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 (8141 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:11pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8142 of 8145) 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.

Given sex roles in Iraq - I suspect that the Iraqis have felt that they couldn't surrender - but have refrained from even attempting to fight effectually - because they've known they are no military match for the US - and have known it for a long time.

Iraq does plenty of stupid things -- but the fact that they've been shooting missiles at US and UK airplanes, without turning on their radars - suggests a good deal besides stupidity.

Is it possible - - in cultural terms - for Iraqi soldiers to surrender, and yet maintain their social and sexual roles? I don't know the answer for sure - but my bet is that this area is a lot more problematic than the Bush administration understands -- and that a lot of deceptive talking about "terror weapons" - some of which they may have intercepted - may be nothing but bluster.

If we want Iraq to really disarm - we have to be clear on how, as Iraqis, they really can. Are we clear about this?

If gisterme is Bush, or close to Bush, we surely aren't.

The incidence of deception and lying in the Islamic nations is very high - it is paralyzing their cultures - and they and we need to accomodate things as they are better than we have - so we can make them better.

Extermination only seems like a simple solution. And simple solutions that guarantee fights to the death have no "end game" attached - save a muddle - or an extermination. We have to do better than that.

rshow55 - 06:15pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8143 of 8145) 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.

Lunarchick says, again and again, that we stupid, inflexible males should listen to our women more.

Again and again, she's right, of course.

Though women are not flawless in their conduct of the war between the sexes - and a lot of males in the West, and in the US - are pretty dissatisfied - for some valid reasons of their own.

Though I would admit that Lunarchick would never take advantage of a male using feminine wiles.

Other ladies do it all the time.

Still, the world would be a lot safer and better if we did listen more to women - who care about social relations - and who ask, again and again and again "what happens to the children?"

We need to think about that question more.

lchic - 06:15pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8144 of 8145)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"Obodo n'ezu ezu azu nwa" = "It takes a whole village to raise a child"

Igbo (Nigeria) Proverb | Also found in: Yoruba (Nigeria)

Explanation:

    This Igbo and Yoruba (Nigeria) proverb exists in different forms in many African languages. The basic meaning is that child upbringing is a communal effort. The responsibility for raising a child is shared with the larger family (sometimes called the extended family). Everyone in the family participates especially the older children, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and even cousins. It is not unusual for African children to stay for long periods with their grandparents or aunts or uncles. Even the wider community gets involved such as neighbors and friends. Children are considered a blessing from God for the whole community. This communal responsibility in raising children is also seen in the Sukuma (Tanzania) proverb "One knee does not bring up a child" and in the Swahili (East and Central Africa) proverb "One hand does not nurse a child." In general this Nigerian proverb conveys the African worldview that emphasizes the values of family relationships, parental care, self-sacrificing concern for others, sharing, and even hospitality. This is very close to the Biblical worldview as seen in scripture texts related to unity and cooperation (Ecclesiastes 4:9,12) and a mother's self-sacrificing love (Isaiah 49:15-16). The multiple uses of this Nigerian proverb show the timeliness and relevancy of African proverbs in today's world. In 1996 Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former President of the United States, published a book on children and family values entitled "It Takes a Village" based on this proverb.
http://www.rehoboth.org.za/otherinfo/ittakesawholevillage.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The 'knee' a child has preference for is that of his/her

' M O T H E R '

lchic - 06:20pm Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8145 of 8145)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Showalter - don't presume to speak for me!

Who speaks for whom is an interesting point ... Gisterme is often happy to categorise and speak on behalf of American Groups ... who will have their 'own' voice

A part of liberation is people having the liberty to 'speak'

Under dictatorial Presidents and belief systems the voice of the individual isn't heard ....

... even Martin Luther (the original) was surprised when the lower wrung of the class-tier interpreted his works in light of their NEEDs.

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

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


Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
See the
quick-edit help for more information.

Message:






Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


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