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 (12026 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:41am May 26, 2003 EST (# 12027 of 12046)
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.

In 11996 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.tcoibMT4bw6.1943184@.f28e622/13621 Almarst asks

Who is to say the US ought to respect ANY government? Or LAW for that matter?

search "renegotiation"

9608-9610 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.tcoibMT4bw6.1943184@.f28e622/11149

If Americans are being agressive and distrustful in their relationships with the Arab world - there are some reasons.

Almarst - you're making important contributions that I appreciate now. But what do you want me personally (or the Bush administration) to actually do that I or they can reasonably do?

I think that the treaty of Westphalia is long gone - and should be. And if the Iraqi was showed some bad things about the US, as well as good and powerful things - surely it did - the military and personal behavior of the Iraqi people shows a good deal about the limits of reasonable trust and negotiation dealing with many in the Islamic world.

How many Americans want to take the slightest risk "trusting" the decency of such people? Why should they.

If you quote "national sovereignty" most Americans would just shrug - and dealing with the regimes we're confronting - I just don't acknowledge their legitimacy - and don't think many Americans really do.

almarst2002 - 07:42am May 26, 2003 EST (# 12028 of 12046)

Howard government blocks release of Australians from Guantanamo Bay - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/guan-m26.shtml

THE ENEMY OF MY BOSS IS MY ENEMY!

almarst2002 - 07:46am May 26, 2003 EST (# 12029 of 12046)

"If you quote "national sovereignty" most Americans would just shrug - and dealing with the regimes we're confronting - I just don't acknowledge their legitimacy - and don't think many Americans really do."

Most Germans shruged the same way not that long time ago. As did all past emipres and agressors.

May be that's one of the fundumental laws of life on this planet. With all the familiar consequences.

rshow55 - 07:46am May 26, 2003 EST (# 12030 of 12046)
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.

If you can't talk to people - and they really threaten you - then the "law of the jungle" is reasonable.

The US, for all its faults - does a good deal of work to get above the law of the jungle.

But US leaders are not of much mind to risk Americans - or western culture - to the "islamists" who you're so concerned with.

Or the leaders of N. Korea.

Why should they be terribly concerned? They've read, and taken seriously, what these people have said about us. Why on earth shouldn't we kill them - it that's the only reasonable way to avoid real injury from them.

We owe them considerably less than nothing by now.

I'm for peacemaking - but peace is one alternative among a number.

Americans remember all the chanting of "death to America."

Why not death to Islamic zealots?

lchic - 07:46am May 26, 2003 EST (# 12031 of 12046)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

The power of one

Weak nations will succumb to American ambition unless we insist on respecting sovereignty

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,963380,00.html

lchic - 07:48am May 26, 2003 EST (# 12032 of 12046)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

""Why not death to Islamic zealots?

? Aren't these guys alrady dead - in the head ?

More Messages Recent Messages (14 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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