New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
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 (5168 previous messages)

lchic - 05:03pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (# 5169 of 5174)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

George Kennan, 98 year old architect of the COLD WAR DOCTRINE of CONTAINMENT said in The New Yorker Oct 14-21

    " I deplore doctrines. They purport to define one's behaviour in future situations where it may or may not be suitable.
    This being the case, I could no more approve of a doctrine of pre-emption than any other.
    I could see justification only if the absence of it would involve a major and imminent danger to our own country or, at worst, to our most intimate and tradtional allies. Of this I see no evidence.
    The apparently imminent use of American armed forces to drive Suddam Hussein from power seems to me well out of proportion to the dangers involved.
    I have seen no evidence that we have any realistic plans for dealing with the greate state of confusion in Iraqi affairs which would presumably follow even after the successful elimination of the dictator ... I of course, am not well informed.
    But I fear that any attempt on our part to confront that latent situation by military means alone could easily serve to aggravate it rather than alleviate it.

The USA would benefit from a more vocal 'think tank' of the emeritus who have accumulated wisdom, experience, and the freedom to express opinions (look at the King the King the King etc ) ... especially when it is the obvious!

lchic - 05:11pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (# 5170 of 5174)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~


gisterme - 06:23pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (# 5171 of 5174)

commondata 10/23/02 4:43pm

"...And yet Gisterme, you've never heard of more than 100,000 people being killed deliberately by US policy?..."

Nope. All the ones you're talking about are being killed deliberately by Iraqi policy. Except for the UN mandated no-fly zones the US was out of Iraq within weeks of the end of the Gulf War. And, oh, by the way, the entire Gulf War was the result of Iraqi policy. One could fairly say that culpability for all the deaths caused by the invasion of Kuwait and it's liberation lie at the feet of Saddam.

"... But you are wrong to make 22 million people culpable..."

I don't hold anybody culpable for Iraq's distress except Saddam Hussein. The 22 million in Iraq are suffering under his tender loving care as the direct result of his policies, not the US. If you think it's not a crime to rape your neighbor then say so, commondata. If you think it's a crime to help your friend when she's being raped, then say so.

That's all the UN including the US and the rest of the coalition was doing when it put a stop to the rape of Kuwait.

Go tell Saddam that your whining and defending of his atrocities isn't impressing many folks. Of course you're liable to lose your head for saying you'd like to see the backside of his regime. :-)

gisterme - 06:35pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (# 5172 of 5174)

lchic 10/23/02 5:03pm

"...The USA would benefit from a more vocal 'think tank' of the emeritus who have accumulated wisdom, experience, and the freedom to express opinions..."

Emeritus? Isn't that just another way of saying the elite?

You shame yourself, lchic. You folks seem to be on a self-hypocrasy revelation binge today. But then, communists are the ultimate elitists in that they believe that only a few are really qualified to rule the many. That's because they're sure common folk aren't smart enough to rule themselves. And, of course, that elite few must be ruled by one...

mazza9 - 07:24pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (# 5173 of 5174)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries


You miss the point. Charlmagne grasped the crown from the Pope and crowned himself King of the Franks. Robert and lchic have done as much.

the "IF ONLY" crowd is comprised of those individuals who have the mistaken belief in their intellecctual perfection and moral superiority. "IF ONLY" everyone else would do as they say, then paradise on Earth would be realized.

They don't get it and they certainly don't understand history. That's why they're doomed to repeat it over and over again.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  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