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 - 07:59pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4362 of 4466)

sunflowerbrilliant wrote: "Why share missle technology...

Because it may be the only way to get the MAD balance of terror out of our collective psyche.

Why have nuclear weapons at all....

Good question. I'd like to see them all gone.

Why not have joint Russian American Education to feed the world?

How would that feed the world? What do you mean by that?

Why not share a medical breakthrough for cancer?

Sure, why not. That's easy for me to say since I didn't lay out the millions of $$ it usually takes to achieve such a breakthrough. However, I think it would be great if pharmaceutical companies would act a bit more philanthropic, especially to impoverished areas where the drugs are needed and the companies have no market anyway.

Why not elect new leaders in both nations?

All in good time, sunflower.

My prayer.

Pretty much mine too, sunflowerbrilliant. Perhaps God will hear.

gisterme - 08:20pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4363 of 4466)

So...here's a quiet moment...

Robert, I want to ask you more about your "perfect beauty" concept. Maybe you could post a short description to keep the board current (and educate me). I think you may have posted some stuff about that before I joined the discussion; I just don't have time to look for it.

At one point you said something that implied that "perfect beauty" is in the eye of the beholder, meaning one person's "perfect beauty" isn't necessarily the same as another's. You mentioned that as Hitler carried out his acts he was probably just following his own vision of "perfect beauty" and so, to him, he saw no wrong in his actions. Everything he did fit his vision.

So an individual with a strong vision like that would do what? Try to persuade others who haven't found their own "perfect beauty" to adapt his as if it were their own? What makes beauty "perfect"?

lunarchick - 08:40pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4364 of 4466)
lunarchick@www.com

GI i noted you were very supportive of Bwsh .. perhaps he's the hand that feeds you, but, you have to agree that in World terms .. Clinton was more worldly, and widely accepted by the world, and accessed and is accessing the world; whereas Bwsh is from a cashed up family and yet ... ran for President without ever having much desire to go forth into the world and find out what the world was is and could be .... additionally Bwsh is being critised by America right now because he does not LEAD .. he delegates the tasks he should be administering .. and the reason, so America says ... is because he isn't up to speed on the things he should be that relate to the Governing of America. Bwsh is falling down on two counts, he can't govern the USA and he can't meet the world.

But he can appreciate little league baseball - to give him his dues!

lunarchick - 09:06pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4365 of 4466)
lunarchick@www.com

the world's foremost journalist says .. look at rogue state Israel JP

lunarchick - 09:22pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4366 of 4466)
lunarchick@www.com

see post 15

lunarchick - 09:46pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4367 of 4466)
lunarchick@www.com

The BWSH agenda is to look after the very very rich .. i read it in the NYT ... http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/30/opinion/30KRUG.html?0530inside

" the tax bill is a joke. But if the administration has its way, the joke is on us. For the bill is absurd by design. The administration, knowing that its tax cut wouldn't fit into any responsible budget, pushed through a bill that contains the things it wanted most — big tax cuts for the very, very rich — and used whatever accounting gimmicks it could find "

almarst-2001 - 10:02pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4368 of 4466)

NMD Initiative Obscures Larger U.S. Objective - http://www.stratfor.com/home/giu/archive/053001.asp#This

"On the surface, the U.S. offer appears designed to reduce Russian fears about expanded missile defenses while providing an infusion of hard currency that the Russian economy desperately needs.

"But close analysis of U.S. diplomatic maneuvers suggests a geopolitical objective that goes far beyond the specific issue of developing missile defenses: a U.S.-Russian strategic partnership against China."

So, gisterme. It seems I am not along in my oppinion on what you called "just postering".

This is nothing more nor less then the old proven rule: "Divide and Conquer".

If my memory does not betray me, some time ago 'ole' Nixon-Kissinger team played this game against Russia.

Will Bush succeed as Nixon did then? That's the question.

almarst-2001 - 10:34pm May 30, 2001 EST (#4369 of 4466)

Back on Zimbabwe.

"Just days after Secretary of State Colin Powell criticized Robert Mugabe's ''totalitarian methods,'' the Zimbabwean president hit back, accusing the United States and Britain of hypocrisy during a fiery eulogy to a top ally."

Indeed, why Zimbabwe or more precisely, Mugabe is chosen as the next Evil among all the other pirates parying on Congo? Should we assume they are more "democratic"?

Why such a rage on "totalitarian" Mugabe while overlooking the "democratic" Arabian Oil Kingdoms?

In my humble oppinion, it is due to Mugabe's decision to redistribute the white farmers land (the handful of whom holds some 80% of the best agricultural land) to the black population, from whom this land was taken by force and given practically for free to whites during the apharteid period.

This smells too much like a Communism to the British and US establishement. They must have decided to teach the Zimbawians and other African and non-African nations the lesson. just like Cuba or an attempted pressure on Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (and we will surelly see the sequal).

(97 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense