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.

jorian319 - 10:24am Sep 6, 2003 EST (# 13539 of 13553)

Meanwhile, Robert, let ye be judged by the company you keep.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

As the Guardian of The Guardian, I hope you're happy with them. The above article epitomizes the reason The Guardian is nearly universally regarded as a fiction rag. That article looks to be an assemblage of conspiracy theories - I expected to see some assertions about the moon landing being bogus, holocaust never happened and the earth is indeed flat.

rshow55 - 02:39pm Sep 6, 2003 EST (# 13540 of 13553)
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.

This war on terrorism is bogus The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html was written by Michael Meacher MP who was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003 under Tony Blair's administration.

I don't buy into everything he says, by a long shot. But it is interesting how he thinks - and feels - and there is real outrage behind it - some of it justified.

Jorian319 - I bet if you give your name and write him at his email meacherm@parliament.uk he might respond.

I don't buy his idea that the Bush administration stood by and "let" the WTC disaster happen - any more than I think that NASA intentionally "let" the Columbia or Challenger accidents happen.

But the idea that "The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination " fits a great deal.

Postings on the Missile Defense board from Sept 11 to September 13 provide some background - http://www.mrshowalter.net/calendar1.htm

Jorian, you're

" let ye be judged by the company you keep" is a straight "get on the team" argument which leaves out a lot.

There is a lot about the Guardian I admire - though I don't agree with everything they print.

jorian319 - 03:30pm Sep 6, 2003 EST (# 13541 of 13553)

I agree with very little that they print, and in the cases where I do agree, I generally disagree with their reasons for printing it. The Guardian is a rag IMNSHO.

jorian319 - 03:56pm Sep 6, 2003 EST (# 13542 of 13553)

BTW, Robert, here's

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0904-11.htm

an article you'll love - full of all the requisite vitriol and unsupported assertions, and conformingly light on facts.

George W. Bush confronts one of the most difficult choices of his life: Should he turn Iraq over to the UN and thus save the lives of our men and women in uniform, but lose the oil, the campaign cash, and probably the election? Or should he keep our troops in Iraq to protect Halliburton, Bechtel, and his other Republican corporate campaign donors, skim millions in campaign cash out of the billions these friendly corporations are being paid by American taxpayers, and hope all that money can buy enough commercials to make Americans forget about the price of gasoline, growing Iraqi nationalism, and the resulting coffins returning to America on a daily basis.

Yeah, right. That's a no-brainer (perfect for Shrub). Protect Halliburton and Bechtel, of course!

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense