New York Times Forums
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  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  /

    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 (10069 previous messages)

rshow55 - 02:25pm Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10070 of 17697)
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.

At the levels I can judge - for the Azores meeting - President Bush and Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Aznar may have done as well as they could possibly have done- under circumstances where they surely know more than I can.

I thought President Bush's statements about the UN were concise, clear, and entirely reasonable from the US point of view - and consistent with my own.

A solid UN that works is needed. Bush said so. If we don't have it - we have to build it - but if we don't have it - action is sometimes still necessary.

The phrase that the UN must mean what it says expresses an important ideal.

I thought that Prime Minister Blair stated the case for the coalition very well - and took a position of leadership at the conference that I found clear and admirable - setting out decisions where I can judge something - but not everything.

I thought Prime Minister Aznar spoke well. A time does come when there have to be decisions. And while making them - it is still important to reach out - and maintain lines of communication - and common ground.

Negotiations are ahead - and I think they are probably real - and hope they are real.

If war happens - it will be handled with military competence - and with more care about civilian casualties than any prior conflict - ugly as war inescapably is.

Psychological warfare is being handled as competently as it ever has been handled in history, so far as I can tell, and I'm glad. I hope casualties on every side are absolutely minimal, and that the coalition wins - and acts later - in ways fully consistent with Prime Minister Blair's expressed principles.

So much is happening in public that this will not be - cannot be - a crude war of exploitation. Some of almarst's fears may prove justified - but I don't think his worst ones will.

Sometimes, once the point of decision has really arrived - people stop bluffing and jiving and settle for things in their interest - and mutual interest. Eventually decisions do have to be made. Fights are a primordial way decisions get made. There are better ways, most of the time.

lchic - 03:31pm Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10071 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Kennedy attacks Azores summit (UK Liberal)

"" Mr Kennedy said there was no legal basis for military action against Iraq, and warned that conflict risked a humanitarian crisis of "huge proportions".

Of the Azores summit, he said: "I believe that it's too early to give up the hope of a peaceful outcome. But the signs are that President Bush and Tony Blair have decided to abandon that hope."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2854457.stm

lchic - 03:35pm Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10072 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Do any of the NEO CON-men around GWB fit this :

"" An obscure Jewish sect in New York has been gripped in awe by what it believes to be a mystical visitation by a 20lb carp that was heard shouting in Hebrew, in what many Jews worldwide are hailing as a modern miracle. Many of the 7,000-member Skver sect of Hasidim in New Square, 30 miles north of Manhattan, believe God has revealed himself in fish form. http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,915125,00.html

lchic - 03:47pm Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10073 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

UK "" many Muslims were unconvinced by claims that a war would be fought for the humanitarian aim of freeing Iraqi people from a tyrannical regime.

"Muslims see three motives for war," said Mr Bunglawala. "Many believe this is the start of changing the map of the Middle East, a second Sykes-Picot agreement http://www.mideastweb.org/mesykespicot.htm which will only benefit America.

"People believe that the US wants to control oil and consolidate the position of Israel as the regional superpower.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2847115.stm

More Messages Recent Messages (7624 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  / Missile Defense