New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(14920 previous messages)
almarst2003
- 07:06pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (#
14921 of 14924)
The Turkish military has warned it will respond to any
Kurdish attack on its soldiers in Iraq as it held talks with
its NATO-senior the United States about where to deploy
soldiers in the occupied country.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4253F223-BE04-4575-88D9-FE5EB776DBEB.htm
The "No Kurds" Zone?
almarst2003
- 07:22pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (#
14922 of 14924)
Turks trade troops for hard U.S. cash http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_oct12.html
Washington is delighted. Having run out of troops itself,
the U.S. is arm-twisting and bribing all and sundry to send
soldiers to Iraq.
almarst2003
- 07:27pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (#
14923 of 14924)
Recall that the congressional authority Bush invoked
required him to "determine" that:
Reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq, or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
Acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11,
2001.
On March 19, 2003, Bush informed Congress that Saddam posed
"a continuing threat to the national security of the United
States" by "continuing to possess and develop a significant
chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a
nuclear weapons capability and supporting and harboring
terrorist organizations."
Only days before, U.N. inspectors had reported that Saddam
appeared to be cooperating and as best they could tell had
neither nukes, chem-bio weapons, ballistic missiles or the
makings thereof.
Furthermore, Bush and Rice have admitted, "We have no
evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September
11th attacks."
But she and Bush claim to have believed last year that
Saddam did have "weapons of mass destruction" and that he
might give them to terrorists for use against us.
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is
imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced
their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they
strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly
emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would
come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam
Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
Rice claims that almost everyone then agreed with Bush's
assessment and cites last year's UNSC Resolution 1441 as
proof.
But they didn't agree, not even then. That resolution –
passed at Bush's insistence – merely requested that Saddam let
the U.N. inspectors verify that he hadn't attempted to
reconstitute his nuke, chem-bio and missile programs.
The U.N. inspectors went in, searched for four months and
concluded that he hadn't. Now, after six-months, the
U.S.-Brit-Aussie group has discovered no "evidence" to the
contrary.
Nevertheless, Rice claims that "the Iraq Survey Group is
finding – and recording – proof that Iraq never disarmed, and
never complied with U.N. inspectors".
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35029
Rice... Long legs... and the rest to match.
wrcooper
- 07:35pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (#
14924 of 14924)
klsanford0
You are the only person who has really tried to focus on
missile defense posts of late, and I really welcome your
effort. However, I see you're still getting sucked into
commenting on rshow55 and lchic and cantabb's posts. Are you
beginning to understand the futility and frustration that
accompanies any such attempt?
jorian319
You're an amusing satirist, but you also have interesting
things to say when it suits you. I wish you that you, too,
would give up the quixotic tilt-at-rshow show of wit against
nitwit and join in with klsanford0 and Lou Mazza and I and
discuss the important missile defense issue.
I would like to see missile defense become an election year
issue. I pretty much view George Bush as the Second Coming of
the Beast, and if bringing attention to his lack of probity in
promoting his hare-brained neo-Star Warsism can help bring him
low, that'd be super duper.
Let's help reveal the absurdity and political cynicism that
drives this juggernaut.
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
To post a message, compose your text in the
box below, then click on Post My Message (below) to
send the message.
You cannot rewrite history, but you will have 30 minutes to
make any changes or fixes after you post a message. Just click
on the Edit button which follows your message after
you post it.
|