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 (8824 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 10:31pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8825 of 8829)

Bin Laden offers tips to defend Iraq - http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,893898,00.html

Bin Laden Tape: The Real Story - http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021203.html

The story become even more interesting...

lchic - 07:58am Feb 12, 2003 EST (# 8826 of 8829)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

TONY BENN ~~~ Dateline SBS au

Benn (UK)

is enjoying a 'cult status and following' in the UK .... he's for peace as are the 400,000 Brits associated with 'peace'.

Feb 12th 2003 http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/

lchic - 08:13am Feb 12, 2003 EST (# 8827 of 8829)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

How did the Bush-the-father tv war, and the dragging-draining war in what was Yugoslavia affect the life of regular tv-viewers?

had refugees knocking on the UK's Door

yet MORE refugees may not be the way people think ... how many can the ONE town take?

rshow55 - 09:43am Feb 12, 2003 EST (# 8828 of 8829) Delete Message
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.

Present at . . . What? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/opinion/12FRIE.html

"The tension that is now rising within the Western alliance, NATO and the U.N. over how to deal with Iraq is deeply disturbing. It raises fears that the postwar security system, which stabilized the world for 50 years, could come unglued if America intervenes alone in Iraq. At the birth of this security system, Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote a memoir titled "Present at the Creation." Can we deal with Iraq and still ensure that Secretary of State Colin Powell's memoir is not titled "Present at the Destruction"?

"Yes, we can — if we, the Russians, the Chinese and the French all take a deep breath, understand our common interests and pursue them with a little more common sense and a little less bluster.

In addition to less bluster - we need less bulls*it - a sense of reality - a sense of the past that is true. The words of Ruby Tuesday by the Rolling Stones work for me here. We're going wrong because we aren't straight about our past - or even willing to talk about it. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1224_1230.htm

Freidman continues:

"We need a compromise. We need to say to the French, Russians and Chinese that we'll stand down for a few more weeks and give Saddam one last chance to comply with the U.N. disarmament demands — provided they agree now that if Saddam does not fully comply they will have the U.N. authorize the use of force.

"If war proves inevitable, it must be seen as the product of an international decision, not an American whim. The timing cannot be determined by the weather or the need to use troops just because they are there. You cannot launch a war this important now simply because it's going to be hot later. I would gladly trade a four-week delay today for four years of allied support after a war. I would much prefer a hot, legitimate, U.N.-approved war with the world on our side to a cool, less legitimate war that leaves us owning Iraq by ourselves.

To get that legitimacy - that compromise- there need to be agreements about facts . And mutual respect - combined with a sense that different people can have, not only different interests - but different valid points of view. If we had those agreements, I believe that we could resolve the situation in Iraq - and larger problems in the Middle East - without war. And other problems, too - notably those in Korea.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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