New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
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
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 (7968 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 09:49pm Jan 23, 2003 EST (# 7969 of 7987)

"America certainly is not a democracy"

But it succeeded for a while in convincing a lot of people it is. The convincing process thou became quite expensive judging from the ever increasing compain expenses and with ever diminishing results judging from the percent of the eligible voters who actually vote.

It is an open "secret" the compain's public promises have much less value then paper they are quoted from, not to mention TV prime time spending.

Once inside, the old game of old boys goes on regardless who and which party won. The same money feeds all. The decisions are made by a same dosen of "wise" men. The obedient media mostly repeats the "official line" and rearly wonders beiong WH and Pentagon briefings. Very polite establishment. And rational too.

One major but overlooked problem is: The democracy proclaimed as a ultimate goal for all nations is much more expensive and less predictable to influence then small pitty dictatorship. And this great mortal contradiction is clearer by the hour to all willing to hear, see and most importantly, THINK.

wanderer85us - 09:56pm Jan 23, 2003 EST (# 7970 of 7987)
The rich have bought Bush and the republicans lock, stock, and barrel.

People are corrupt no matter what style of government.

almarst2002 - 10:03pm Jan 23, 2003 EST (# 7971 of 7987)

Right. My only point is - democracy is much more expensive to corrupt.

almarst2002 - 10:18pm Jan 23, 2003 EST (# 7972 of 7987)

"As part of its campaign to show that Iraq has misled the world, the United States has issued a detailed report called "Apparatus of Lies".

It has been produced by a newly-created office within the White House - the Office of Global Communications - set up by President George W Bush as part of a more aggressive effort to influence world opinion. " - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2683561.stm

The quite famoust Office of Global Propaganda and Desinformation that is.

What is really disturbing, they tread all of us as bunch of fools.

More Messages Recent Messages (15 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences  Logout

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us