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 (15392 previous messages)

cantabb - 07:25am Oct 22, 2003 EST (# 15393 of 15402)

lchic - 07:00am Oct 22, 2003 EST (# 15392 of 15392)

Just wait a New York minute Cantabb --- re-read the posts i cited - fully and 'think' ... they belong here on 'this' board ...

The gale-force scandal outed CIA woman was chasing down missiles ... see end of quote.

Re-read your link. Am aware of the scandal & its implications. Didn't find much of any relevance to MD that you saw in the Link.

Given the history of your links, you SEE MD-relevance in everything you drag in here. As does your esteemed leader, rshow55.

Nothing new, nothing unusual for you & rshow55.

And the New York minute is there for a New Yorker to 'explain' that term ... or do i have to chase it down?

Any New Yorker would tell you the same in much less than a New York minute !

"ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation": See if you can follow your own tag-line !

cantabb - 07:30am Oct 22, 2003 EST (# 15394 of 15402)

lchic:

One more thing, btw : I thought I was on your much-touted "Ignore" List !

Did you set this "Ignore" function right ?

lchic - 08:27am Oct 22, 2003 EST (# 15395 of 15402)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Cantabb - you were the first person ever to go on my ignore list ... and you deserved and still deserve to be there.

The woman who was 'named' ... if you bother to read the articles ... was literally chasing down missiles ... she was the REAL Missile Defense Sheild ... forget the Reagan Bubble!

As such - she has a place on this thread!

But coming back to Cantabb - you don't have a place on this thread because .....

you've never posed one thing on Missile Defense -- only 'fenced'!

lchic - 09:11am Oct 22, 2003 EST (# 15396 of 15402)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

The eagle has landed ... he's writing a book entitled

    'Australia in ten minutes'

cantabb - 09:27am Oct 22, 2003 EST (# 15397 of 15402)

lchic - 08:27am Oct 22, 2003 EST (# 15395 of 15395)

Cantabb - you were the first person ever to go on my ignore list ... and you deserved and still deserve to be there.

I'd cherish the unique honor !

I know raw nerves have been touched, and the lack of your 'emperor's clothes' has been pointed out. Tsk, Tsk !

So why deny the poster you think is the most 'deserving' ??? And, put yourself out of self-perpetuated misery ! Or, you'd rather continue to whine ?

The woman who was 'named' ... if you bother to read the articles ... was literally chasing down missiles ... she was the REAL Missile Defense Sheild ... forget the Reagan Bubble!

Read it. Know the whole thing. To you, everything is relevant to MD.

As such - she has a place on this thread!

As much as you.

But coming back to Cantabb - you don't have a place on this thread because ..... you've never posed one thing on Missile Defense -- only 'fenced'!

Speak for yourself & rshow55. And contrast, if you can, 35 days of my 'fencing' responses to my first post WITH 3 years of of 'contributions' [thousands of posts] and endless rehash from you and your esteemed leader, rshow55. Consider my effort in trying to steer you and rshow toward any semblance of On-topic debate and pursuing the still not-forthcoming evidence of your various claims -- just an initial phase of my contribution !

And, once again, see if you can follow your own tag-line: "ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation" !

More Messages Recent Messages (5 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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