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.
(8766 previous messages)
rshow55
- 08:56pm Feb 9, 2003 EST (#
8767 of 8782)
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.
Inspectors See 'Change of Heart'; U.S. Says Progress Is
Not Enough By BRIAN KNOWLTON International Herald Tribune
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/international/middleeast/09CND-INSP.html
Pope to Send Envoy to Iraq By FRANK BRUNI http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/international/middleeast/09cnd-vati.html
"The difficulties on the world horizon at
the start of this new millennium lead us to believe that
only an act from on high can make us hope in a future that
is less bleak," he said.
France and Germany Weigh Plan to Send More Inspectors to
Iraq By JOSEPH FITCHETT International Herald Tribune http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/international/09cnd-french.html
MUNICH, Feb. 9 — France and Germany are
weighing a joint initiative to the United Nations that would
send additional weapons inspectors and perhaps even
international military observers to Iraq, German officials
said today. . . . . .
The French-German idea, if accepted, could
delay almost indefinitely any military action led by the
United States.
. . . .
"The Russian defense minister, Sergei
Ivanov, said today that Russia would undoubtedly agree with
the French-German idea "if it is supported by the Security
Council." Mr. Ivanov also said Moscow was ready to make its
own specialists on weapons of mass destruction available to
the United Nations inspection teams in Iraq.
_ _ _ _ _
If the objective is to solve problems - according to
patterns that are something other than US hegemony - these
approaches make sense.
Who, in the entire world, has an obligation to surrender to
US hegemony? So far as I know, arguments that other countries
have such an obligation have not been clearly set out by the
United States.
The Bush administration is referring to WWII. This
situation is very different from WWII. A minor power,
that is a relatively minor threat - is being asked to conform
to agreements to give up weapons of mass destruction- and is
making responses that are substantial, but incomplete. That's
not the same as the appeasement of Hitler - and the fact that
the Bush administration pushes the "analogy" astounds me.
We have a problem with Iraq that needs to be solved - and
many countries are working to solve it, within
reasonable standards. With an excellent chance of doing so.
There is also a problem with North Korea. It ought to be
solved.
Again, the question needs to be raised. Is the issue US
hegemony - is it "our order or no order at all" - - or is a
committment to a equitable and workable international law?
almarst2002
- 09:01pm Feb 9, 2003 EST (#
8768 of 8782)
"Is the issue US hegemony - is it "our order or no order
at all" - - or is a committment to a equitable and workable
international law?"
Could you guess what most people of the World would say?
almarst2002
- 09:06pm Feb 9, 2003 EST (#
8769 of 8782)
"equitable and workable international law?"
Imperically, the law tends to accomodate the prevealing
power. That's why the needed checks and ballances of power
require some counterballance to US hegemony.
Even the good King is bad enough.
almarst2002
- 09:55pm Feb 9, 2003 EST (#
8770 of 8782)
How come all those wonderfull innovations and technological
progress are able to turn around behind our backs and bite us
in the a*s (sometimes literally) - http://www.iht.com/articles/86170.html
Children playing on outdoor wood playground sets face an
increased risk of bladder and lung cancer from arsenic
exposure, scientists at the Consumer Products Safety
Commission say. . In a federal report issued Friday, the
commission recommends that children wash their hands after
playing on wooden playground sets and also not eat in the
vicinity of the wood. . The report is the first acknowledgment
by the U.S. government that there are health risks associated
with pesticide-treated wood that has been in wide use in
residential settings such as playgrounds and decks since the
1970s.
(12 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|