New York Times Forums
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 (14418 previous messages)

lchic - 03:15pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14419 of 14433)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

John Schwartz fan r u Schwarter ... meet Stephen ...

Ann Coulter's Betrayal of the Anti-Communist Historians By Stephen Schwartz

Mr. Schwartz is a senior policy analyst with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Coulter has used the Venona traffic to make the argument that Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin, has been unfairly defamed by liberal public opinion. She has intimated that liberals in general, meaning many Democrats, social democrats, and anti-Communist union leaders, were soft on the former Soviet Union, and therefore traitors.

These are immensely complicated historical issues, which continue to be treated subjectively by most commentators, and on which I don't wish to expend a great deal of energy right now. Nevertheless, I have had a minor role in the analysis of the Venona decryptions, and wish to point out certain obvious problems with Ms. Coulter's claims.

First, one of the main lessons we must derive from the Venona traffic is that Soviet clandestine agents in the U.S. and in the West in general did not operate in a rational fashion ...

Rather, a considerable amount of the Venona traffic is concerned with Soviet persecution, harassment, surveillance, and infiltration of the tiny group of supporters of L T ....

Thus, with regard to Venona and what it tells us about Soviet operations in the U.S., a knowledge of the ins and outs of the Roosevelt New Deal is often much less useful than a study of the hidden and largely forgotten history of Trotskyism. One of the most significant Soviet agents discussed in Venona was the infamous Mark Zborowski, militant and anthropologist, who infiltrated the Trotskyist movement in the late 1930s in Paris. Zborowski was involved in the murder of Trotsky’s son Lyova Sedov and other revolutionary militants whose names would doubtless mean nothing to Ms. Coulter:

http://hnn.us/articles/1565.html

bluestar23 - 03:17pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14420 of 14433)

Rshow55:

"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting."

No sentence could better sum up the contributions of Mr. Showalter than the above.....

bluestar23 - 03:26pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14421 of 14433)

showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Email Showalter and tell him what you think of his deliberate hijacking and deliberate abuse of New York Times Forum Policy....

jorian319 - 03:27pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14422 of 14433)
"You know I'm an idiot like you know evolution is true" - - James Nienhuis

"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting."

The simplistic beauty of it! The beautiful simplicity of it! The simple simplicity, the beautiful beauty - I'm in friggin' AWE!

rshow55 - 03:28pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14423 of 14433)
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.

showalte@macc.wisc.edu is obsolete - click rshow55 for the right one (you might look at content there, too.)

rshow55 - 03:30pm Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14424 of 14433)
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.

The point is super important - and people like you systematically downgrade the point - in ways that impoverish us all.

Just as the denial of the fact that deception is much more common than people admit impoverishes us all.

Very often frequency of use is the most important measure of significance in use.

And often the most missed - usually for status reasons.

More Messages Recent Messages (9 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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