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 (12844 previous messages)

lchic - 05:44pm Jul 4, 2003 EST (# 12845 of 12855)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Pork Pies and broken eggs | Phillip Adams ..... Talking of eggs, our fragile world teeters like Humpty Dumpty. And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men . . .

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6662322%5E12272,00.html

lchic - 05:51pm Jul 4, 2003 EST (# 12846 of 12855)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Rotten-Ru-Mafia are making withdrawals:

A spam e-mail was circulated inviting bank customers to click through to an imitation site.

The bank said when the link in the e-mail was clicked on, the imitation site was apparent through its web address which was a series of numbers rather than them.

Advice - go to bank directly through web address.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6699552%5E1702,00.html

lchic - 06:13pm Jul 4, 2003 EST (# 12847 of 12855)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Granta 77: What We Think of America

http://www.granta.com/back-issues/77?usca_p=t

almarst2002 - 09:04pm Jul 4, 2003 EST (# 12848 of 12855)

The chasm opening between what George W. Bush claimed was true about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and what U.S. forces are discovering on the ground is so huge it defies the Vietnam-era phrase of "credibility gap." In this case, it's more as if Bush is leading the nation to a new era, beyond the Age of Reason. - http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/061703a.html

almarst2002 - 09:11pm Jul 4, 2003 EST (# 12849 of 12855)

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html

almarst2002 - 09:14pm Jul 4, 2003 EST (# 12850 of 12855)

There is a certain irony that today the American empire is celebrating an essentially anti-imperialist event. But, outside it, July 4 is becoming the focus for a new campaign - a declaration of independence from America. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,991118,00.html

lchic - 05:41am Jul 5, 2003 EST (# 12851 of 12855)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

" .. American imperialism is a lot more complex and subtle than the version its people threw off a couple of centuries ago. For example, they have ruthlessly taken over our cinemas with the calculated and cynical trick known as "making better films than we do". (from above)

More Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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