New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
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
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 (5811 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:06am Nov 16, 2002 EST (# 5812 of 5828) 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.

Iraqis, Arabs, people all over the world need to consider the Golden Rule.

In this particular case -- Saddam has done what he's done - said what he's said - - threatened the things he's threatened - and by indirection - shows many signs of continuing to do so.

Why not kill him, and his followers, under the circumstances now - after so much effort at accomodation - after he's made it abundantly clear that he will not change -- that the threats are real?

What would Iraqis do to us?

Why should we not judge what they'd do to us by what they've tried to do, and what they've threatened?

. . .

Real peacemaking would be a good alternative - and everything for that is in place - negotiated and ready in ample detail.

If real peacemaking is denied - why not fight?

lunarchick - 11:43am Nov 16, 2002 EST (# 5813 of 5828)

August2002 - ANALYSIS: On Iraq, Bush Relies on Vision, Not Expertise

September2002 - My vision for peace - Clinton

lunarchick - 11:49am Nov 16, 2002 EST (# 5814 of 5828)

Saddam&Son
http://www.eurolegal.org/usmideastsaddam.htm
http://www.signseverywhere.com/qusay.htm

rshow55 - 11:52am Nov 16, 2002 EST (# 5815 of 5828) 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.

From - http://itep.nl.edu/reuters/OLUSPOLITIC/2002-08-23T155326Z_01_N23162450_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-BUSH-VISION-DC.html

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In deciding whether to invade Iraq, President Bush is guided by a view of the world as a battleground of good versus evil.

Things are more complicated than that - and many people, in many countries, with real power - know that. Some very important issues in international law are in the process of being renegotiated - - and there is a good chance, from where we are - that the negotiation can result in a big improvement from where we are. If some leaders asked to get some things checked - - so that ugly, disproportionate responses could be avoided - it would be almost certain. There would be plenty of time, in that event, to avoid war in Iraq - and make war much less likely elsewhere in the world.

lunarchick - 11:55am Nov 16, 2002 EST (# 5816 of 5828)

NYT - Welcome, rashid16 -

rather than Welcome, Lunarchick ....

What's happening?

lunarchick - 11:59am Nov 16, 2002 EST (# 5817 of 5828)

Iraq Without Saddam
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

As I think about President Bush's plans to take out Saddam Hussein and rebuild Iraq into a democracy, one question gnaws at me: Is Iraq the way it is today because Saddam Hussein is the way he is? Or is Saddam Hussein the way he is because Iraq is the way it is?

I mean, is Iraq a totalitarian dictatorship under a cruel, iron-fisted man because the country is actually an Arab Yugoslavia a highly tribalized, artificial state, drawn up by the British, consisting of Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the center whose historical ethnic rivalries can be managed only by a Saddam-like figure?

Or, has Iraq, by now, congealed into a real nation? And once the cruel fist of Saddam is replaced by a more enlightened leadership, Iraq's talented, educated people will slowly produce a federal democracy. ....

http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/109P9.htm

More Messages Recent Messages (11 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