New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
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
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
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 (4600 previous messages)

mazza9 - 07:54pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4601 of 4617)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

"That's nonsense - a big lie. The Bush Administration, far too often, stands against liberty."

Robert, you are entitled to your opinion but I think that you are wrong. It appears that your observations of the world are so colored that you wouldn't know a threat if it crawled up your behind! Answer this question. In the last 20 years, can you name the country that employed chemical weapons in wartime although they were a signatory to the Geneva Conventions which banned their use??

Hint. The country's name is four letters long and begins with I and ends in Q. Need anymore help you doofus?

rshow55 - 07:55pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4602 of 4617) Delete Message
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.

4430 rshow55 9/19/02 9:39pm asked:

Is it possible that the Bush administration is setting up a war in order to win an election where, without the war , they'd have to talk about things like Enron ? People should check.

In The New Jersey Ethicist , BILL KELLER asked for some checking, and pointed out an obvious outrage :

" Allow me to quote my favorite moral philosopher, Karl Rove. Remember what he told Republican candidates back in June? "Focus on war." (O.K., he's no troubadour, but the man gets to the point.) D'you think he meant, "Let's all focus on the war and have a moment of silence and feel blue?" Of course not, knucklehead, he meant, "Take the war, and run the wussy Democrats into the ground with it."

Some responsible politicians, of both parties, ought to be asking careful questions. Leaders of other nation states should be asking them too. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/21/opinion/21KELL.html

Now, some checking has been done, some obvious things have become too blatant to ignore - - and very responsible, careful people are prepared to say so.

Defend the Country, Not the Party http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/27/opinion/27GEPH.html

President Bush has decided to play politics with the safety and security of the American people.

Links to CIA and my security problems, this thread: 3774-3779 rshow55 8/17/02 5:58pm

In my view, the Bush administration, on some key points, is way over the line -- as a practical and moral matter, committing treason.

I'd be glad for a chance to discuss that, publicly, with people with rank, using their real names.

Everything that matters could be expained, and explained clearly - to people who have the sophisication that it takes to appreciate NASCAR. I don't think these folks like to be misled, lied to, betrayed any more than anybody else.

mazza9 - 07:58pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4603 of 4617)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Or how about this one. Iraq has used chemical weapons, (oops gave the answer away!)in the past against its enemies. Al Quida sources have stated that Iraq has given chemcial weapon information/training to Al Quida terrorists. Can you connect the Dots...(not the movie candy this time)? Why don't you go back to your whining about "Bill Casey and the CIA that done you wrong?"

lchic - 01:04am Sep 28, 2002 EST (# 4604 of 4617)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

There are people - alive over the past twenty years - suffering the effects of chemical weapons:

http://www.oneworld.net/guides/cbweapons/front.shtml

    ''After the two bombings of the town, that day, children and grown up women and men started to vomit blood,'' the statement said.
    It said a number of pregnant women in the affected region have suffered miscarriages, while cattle, sheep, goats and birds have been dying in large numbers.

lchic - 01:24am Sep 28, 2002 EST (# 4605 of 4617)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Clinton was advised - letter April 1997 - that 'Top Brass' USA forces were against Chemical Weapons ... Colin Powell a signature.

More Messages Recent Messages (12 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us