New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(7717 previous messages)
sandman2424
- 07:24pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (#
7718 of 7740)
World Views: The United States has gone mad
By John le Carré
America has entered one of its periods of historical
madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than
McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term
potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.
The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden
could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy
times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the
world are being systematically eroded. The combination of
compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more
ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every
town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East
Coast press.
The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck,
but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the
Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky
matters as how it came to be elected in the first place;
Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its
reckless disregard for the world’s poor, the ecology and a
raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They
might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in
its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.
But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet.
The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want
the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by
another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new
generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can
all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans
think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how
long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to
the American taxpayer’s pocket? At what cost — because most of
those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people — in
Iraqi lives?
How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America’s
anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great
public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung
it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now
believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World
Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being
misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of
ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should
carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next
election.
Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they
are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I’m dead against
Bush, but I would love to see Saddam’s downfall — just not on
Bush’s terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner
of such outrageous hypocrisy. The religious cant that will
send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening
aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God.
And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed
America to save the world in any way that suits America. God
appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern
policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a)
anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a
terrorist. God also has pretty scary connections. In America,
where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another’s,
the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one
ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the
ex-Governor of Texas.
Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior
executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company;
1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick
Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil
company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with
the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her.
And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the
integrity of God’s work. In 1993, while ex-President George
Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to
receive thanks for liberating them,
manjumicha1
- 07:37pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (#
7719 of 7740)
Well, so ichic thinks I am this Johnson dude....whoever
that is.... Sorry but I am that same old
manjunicha......couldn't remember my old password after the
holidays so had to create a new username.
I think Robert and Ichic tend to overestimate the
importance of NYT and other media in US. Sure it is an
effective tool of the ruling elite to hash out their political
infighting through the PR contest but in the end, NYT's roles
are marginal and tactical only.
I would view the influence of the think-tanks as more
critical in shaping the US policy.
wanderer85us
- 08:30pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (#
7720 of 7740) Peace, brothers and sisters.
"I would view the influence of the think-tanks as more
critical in shaping the US policy. "
Then tell them to tell Bush to quit taking us down the road
to perdition.
lchic
- 08:31pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (#
7721 of 7740) ~~~~ It got understood and exposed
~~~~
Do you work lifeguard duty on a think tank?
manjumicha1
- 08:42pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (#
7722 of 7740)
ichic
We have a "Plain English Rule" in effect in US for public
disclosure documents.
So could you rephrase your question in more
straight-forward manner for us, less sophisticated,
asymetrical, less beautiful, common beings?
Thanks.
(18 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|