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 (5187 previous messages)

commondata - 07:42am Oct 24, 2002 EST (# 5188 of 5192)

kalter.rauch 10/24/02 4:21am

You're as inconsistent as lchic. I don't know how you figure "US policy" is killing Iraqi children when it's the UN that has agreed on the "oil for food, etc." program. Iraq COULD be fed if Sodom Hussy would actually spend the $$$ on food, medicine, etc. Instead, he builds endless "palaces" and buys surplus military equipment from defunct ex-Soviet bloc countries. Therefore the $$$ won't be forthcoming.

I don't think the 661 committee authorises palaces, kalter, they have enough problem letting medicines through sometimes.


While [oil for food program] allows Iraq to sell varying amounts of oil, not one dollar ever enters Iraq. Rather, the proceeds are deposited in a UN controlled escrow account in a NYC bank. Iraq then negotiates with various corporations for food, spare parts, etc., all of which must be approved, contract by contract, by the UN 661 committee. The US and Britain have used their veto power on this committee to block billions of dollars of contracts for, so called, dual use items such as tires, pumps, etc. At the moment, $5.3 Billion worth of goods is on hold. Despite the ineffectiveness of this program in alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people, most good willed persons have been lulled into believing that the worst of the suffering is over.

... Secretary of State Collin Powell let the cat out of the bag: "Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy of regime change." (FT, 14 Feb. 2002)

At this juncture, we would be wise to consider the FBI’s definition of Terrorism: "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Clearly, this definition applies to the US/UN 12 year war against Iraq.

commondata - 08:19am Oct 24, 2002 EST (# 5189 of 5192)

kalter.rauch 10/24/02 4:21am

Oh, and Kalter, don't kid yourself that UN policy is much distinguishible from US policy. See Boutros Boutros-Ghali says about Flaws in UN's moral authority on democracy.

Boutros-Ghali's comments come at a time when the US and Britain continue to oppose the lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq despite overwhelming support for it - both inside and outside the United Nations.

Of the five permanent members of the Security Council, namely France, Russia and China, have indicated willingness to end sanctions against Iraq. But the US and UK have threatened to veto any such move.

In his book, Boutros-Ghali provides evidence of how Washington continues to manipulate the world body to its own advantage and to protect its own interests.

When there was a proposal to relieve the sufferings of the Iraqi people through a temporary suspension of the embargo under an "Oil for Food" deal, the US dragged its feet because it was a presidential election year. The White House feared that the Iraqi issue could get embroiled in domestic politics, he says. (IPS)

lchic - 10:13am Oct 24, 2002 EST (# 5190 of 5192)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Moscow - Theatre

Interesting to note that the RU-Chechen war was declared 'OVER' a while back .... yet the RU mob are still being asked to withdraw.

When is a war not a war?

30 Foreign Nationals are tied into Moscow Theatre fiasco !

Any chance of Putin saying sorry to Chechens regarding the abuses of it's officers.

Any chance of Chechens saying sorry for epic kidnap?

Putin ( says an outside body has put the Chechens up it - might that be so - how much Saudi small change splashes into Chechen hands to encourage them to commit evil attrocities.

Can Chechens be encouraged to be 'responsible' and work towards having a decent country with some cultural and economic self-sufficiency?

Is there plutonium floating -- is it safe or to be set against humanity?

mazza9 - 11:20am Oct 24, 2002 EST (# 5191 of 5192)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Surely Robert, lchic and commondata would be for a regime change in Iraq if they stopped to ponder the precident! They would then have the backing for a regime change in the United States! The dictatorship of the proletariat could be established and their "leadership" legalized!

My only question is where would they put their "gulag"? I've been to the North slope of Alaska and that might fill the bill. Of course, there is always the Nevada desert. Then again, they might just set up their gas chambers in the Wyoming wastelands. I suppose that I would be one of the early converts. You know, converted from human being to fertilizer!

Say, lchic would make the perfect Gauleiter of the re-education schools that might spring up around Alice!

My irony quotient has been reached. Over to you gisterme, (or is it Condi? I forget what day it is and who I am!)

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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