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 (8707 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 03:26pm Feb 8, 2003 EST (# 8708 of 8726)

Sing it to the tune of 'If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands'.

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.

If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.

If the terrorists are frisky,

Pakistan is looking shifty,

North Korea is too risky,

Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.

If we think someone has pissed us, bomb Iraq.

So to hell with the inspections,

Let's look tough for the elections,

Close your mind and take directions,

Bomb Iraq.

It's 'pre-emptive non-aggression', bomb Iraq.

Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.

They've got weapons we can't see,

And that's good enough for me

'Cos it's all the proof I need

Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.

If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.

If you think Saddam's gone mad,

With the weapons that he had,

(And he tried to kill your dad),

Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.

If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.

If your politics are sleazy,

And hiding that ain't easy,

And your manhood's getting queasy,

Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.

For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.

Disagree? We'll call it treason,

Let's make war not love this season,

Even if we have no reason,

Bomb Iraq

almarst2002 - 03:29pm Feb 8, 2003 EST (# 8709 of 8726)

Brit intelligence plagiarizes student's work for evidence dossier - http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/sept11/dailyUpdate.html

When US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his dramatic presentation on Iraq to the UN Security Council on Wednesday, he recommended reading a dossier of evidence released by British intelligence earlier in the week. "I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that United Kingdom distributed yesterday, which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities," Mr. Powell told the UN Security Council.

It turns out that the British weren't so intelligent in how they got their intelligence. The BBC says that most of the dossier was actually copied from three other articles, including a paper written by a post-graduate student from California that largely relied on information that was 12 years old.

lchic - 03:40pm Feb 8, 2003 EST (# 8710 of 8726)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"They've got weapons we can't see"

One side of the coin is positive

the other a 'hidden' negative

Audit wise the hidden negative 'should' exist

________________

It's said that the UN report on Iraq that was 'grabbed' by the US for editing purposes ... that chemicals were supplied to Iraq by the USA ... is said to have been edited out

________________

So the USA as supplier of chemicals to IRAQ really is in a position to know a great deal about the 'hidden' negative

almarst2002 - 03:43pm Feb 8, 2003 EST (# 8711 of 8726)

Thousands of protesters in Munich, where Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is attending a security conference, demonstrated today against war in Iraq. - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/international/middleeast/09RUMS.html

lchic - 03:47pm Feb 8, 2003 EST (# 8712 of 8726)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

The 'hidden' negative of the Emperor's New Clothes was about 'conjuring belief' in repressed mind-sets.

The 'hidden' negative of chemical weapons - believed missing - is about 'conjuring belief' in skeptical mind-sets.

The 'hidden' negative of misappropriated funds - in unaudited defense directions - here the alledged missing funds be might compare with the missing chemicals .... in the public mind neither are easy to conjure.

Now you see it. | Exists!

Now you don't. | Did it ever exist?!

almarst2002 - 03:49pm Feb 8, 2003 EST (# 8713 of 8726)

"So the USA as supplier of chemicals to IRAQ really is in a position to know a great deal about the 'hidden' negative"

Probably. As well as it was known for while who Al Capone was. Why wasn't he just killed on a street of Chicago?

This is even more interesting case when gungster allegidly in a posession of a gun presented on a silver plate to him by a whole company including Judge, Procecuter and Policeman. If I may, For what "democratic", "humanitarian" purpose?

More Messages Recent Messages (13 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