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 (5607 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 08:01pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5608 of 5651)

The militarism of present-day American society brings us back in the time of World War II. -

lunarchick - 08:05pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5609 of 5651)

TRUTH - the need to get to

If 'truth' were established on many issues, then, people would be reading 'off the same page' and have common understanding.

A fault of 'history' is that the write-up is patriotic bias ... cover-up ... a rah-rah-rave to be taught on to current and next generations.

Critical (economic) history often gets closer to truth.

Asking for TRUTH could be a starting point.

When LIES and COVER-UPS and Propaganda are offered instead of truth then :

    WHO gained?
    WHO is still gaining?
    WHO is hiding?
    What are they hiding?
    Why are they hiding?
That key critical aspects of USA 'foreign' policy have been so skewed over the past half century demands answers.

Why can't good questions be asked that lead to a basis of truth .... from which good policies can be forged.

Mandella wasn't for 'blood' just truth ... and on this a new society was grown .. okay so there are some undealt with matters ... but there was little blood.

Why in all international situations can't there be a line drawn with an understanding of truth below it .... and from there new policy forged that sets out to give the people within nations and people international a safer, securer, functioning world that offers wealth potentials and greater safer peaceful prospects.

'... wanna be happy ... ' - lyric phrase

rshow55 - 08:08pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5610 of 5651) 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.


"The resolution on Iraq that was passed by the UN Security Council has tied Washington’s hands. The diplomatic victory has turned out to be a defeat. Now, the States will have to obey the rules of the UN and hope that Saddam Hussein will stumble and fall on his own.

"Specialists have differing views regarding the resolution on Iraq passed by the United Nations Security Council. Some believe that it was a victory American diplomacy, while others think that it was the UN’s victory. However, there is once common opinion about the Iraqi issue. Everyone believes that there will be a war, only it will be slightly delayed now.

It is important to show "everyone" wrong.

That is an entirely possible objective - and it will be a tragedy if it is not attempted carefully - with sufficient resources - so that it is successfully met.

The costs of not attempting this will be very high.

almarst2002 - 08:10pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5611 of 5651)


It is my firm believe the US is determined to "reconstruct" the World as it likes. No matter the cost to other's nations life or property. By means of money and military power. It's determined to gain the control of World's oil reserves to be in a position to dictate its will. That's all. Saddam is just an exquse. He may be the first, but surely not the last. This war is just the beginning. And I am fearful even to think how far it all may come. The business of the World domination may not be such an easy a piece of cake.

almarst2002 - 08:17pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5612 of 5651)

"The costs of not attempting this will be very high. "

But the cost of self-deception may be even higher. Why to make a life of someone determinet to kill you anyway by pretending you believe you will live if you behave.

And remember, there still are some who believe its better to die standing then live on a knees.

More Messages Recent Messages (39 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