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 (4294 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:14pm Sep 13, 2002 EST (# 4295 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.

Posted a summary of the last week:

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/337 -- http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/338

I think lchic 9/12/02 9:21pm is brilliant, and I'm trying to respond.

A lot of people are stumped - and more and more people are coming to know it -and admit it. If some mistakes and concerns can be admitted - - we could do better.

Americans have some imperfections - people notice them sometimes - and I have noticed some American imperfections sometimes, myself. These imperfections are sometimes denied, more often than they should be. But many of the most fundamental difficulties and impasses are in the Islamic nations.

A lot of people in the Islamic nations know that very well - - and some adjustments are working, more or less -- but there's a lot of tension, a lot of unhappiness, and enough craziness that 9/11/2001 happened. And the denials of responsibility have happened.

Diplomacy (in the sense of evasion of fundamentals) is sometimes useful, but it can carry things only so far.

The United Nation was formed primarily to prevent the tragedies of the first and second world wars - and especially the horror of Hitler. It assumes modern usages - especially a willingness and ability to accomodate facts, take responsibility for actions, and keep agreements.

When modern usages and levels of rationality can't be assumed - nations with the capacity to defend themselves can be expected to do so. Suppose Idi Amin were still around, and close to getting a nuclear weapon? Most people in the West, I believe, would want to keep that from happening -- and want that enough to bend or break international law, if necessary.

The United Nations is supposed to work . That's not an argument for invading Iraq -- but it is an argument for finding a way for the international community to assert reasonable power - if it expects respect for its power.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/338 includes this:

. If we lied less -- if truth broke out -- peace might break out, too.

Here are facts that it seem to me are basic - things that we all know - and have to know at some level - from about the time we learn to talk. It seems to me that these basic things are too often ignored.

People say and do things.

What people say and do have consequences, for themselves and for other people.

People need to deal with and understand these consequences, for all sorts of practical, down to earth reasons.

. Every individual, and every group, has a stake in right answers on questions of fact that they have to use as assumptions for what they say and do.

There are plenty of cases where the United States needs to learn this - and needs to face inconvenient or awkward truths. But there are no solutions to key problems if only Americans are asked to face facts. The Islamic nations - - and their religious leaders - have to be responsible for what they say and do, as well. If you look at the Arab countries - and how little they've done with their advantages - and how poor in material things and spirit their people are - - it seems clear that they have to "look in the mirror" too.

rshow55 - 05:15pm Sep 13, 2002 EST (# 4296 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.

Here's part of an undelivered speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt, written shortly before his death:

" Today, we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships --- the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace."

This quote was on the last page of the American Heritage Picture History of World War II , by C.L. Sulzberger and the editors of American Heritage , published in 1966.

Sometimes, for unavoidable reasons - that will require us to learn to acknowledge some shared facts. Human relationships, often enough, cannot be peacefully sustained without them.

When all the Iraqis can do is shout "liar" - - without sensible details -- they are cornered - not only militarily, but logically and morally, too -- and their leaders are worthy of little respect. The Iraqis signed an agreement renouncing weapons of mass destruction - - the whole world supported that agreement -- and they should be held to it.

The Bush administration should be held to some agreements, too. Americans should insist on it. So should people of other nations. But it is not only the Bush administration that needs to deal on the basis of the truth - especially when the truth can be checked, focused, and determined beyond a decent doubt.

Again, I think lchic 9/12/02 9:21pm is brilliant, and I'm going to respond later in detail.

More Messages Recent Messages (13401 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