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 (8681 previous messages)

lchic - 05:01pm Feb 7, 2003 EST (# 8682 of 8690)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

secular-modern v 'religious-antiquated'

When the religious falls far short of the secular --- then there are problems --- as the national and international-secular corrects the mystics back to the popular norm.

    ""Roman Catholics learned that some of the princes of their church
  • protected priests who sexually abused children.
    Muslims have seen their scholars condemned and their scriptures deconstructed for signs that
  • Islam encourages terrorism.
    Jews in Europe have suffered a wave of anti-Semitic attacks as
  • world opinion hardened toward Israel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/02/weekinreview/02GOOD.html

lchic - 05:07pm Feb 7, 2003 EST (# 8683 of 8690)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

PhillipADAMS

    the corporations that make the weapons - the toys that Bush’s boys can’t wait to use - will profit immensely from the exercise. But it’s unlikely that the rest of the world will be as grateful as their shareholders

lchic - 05:10pm Feb 7, 2003 EST (# 8684 of 8690)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

WAR - Letters to Ed - 'The Australian'

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sectionindex2/0,5746,ausletters1^^TEXT,00.html

lchic - 05:23pm Feb 7, 2003 EST (# 8685 of 8690)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Has Bush filled all foreign embassy diplomatic posts with Texan MATES?

    ""THE US ambassador to Australia, Tom Schieffer, is not a career diplomat but a Texan Republican with close business links to Mr Bush. This may explain his less than diplomatic language in commenting on the ALP's attitude to the Iraq crisis.
    The ambassador would do well to read the ANZUS Treaty which is referred to on the US embassy's home page. It states the parties refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.
see letters to ed - previous post

almarst2002 - 08:09pm Feb 7, 2003 EST (# 8686 of 8690)

Colin Powell is Flawless -- Inside a Media Bubble - http://www.fair.org/media-beat/030206.html

Powell doesn't face basic questions like these:

You cite Iraq's violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions to justify the U.S. launching an all-out war. But you're well aware that American allies like Turkey, Israel and Morocco continue to violate dozens of Security Council resolutions. Why couldn't other nations claim the right to militarily "enforce" the Security Council's resolutions against countries that they'd prefer to bomb?

You insist that Iraq is a grave threat to the other nations of the Middle East. But, with the exception of Israel, no country in the region has made such a claim or expressed any enthusiasm for a war on Iraq. If Iraq is a serious threat to the region, why doesn't the region feel threatened?

You say that the Iraqi regime is committed to aggression. Yet Iraq hasn't attacked any country for more than 12 years. And just eight days before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the U.S. envoy to Baghdad gave what appeared to be a green light for the invasion when she met with Saddam Hussein. An Iraqi transcript of the meeting quotes Ambassador April Glaspie: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America." Mr. Powell, why don't you ever mention such information?

Washington tilted in favor of Iraq during its war with Iran in the 1980s. Like other U.S. officials, you emphasize that Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people" and used chemical weapons against Iran, but you don't talk about the intelligence data and other forms of assistance that the United States provided to help Iraq do those things. If the history of Baghdad's evil deeds is relevant, why aren't facts about U.S. complicity also relevant?

When you warn that the U.N. Security Council "places itself in danger of irrelevance" if it fails to endorse a U.S.-led war on Iraq, aren't you really proclaiming that the United Nations is "relevant" only to the extent that it does what the U.S. government wants?

More Messages Recent Messages (4 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 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us