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.

almarst2002 - 09:32pm Jul 31, 2003 EST (# 13197 of 13267)

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/

Blanket depictions of neoconservatives as redesigned Trotskyites need to be corrected in favor of a more nuanced analysis. In several important respects the neoconservative world outlook has diverged from the Trotskyite one and acquired some striking similarities with Stalinism and German National Socialism. - http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/ChroniclesExtra.htm

THE CANCER KILLING AMERICA - http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/ChroniclesExtra.htm

Since WMDs were not the real reason for attacking Iraq, the question of the war’s true purpose remains unresolved. - http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/ChroniclesExtra.htm

The one surprising aspect of the current controversy surrounding Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” is not the failure to find them; those in the know had known all along that they did not exist. It is the Administration’s inept and confused handling of the situation that should have been anticipated months ago, when the “bureaucratic” decision was initially made to opt for the WMDs as casus belli. - http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/ChroniclesExtra.htm

gisterme - 11:18pm Jul 31, 2003 EST (# 13198 of 13267)

"...Since WMDs were not the real reason for attacking Iraq,..."

That's a false statement. Fear of WMD was a very real part of the reason. Don't try to re-write history, almarst. Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people and the Iranians. All those photos of horribly deformed babies that you attributed to US use of depleted uranium ammunition during the first gulf war are really the result of Saddam's use of nerve gas on the Kurds. Oh and don't forget that Saddam had to admit in 1995 that he did have a nuclear program at that time after his son in law defected and spilled the beans. Of course Saddam butchered that son in law later after coaxing him back to Iraq with lies.

"...the question of the war’s true purpose remains unresolved....'

That's also a false statement. The other part of the reason was to liberate the people of Iraq from a bloody dicatator and to eliminate the support of a major nation-state to terrorist causes.

How is it that you always seem to overlook little details like the mass murder and bloody opression that was going on in places like Iraq and the Balkins when you attempt to blame America for doing something about it? I can only suppose that it's because you condone that sort of behavior. You certainly do support and defend it.

As the muse so elegantly stated some few days back..."almarst only knows one tune"...and that tune includes no notes of common sense, objectivity or compassion. Discord can make interesting accents and even interesting highlights in some tunes but nobody wants to hear it all the time.

Just because you personally have managed to get a hair up your ass about America, that doesn't mean anybody else want's to hear it. Why don't you tell us what awful things America has done to you personally that has lead to such blind, mindless hatred? You know, in your own words? A first person account? I promise I'll listen with an open mind.

(69 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense