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.
(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?
(4 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|