New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators
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.
(10674 previous messages)
rshow55
- 07:35pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (#
10675 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.
Islamic cultures have messes, inconsistencies, sureties
that must be wrong - and that degrade those who believe
them. We do, too.
2860 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1131072@.f28e622/3566
The things Eisenhower warned of in his FAREWELL
ADDRESS of January 17, 1961 http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm
have happened. The subversive, cancerous patterns
developed, after much borrowing from Germany, to fight the
Cold War have evolved, and now diffused all through
government, politics, and business. At the same time, our
nuclear controls have been left, almost untouched in decisive
ways, for thirty years, and we are in a new world. There are
things that need to be checked about those controls, lest the
world perish. And all over our society, there are problems
that American need to understand, and fix, with the world
watching, and checking. When we do, we'll be much better off,
the world will be a more beautiful place, and we'll almost all
of us feel better about ourselves, our country, and the
world.
You can "call me Ishmael" or not, as you choose. If
I'm Ishmael, I've been at it, consistently, for a long time.
Within my limitations, I'm doing the best I can, and I'm
trying to be a patriot, too.
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1131072@.f28e622/216
from March 3, 2002 included two long sentences that still seem
right now.:
. If the United States could, and would,
explain its national interest -- distinct from the interests
of its military-industrial complex, and explain how its
interests fit in the interconnected world we live in -- and
do it honestly, and in ways that other nations could check,
it could satisfy every reasonable security need it has,
without unreasonable or unacceptably unpopular uses of
force.
. The rest of the world, collectively,
and in detail, would try hard to accomodate US needs, if it
understood them, and could reasonably believe and respect
them.
Thereafter, I collected some very important, perceptive
questions raised by almarst , just in the few weeks before
that time. There have been many perceptive postings - as well
as excellent links since then.
183 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1131072@.f28e622/217
184 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1131072@.f28e622/218
185 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1131072@.f28e622/219
186 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1131072@.f28e622/220
As for the idea that lunarchick doesn't post
perceptively (and even perceptively about primates ) --
here are links from a July 4th of 2001 discussion about
Koko - the linguistically gifted gorilla, and things
that even a monkey should be able to see. (It starts with
references from the same http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/
that bbuck links).
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6557.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6567.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6577.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6586.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6596.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6606.htm
I've often thought that almost anybody careful could see
the arguments on missile defense referenced to 84 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1131072@.f28e622/99
- - but perhaps these arguments are hard, in the face of what
Rev. Forbes refers to as "deeper motivations" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/weekinreview/09GOOD.html
So God's Really in the Details? by Emily Eakin http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/11/arts/11GOD.html
... explained probability judgements well - and the fact that
ideas can be "reasonable" - and convincing -- and yet not
necessarily be right based on the arg
rshow55
- 07:39pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (#
10676 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.
-- and yet not necessarily be right based on the argument
alone.
When it matters enough, for a practical purpose -i people
can check things - and resolve issues worth resolving.
(Clergymen, including my grandfather, have been clear about
that for many generations. 7017 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1131072@.f28e622/8538
Sometimes faith is indispensible. But sometimes, on
practical things, faith is simply negligence. There
needs to be an obligation to check - and check competently,
when it matters enough. )
When soldiers are terrified, and bullets are rending
flesh, it ought to matter enough.
out.
(7021 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense
|