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 (5865 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:00pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5866 of 5881) 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.

International law and international patterns of conduct are being redefined, clarified, and renegotiated.

Key questions, again and again, are

Why fight?

Why not fight?

Why exactly , and in detail?

If these things are clarified and explained - there will be somewhat fewer fights - somewhat more limited fights - and the fights that occur are much more likely to settle things reasonably and stably, from most if not all points of view.

Most of the time - when one looks at what is really necessary for the survival and reasonable function of the parties involved - there are ways - often easy ways - to avoid conflict, once these things are clarified.

Even so, I believe, and most people, certainly most Americans believe, that fights are sometimes necessary. I personally believe that if Saddam refuses to disarm, by a material breach that the United States can reasonably explain - then his regime, and those who support it in Iraq - should be taken down militarily. And at that point - the military standard should be unconditional surrender or death of Saddam's combattant supporters. That's a view others could disagree with.

But to be convincing to me, they'd have to have reasons that I could understand, and weigh myself. Quite often, very many people, from different points of view, come to similar conclusions after complete discussions of that sort. For example, the vote of the Security Council for inspection of Iraq was 15-0.

Who Needs the U.N. Security Coucil? By JAMES TRAUB

For clear definition - we all do.

Radical Islam can define itself so that, given compromises that the rest of the world can reasonably make, there must be a fight - at least a fight at the level of ideas. If they do take a position where there must be a fight- it will help to be clear just exactly they are insisting on. If they can't state their case clearly - - and they haven't so far - - perhaps the reason is that they are simply corrupt, angry, and confused.

almarst2002 - 05:27pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5867 of 5881)


It seems to me your incursion into Islam in search of the Evil is out of place. Entirely and extreamly.

You must have forgotten that by far the most dreadful and terrible crimes the Human race ever vitnessed where commited by Christians. Less then 70 years ago. Not to mention terrible American wars in Indo-China.

In my view, the easiness at wich the West drops its bombs, Napalm, Agent Orange and DU munitions, the persistance it continues to advance its military, including the WMD, the history of religious and racial intolerance and sence of superiority are deeply rooted in Christianity.

Remember, the East already tolerated multicultural multy-ethnic societies for milleniums when European tribes still where fighting each other with stones.

How about this:

It so happend that Muslim world happend to occupy the most valuable resources-wise land for the West - OIL. The West uses this treasure without any regard for the needs of the great masses of Muslim/Arab World having just one and only goal in mind - protection of the free and plentfuk oil supply. For this reason the maps of the reagions where drufted scillfuly by the British Empire and foreign minority rullers where installed and supported. Whith one and only mandate - to feed the West, mainly Britain and after WWII - the US with OIL.

So, the modern political Piramid top-to-bottom looks like this:

- Magor US/British OIL Companies

- US/British Governments armed with a big stick of Military Forces and OIL distribution channels

- All Western Corporations and Citizens

- ME OIL Criminal Rullers who struggle to hold to power by inciting the population against foreign enemies, real or invented. Unable, uninterested and unvilling to invest in their own countries, other the in an OIL industries.

- Poor oppressed Islamic nations suffering from underdevelopment, unemployement, brutal foreign regimes and stripped from their most valuable commodities.

My suggestion - lets look for the culprit somwhere else, not in religion.

More Messages Recent Messages (14 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