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.

lchic - 09:52pm Jan 29, 2003 EST (# 8334 of 8349)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Showalter 'Common Provision' .... oft referred to by Showalter but doesn't as yet show up much via search.

Common Provision

To define it in Showalter terms, Common Provision relates to political entities looking to the basic broad needs of the people and trying to satisfy them.

The woman, a nurse, who worked on USA 'health' policy with Hilary Clinton - is happy to be working to improve child health provision UK. She likes the UK 1948 concept of 'common provision' of health care.

The 'world' is currently against unnecessary-war with Iraq yet sees the need for the common-provison and implementation of HUMAN RIGHTS standards worldwide. That is the world is against the common-provision of missiles for the civillian population of Iraq (identifying with the regualar individual) and yet sees the need - if the UN says - that a common-provision of democracy must be installed ... as elsewhere.

Oil on the lense certainly serves to sharpen focus.

rshow55 - 09:57pm Jan 29, 2003 EST (# 8335 of 8349)
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.

Cooper writes: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.sZwxaFsz17K.73197@.f28e622/9854

the idea that the president of the U.S. would have the time or inclination to be posting on the NYT forums is completely, utterly, unreservedly, blindingly astoundingly wildly BONKERS.

That's your argument? It seems to me that when you look at gisterme's postings - there are about 2000 of them - overall - it seems likely. More and more likely - the more you read - and the more you crosscheck.

If you read history - it is often made clear just how deeply presidents care about the press - and especially about The New York Times - - and these forums seem quite well adapted for discussion with presidents. Clinton's postings on the Guardian were "open secrets" - and admirable as the Guardian Talk threads are - this is in some ways a more serious venue.

If you read the gisterme postings - and there are MANY of them - it is hard to deny that gisterme is taking a position - a stance - of great authority in the Bush administration. The chance that the White House hasn't noticed this - by now - is strictly zero. Now, the White House is a tight ship - one of the most leak conscious in memory. The odds of anybody but the President - or one of his key people - saying the things said on this thread is pretty remote - and Gisterme's backup, given government usages - probably exceeds a million dollars of staff cost.

We can talk about that in Chicago - if you reply to my email - and our phone converstation goes reasonably. Maybe you have more than the flat assertion that

the idea that the president of the U.S. would have the time or inclination to be posting on the NYT forums is completely, utterly, unreservedly, blindingly astoundingly wildly BONKERS.

to argue for my "insanity" - we can discuss that. If that's all you have - well, I disagree with you - and some other people I know - including some with institutional connections - would seem to, as well.

lchic - 10:00pm Jan 29, 2003 EST (# 8336 of 8349)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Presidents who are said to scan the NET include Putin (spoke of it on bbc forum) and Mr KIM of North Korea.

Interestingly Mr KIM determined that he too would like to 'come in' through the NYTimes.

Seems the Presidents out there like to TRIANGULATE.

lchic - 10:04pm Jan 29, 2003 EST (# 8337 of 8349)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Showalter - even thought the UN and the data doesn't add up to taking out Saddam .... because he's complied

The question arises that --

too often brutal dictators have terrorised their own people

too often the world has looked away

too often the 'mess' gets wider, deeper, uglier

too often innocents suffer

too often national economies are trampled --- and for decades

~~~~~

Should gut feelings and common sense be allowed to surface to take this guy and others like him out .... or ... do the 'maths' have to ADD-UP! ?

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense