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.

lchic - 07:11am Oct 1, 2003 EST (# 14199 of 14200)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

It gets back to scary Mary's little lamb

Psycho Warfare

That's LIES LIES LIES

Tall stories

Bent and twisted stories

The ambushing and maniplation of truth

Taxpayer funding of the military complex missile store

Commissions to contractors

A quasi- Red Scheme | employment scheme

Institionalised 'thinking' - ie NON-thinking

A need to create WAR to utilize and burn-out military gear

Failure to 'think-tank' out true priorities

TRUE PRIORITIES relate not to war rather peace

PEACE on a peaceful planet

Currently the planet throws it's 'slops' everywhere without concern for it's future ... with a need to provide for 6billon+ people.

rshow55 - 07:31am Oct 1, 2003 EST (# 14200 of 14200)
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.

gisterme http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.FeyIbAWHKjF.0@.f28e622/15900 says:

You simply made up that ridiculous baloney you claim I "suggested" you post. I knew noting about that tripe until you posted it. To me it was not interesting at all. Your statement that I suggested you post it is a lie.

Is gisterme intentionally misleading? Am I? Could this be an honest difference of opinion?

Or a partly honest one?

I went back and checked - and I want to be careful what I say - because I personally think gisterme is, or represents, the Bush administration - and I wonder about both intention and judgement in making that posting. ( http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.FeyIbAWHKjF.0@.f28e622/15900 )

What's under discussion relates to 4701 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.FeyIbAWHKjF.0@.f28e622/5949 and what happened, and was written, afterwards.

I'm choosing my words with care - and wondering what gisterme's motivations may be.

Postings of mine a little later - for instance here - http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/352 - bear on the case. Note that at that time I didn't think gisterme was Bush - but thought that gisterme was so high in the administration that (he-she) might be Rice.

I'm taking my time here - because the stakes seem high - and opportunities for learning and progress seem high, too.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense