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 (17070 previous messages)

lchic - 01:42am Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17071 of 17106)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Goal of USA foreign policy - Bush speech in full www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06TEXT-BUSH.html - Opinion http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/10/opinion/10SAFI.html

lchic - 01:46am Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17072 of 17106)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

UK Muddle

At the heart of the problem lies what one source called "the structure from hell", a bizarre amalgam of overlapping agencies which have grown up over 100 years - MI5, MI6, GCHQ, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), the National Crime Squad, Customs and Excise, 55 local Special Branches scattered across the UK, the Anti Terrorist Branch, sundry civil servants including specialist investigators in the Immigration Department and the Inland Revenue, as well as the international links of Interpol, Europol, Eurojust, Cepol, Olaf and others. According to one central source:

"Nobody is in charge, nobody is dictating terms. Nobody would ever choose to have a structure like this if they were actually planning it."

Every one of these agencies has a different set of targets, some unique to itself, some shared with others. Some have sole ownership of a target, such as Customs with fiscal fraud or the Immigration Department with illegal migrants, and then the problem is whether they will pass on information which is of no interest to them but crucial to other agencies. Some of them share targets - several have an interest in drugs, for example - and then the problem is which agency has "primacy" and whether the others accept that and cooperate, or resent it and become obstructive. In any case, too often, according to those we have spoken to, these agencies fail to work together.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/criminaljustice/story/0,13733,1081578,00.html

bluestar23 - 01:53am Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17073 of 17106)

Well, goodnight, lchic, we'll see you tommorrow I'm sure....

lchic - 04:04am Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17074 of 17106)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Blue-y 7pm+ Monday Evening my way

lchic - 04:07am Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17075 of 17106)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Showalter - how was 'Media Reform' Madison ?

cantabb - 04:46am Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17076 of 17106)

lchic - 10:25pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17042 of 17075)

Alex-Almarst-ru, if you read the thread, was against Gisterme-USA component of the thread advocating war with Iraq. It's here in the record. The message was DON'T.

SO ?

lchic - 10:28pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17043 of 17075)

'real effort' - that's what lchic & Showalter have advocated.

SO ? If you advocated 'real effort' as you defined, you two are more naive than I tohught.

What is meant by real effort. It's about constructing minds to be forward looking, to have vision, to appreciate that simplex-jingoistic-gibberish isn't the shining-ligth-path Rather it's upskilling, upgrading, educating and accepting modern values of advanced societies.

THIS is “gibberish.” That’s not meant by ‘real effort’; note “real” ! NOT nebulous verbiage, subject to different interpretations by different people.

lchic - 11:29pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17052 of 17075)

De-Humanising the enemy http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/truth/ [NYT Science MD board || Thread readers here will note the de-humanisationary deflamatory tactics employed against Showalter and lchic]

Thread readers ALSO note the ‘defamatory tactics” you and showalter employed against other posters, including me, and the poster harassment over their IDs.

lchic - 04:07am Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17075 of 17075)

Showalter - how was 'Media Reform' Madison ?

Didn’t he tell you in his daily conversation ? Or you just want him to repeat all that here ?

More Messages Recent Messages (30 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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