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.
(5148 previous messages)
rshow55
- 12:17pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (#
5149 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 I like lchic ! How could I not?
I believe I have the same warm feelings that George Bush
must feel for Condoleezza Rice - and she must feel for him.
They work together well. Talk a lot - see eye to eye about a
lot of things. They are a team.
There are differences, of course. Lchic and I
haven't had some of the opportunities that Rice and Bush have
had.
I feel that MD10961 rshow55 1/22/02 12:49pm bears repeating
here:
" My own view, at the beginning of last
year, was that the risk of the world being destroyed by a
nuclear "accident" -- was running about 10%/year - - a risk
discounted "expected value" the equivalent of 3-4 WTC
disasters per hour. With risks from terrorism on top of
that.
" I think the total risks are somewhat less
now - - but still terrifyingly large. When I read some of
the "technical judgements" of gisterme , and Mazza , my
concern doesn't get any less.
I'd add that when I consider the corruption -- or gross
incompetence, on view, reasons to trust the Bush
administration, on matters so long hidden -- get reduced again
- and powerfully reduced.
Checking for technical facts that can be determined in the
open literature, and checked by independent authorities (for
instance, people in charge of writing the professional
engineering exams, and similar examinations in other
countries) would be a good place to start.
3050 rshow55
7/14/02 7:24pm . . 3051 lchic
7/14/02 7:27pm 3052 rshow55
7/14/02 7:36pm . . 3053 lchic
7/14/02 7:39pm 3054 rshow55
7/14/02 7:48pm .. 3055 rshow55
7/14/02 7:56pm 3056 lchic
7/14/02 7:57pm .. 3057 rshow55
7/14/02 8:11pm
There's Always Poetry 1205 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1556
Before witnesses, not long ago I blew through
Nuclear controls that apparently hadn't
been changed since the mid-60s'
Why didn't they bring me in and TALK to me?
Corruption and cowardice are the only explanations that
keep hanging together over time.
5146 rshow55
10/23/02 9:26am
5147 rshow55
10/23/02 12:18pm ... 5147 rshow55
10/23/02 12:18pm 5147 rshow55
10/23/02 12:18pm .... 5147 rshow55
10/23/02 12:18pm
bbbuck
- 12:23pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (#
5150 of 17697)
Some may wonder 'What and the hell is that guy doing
here?'. Well if you aren't laughing your ass off on the
latest looneychic, rshow55 posts then I don't have an answer
for you. But if you are, laughing your ass off, then you
can see why I tune in occasionally.
gisterme
- 01:51pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (#
5151 of 17697)
commondata
10/23/02 7:05am
"...When I told you about the Iraqi death toll figures
provided by the UN your intelligent and carefully considered
response was "you lying communist"...
Nope. My carefully considered response was "That's a lie".
You put the "communist" part on yourself. And your
statement was quite untrue. What you said was:
"More Iraqis were killed in the Gulf War than have been
killed by all weapons of mass destruction."
Highest estimates I've seen about Iraqi lives lost in the
Gulf War was 100,000. You said that that number is higher than
the number killed by all weapons of mass destruction. I wish
that were true but it's just not. That's why I'd personally
like to see weapons of mass destruction removed from the
world.
Approximately 20 million people died as a result of WWII.
Of those about 170,000 died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's
also estimated that about 400,000 American and several million
Japanese lives were saved because that war ended without an
invasion of Japan.
It's estimated that another 50-60 thousand on both sides
died in gas attacks during WWI. God only knows how many
Iranians and Kurds died in Saddams's attacks.
I think your problem with your figures may be that you've
bought into the Iraqi propaganda that blames present sanctions
on the US. The blame for those sanctions and the suffering and
loss of life that may be associated with them lies squarely at
the feet of Saddam Hussein as you well know.
You framed your untrue statement in such a way as to make
it sound as if the US were responsible for every life lost in
the Gulf War. As you also well know, that war was a UN action
carried out by a coalition. That action successfully ended the
rape of Kuwait by Saddam.
"...That seems to come about as close to a definition of
hypocrisy as you're going to get..."
You do show your hypocracy along with your
disingenuousness, commondata.
(12546 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense
|