New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

gisterme - 04:28pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10057 of 10060)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 10/2/01 1:54pm ):

"...I also think that gisterme 10/2/01 1:33pm above shows, rather graphically, why AMERICAN inability to look at its own problems - - stands in the way of so much..."

That's bull sh!t Robert! You're the one that's blind. All that what I've said stands in the way of is your attempt to brainwash folks with your endless litany of double-speak.

"...Looking back over the record, almarst has been very clear about reasons Russians are likely to distrust America..."

Did you see president Putin's address before the Bunderstag yesterday? If not, you should. His words don't jive at all with your illusions or almarst's about the Russians. Why not get those i past reasons for distrust right from the horse's mouth, Robert?

"... -- and very few of the reasons he gives are in any way inconsistent with any of the values or patterns that most Americans are actually proud of, or even know about..."

You don't speak for "most" Americans, Robert. That's another of your fantasies. And, what are these "values and patterns" that we Americans don't know about? You can't even get my gender right when told directly, Robert...so, what qualifies you to evauate invisible "values and patterns".

"...Gisterme , I value liberty here. So does almarst..."

Then why are you so offended by the truth about it? You're in accusation mode because you can't refute what I said on the same level.

"...You're being evasive and dishonest in what you write just above..."

That's a lie. Evasive of what, Robert? Dishonest about what, Robert? What I wrote is a head-on answer to the kind of mindless word-salad that you and your buddy almarst pump out continually.

"...If you actually believe what you've written, after the hundreds of posts you've made (and I would think, the hundreds you've read) on this forum, I wonder about what people who trust your judgement can be thinking about..."

If there are any such, what they'd thinking about is how shallow and trivial the things you say seem. I believe what I've written because it's the truth and I know it as would anybody with a little common sense. You're the one who's in accusation and denial mode, Robert. You accuse me with vaguaries and presumtions of some sort of invisible guilt...get that 2x4 out of your eye, Robert, so that you can see clearly enough to nitpick others. You're a master a flogging dead horses...it's beyond me why you don't notice that you're not getting anywhere. (continued)

gisterme - 04:29pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10058 of 10060)

gisterme 10/2/01 4:28pm (Continued)

As for having read hundreds of posts from you and almarst, that's kind of a joke to me. You could take about 20 posts all-together and say everything you've said in the thousands you've written. I'd guess that's why nobody that's anybody seems to pay much attention to this forum. Endless repetion is not creativity, Robert.

And even after all this time, you still can't get my gender right. I guess that your "sceintific theory" of pattern analysis would have to go out the window if you were to admit that it is so innacurate that it is useless for even a single individual who directly tells you what the fact is. That's gotta be it. At second thought, maybe not. Maybe it's just that you can't think of any other way to try to insult me than to call me a "girl", or perhaps it's just because you have a deeply ingrained abhorance of the truth, even about something as simple as that. Personally, as I've said before, it really doesn't matter to me what you think about my gender. I'm not insulted. The only reason that I metion it is that your persistant dishonesty on that point reveals a lot about your own nature and the rest of what you write. No mysterious theories needed to see that. :-)

almarst-2001 - 05:22pm Oct 2, 2001 EST (#10059 of 10060)

Gisterme,

You either did not understand my position and analysis or intentionally make a mokary of.

I do appreciate a lot of good things in America, mostly a religious, cultural and ethnic diversity and relative tolerance to new ideas and newcomers. At least in a large metroplitan areas. As well as a relative blindness of its judicial system.

Those qualities, the diversity and tolerance to ideas within American society are, in my view, terribly lacking in its foreign policy.

without getting into discussion on relative qualities of different socio-economic systems, there are a number of things I would like to point.

1. The socio-economic system usually reflects the historical reality and the cultural heritage of a nation for its period. Unless imposed and supported by a foreign power by military, political or quasi-legal economic means like bribary of a corrupted local power structure.

2. Unless imposed by a foreign power, and as long as it does not treatenes other nations as defined by UN resolutions and established international law, it is up to those nations to develop as they see the best.

3. Any nation that attempts to impose its socio-economic system upon others effectively commits the criminal aggression, even for the best of intentions.

4. Being by far the most powerful and safe nation, the US can and should be the least agressive one. It should lead by example. It should obstain of exercising its power and influence precisely because its so powerful. Least of all it should use a military force for the purpose of promoting its own interests. Just as in a daily life, the more power one has, the stricter rules of conduct are imposed upon one. and justifiebly so.

5. If there is a nation on Earth, it is the US that can at least try to be consistent and honest in its foreign policy as it is at home. And apply the same rules of behavier. It may, or may not like and tolerate the different behavier by other nations by villing or refusing to answer their calls for help. But it must not impose its values and rules upon others, even believing in its superiority.

6. And finally, if the US institutions and the media are serious and benevolent about US foreign policy and really believe the democracy, tolerance and the rule of law should extend to all aspects of life (as I believe there can't be a serious disparity of such), its media and educational system should provide immensely more resources covering the all aspects of life abroad. And it must develop a significant public institutions and wide forums to formulate its foreign policy. As part of this process, it must initiate a public discussions and thorow review of its past actions, its reasons and goals in view of its declared values. IF THOSE VALUES ARE REAL. As I hope they are.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense