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 (17190 previous messages)

almarst2003 - 07:37pm Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17191 of 17221)

Officials say the US is frustrated by its hand-picked council members, who they say have spent more time on their own political or economic interests than in planning Iraq's political future, especially selecting a committee to write a new constitution.

"We're unhappy with all of them. They're not acting as a legislative or governing body, and we need to get moving," one well-placed US official said. "They just don't make decisions when they need to." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/09/1068329422664.html

DEMOCRACY ACTS MUCH SLOWER THEN DICTATORSHIP ... THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN...

almarst2003 - 07:41pm Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17192 of 17221)

Addressing his colleagues on Oct. 17, Byrd had outdone himself rhetorically -- and come as close to losing his temper as his ingrained courtliness would permit. Railing against the $87 billion supplemental-appropriations bill for occupation and "reconstruction" in Iraq, Byrd reprised the fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" to illustrate how the country had been marched into war by a Praetorian Guard of confidence men, egged on by a president's vanity -- and how the con game persists. - http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1104-09.htm

almarst2003 - 07:48pm Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17193 of 17221)

Of all the president’s advisers, Cheney has consistently taken the most dire view of the terrorist threat. On Iraq, Bush was the decision maker. But more than any adviser, Cheney was the one to make the case to the president that war against Iraq was an urgent necessity. Beginning in the late summer of 2002, he persistently warned that Saddam was stocking up on chemical and biological weapons, and last March, on the eve of the invasion, he declared that “we believe that he [Saddam Hussein] has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (Cheney later said that he meant “program,” not “weapons.” He also said, a bit optimistically, “I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.”) After seven months, investigators are still looking for that arsenal of WMD. http://www.msnbc.com/news/991209.asp?cp1=1

almarst2003 - 07:50pm Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17194 of 17221)

Warplanes resume bombing in Iraq - http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/09/1068329418990.html

WITH THE BEST POSSIBLE INTENTIONS... DON'T GET ME WRONG.

rshow55 - 07:51pm Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17195 of 17221)
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.

Maybe some headway has been made:

Mission Statements: 15134-5 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.aekHbS9oXfP.2655448@.f28e622/16846

lchic - 07:57pm Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17196 of 17221)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

11th Day, 11th hour (my way) Standing to attention to remember

http://www.castlemountains.com/postcards/littleredpoppy.html

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/traditions/documents/InFlandersField_1.htm

----

Reading the words to In Flanders Field, second link, one can see why it is important that

Negotiation

be thought through more carefully

bluestar23 - 08:01pm Nov 10, 2003 EST (# 17197 of 17221)

rshow55:

"Lchic and I have intended for this thread to be, (or prototype) the largest bandwidth, clearest line of political-military communication that has ever existed between the US and Russia."

"Clearest line" just might be picking up White House phone and dialling up mr. Putin...? Where has vital nation-to-nation communication been managed by Internet TalkBoards..?

More Messages Recent Messages (24 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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