
11003 of 11005)
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 Philosopher of Islamic Terror By PAUL BERMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/magazine/23GURU.html
" In the days after Sept. 11, 2001, many
people anticipated a quick and satisfying American victory
over Al Qaeda. The terrorist army was thought to be no
bigger than a pirate ship, and the newly vigilant police
forces of the entire world were going to sink the ship with
swift arrests and dark maneuvers.
. . . .
"Yet Al Qaeda has seemed unfazed. Its
popularity, which was hard to imagine at first, has turned
out to be large and genuine in more than a few countries. .
. .
. . . .
" It would be nice to think that, in the war
against terror, our side, too, speaks of deep philosophical
ideas -- it would be nice to think that someone is arguing
with the terrorists and with the readers of Sayyid Qutb. But
here I have my worries. The followers of Qutb speak, in
their wild fashion, of enormous human problems, and they
urge one another to death and to murder. But the enemies of
these people speak of what? The political leaders speak of
United Nations resolutions, of unilateralism, of
multilateralism, of weapons inspectors, of coercion and
noncoercion. This is no answer to the terrorists. The
terrorists speak insanely of deep things. The antiterrorists
had better speak sanely of equally deep things. Presidents
will not do this. Presidents will dispatch armies, or
decline to dispatch armies, for better and for worse.
But who will speak of the sacred and the
secular, of the physical world and the spiritual world? Who
will defend liberal ideas against the enemies of liberal
ideas? Who will defend liberal principles in spite of
liberal society's every failure? President George W. Bush,
in his speech to Congress a few days after the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks, announced that he was going to wage a war of
ideas. He has done no such thing. He is not the man for
that.
Philosophers and religious leaders will have
to do this on their own. Are they doing so? Armies are in
motion, but are the philosophers and religious leaders, the
liberal thinkers, likewise in motion? There is something to
worry about here, an aspect of the war that liberal society
seems to have trouble understanding -- one more worry, on
top of all the others, and possibly the greatest worry of
all.
If we just asked people to check for how well their ideas
fit the things they have to decently care about
- that might be all the "deep philosophy" peace, prosperity,
and reasonable religion would need.
rshow55
- 10:02am Apr 3, 2003 EST (#
11004 of 11005)
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.
Starting this year - I made a guess rshow55 - 08:20am
Jan 1, 2003 EST (# 7177 <a
href="/webin/WebX?14@28.UpbZapbp64w.215199@.f28e622/8700">rshow55
1/1/03 8:20am</a>
I think this is a year where some lessons
are going to have to be learned about stability and function
of international systems, in terms of basic requirements of
order , symmetry , and harmony - at the
levels that make sense - and learned clearly and explicitly
enough to produce systems that have these properties by
design, not by chance.
From where we are now - it shouldn't be that hard to do.
(1 following message)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|