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 (11004 previous messages)

lchic - 10:05am Apr 3, 2003 EST (# 11005 of 11009)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Time to update elsewhere - perhaps - out!

dccougar - 10:25am Apr 3, 2003 EST (# 11006 of 11009)
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

rshow55 - 10:00am Apr 3, 2003 EST quotes from - "The Philosopher of Islamic Terror" By PAUL BERMAN - " In the days after Sept. 11, 2001, many people anticipated a quick and satisfying American victory over Al Qaeda."

Mr. Berman is setting up a premise for his article that is completely untrue. It's not even a straw man because it's so irrelevant. From the very beginning, Bush made it abundantly clear that any "victory" over terrorism would NOT be "quick and satisfying", as Berman asserts. And for the record, I am NO FAN of Bush.

Btw, rshow55, your monologue about Saddam possibly being dead or incapacitated, possibly for some time, was somewhat more focused and relevant, though still overly lengthy as usual. If words are weapons, you're dropping cluster bombs, not precision-guided missiles. :^)

almarst2003 - 11:47am Apr 3, 2003 EST (# 11007 of 11009)

Former US envoy to Iraq: A 'terrible, bloody' miscalculation - http://www.antiwar.com/ocregister/bloody.html

Peck, a UCLA grad who spent 32 years as a diplomat, was careful to preface his remarks with the information that he had served two hitches in the U.S. Army as a paratrooper and had faced war, disease and riots as a diplomat, so he takes a back seat to none in facing danger for his country. He was in Iraq from 1977 to 1980, served in other Middle East posts, was coordinator of covert intelligence in the State Department and deputy director of the Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism in the Reagan White House.

Noting that George W. Bush's approval rating was 52 percent on Sept. 10, 2001, and 90 percent on Sept. 12 when he was a president under foreign attack, Peck suggested a similar phenomenon might be at work for Saddam Hussein, as despicable as he is. He said that when you invade a foreign country, the people there just might view you as invaders rather than liberators.

Peck thinks the United States will probably win this war eventually, but it will be harder than our leaders anticipated and will cost us dearly in national morale, solidarity and international prestige. And we'll be paying a high price for a long time to come in increased Middle Eastern instability and acts of terrorism.

The notion that Islamists hate us because of our freedom or "because Britney Spears has a bellybutton" is "terribly stupid," Peck believes.

Most Americans don't want to face the fact that we've been killing Iraqis for 12 years, through sanctions and bombing, and that we're constantly in the world's face.

But if we don't stop to consider honestly what really drives the terrorists of the world we'll have to deal with them for a long time to come.

The idea that attacking Iraq will end terrorism is a little hard to square with the fact that we've called up 25,000 reservists to protect the homeland, and Colin Powell has asked for $6 billion to turn every American embassy into a fortress, all to coincide with the beginning of the war.

"I hope to the depths of my being I am wrong," Peck said. "But I'm afraid we will pay a terrible, bloody price for this miscalculation in Iraq."

almarst2003 - 11:51am Apr 3, 2003 EST (# 11008 of 11009)

former chief executive of the Shell Oil Company appears to be the leading contender to oversee Iraqi oil production after the fall of Saddam Hussein, industry experts who spoke to the Bush administration said yesterday. - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/worldspecial/02OIL.html?ex=1050320689&ei=1&en=e56f25399ad0fa33

BEHIND THE BUTTLE SMOKE

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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