New York Times Readers Opinions
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  / Science  /

    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 (10282 previous messages)

almarst2003 - 12:05am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10283 of 10291)

THE RUBICON HAS BEING CROSSED - A right to start a war at any time, without anyone’s permission - http://www.msnbc.com/news/888245.asp?0dm=C12MO

RIGHT OR WRONG, Gulf War II resembles the imperial forays of earlier centuries ...

Since the end of World War II, the United States has at least formally agreed to international constraints on the right of any nation, including itself, to start a war. These constraints were often evaded, but rarely just ignored. And evasion has its limits, enforced by the sanction of embarrassment.

George W. Bush defied embarrassment and slew it with a series of Orwellian flourishes. If the United Nations wants to be “relevant,” he said, it must do exactly as I say. In other words, in order to be relevant, it must become irrelevant. When that didn’t work, he said: I am ignoring the wishes of the Security Council and violating the U. N. Charter in order to enforce a U.N. Security Council resolution. No, no, don’t thank me! My pleasure!!

almarst2003 - 12:17am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10284 of 10291)

Well, That's the heck of a Plan:

American taxpayers pay for the bombs - WE COLLECT.

American taxpayers are send to bomb, destroy, kill and die.

American taxpayers pay to rebuild - WE COLLECT.

Heck, American taxpayers are entertained 24hr a day for month, pay for the channels and, guess what - WE COLLECT AGAIN.

And while they are busy watching, WE CUT OUR TAXES and THEIR SERVICES.

THAT WHAT I CALL A DEAL!

gisterme - 12:48am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10285 of 10291)

jorian319 - 04:11pm Mar 20, 2003 EST (# 10270 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.TCYlat2J5ee.517763@507e4c@.f28e622/11816

"...I am sure that the vast majority of Americans who are opposed to our attack on Iraq are not traitorous in any sense, and I am absolutely certain that almost nobody supporting the attack is "pro-war"..."

Well said, jorian; but it's not too hard to see which of the two groups is the most mean-spirited.

gisterme - 12:54am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10286 of 10291)

rshow55 - 04:29pm Mar 20, 2003 EST (# 10271 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.TCYlat2J5ee.517763@.f28e622/11817

"...The balance between those killed, and lives saved, by cleaning up the mess in Iraq is likely to be similar..."

The "mess" in Iraq is about a million and a half dead ahead of what it will take to clean it up, so far. I sincerely doubt that it will take anything like a million dead, especially innocent dead, to clean up the mess in Iraq. May God forbid, if it does take a million dead, most of those will surely be the result of Saddam's final fury. Personally, I don't think he's got the horsepower to make that happen.

lchic - 12:59am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10287 of 10291)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

The West / Western

Redundant* dated term - The West / Western

* "... made redundant by technological advance"

We're advancing away from The Cold War concepts and into the C21

http://www.dingwall.bc.ca/history/main.php3?cat=places&listing=Berlin_1948

lchic - 01:04am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10288 of 10291)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

International-ism-ists

Surely this would be a better term than the use of WEST ... How far west does West go .... round the world and back again? Or, is it a term that relates to Cold-War-buddies?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Internationalism

International standards are what this war is about.

Moving to modernity is moving away from the historically and morally redundant standards

to the new

to standards that enable harmony via order and symetry

Today is the international day of HARMONY

could all users of the terms 'The West' and 'Western' kindly jettison them into their waste bins and replace them with the improved terms relating to the world growing together in harmony internationally for a smooth and integrated complex future that give improved opportunities for folks!

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us