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  / 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 (13590 previous messages)

almarst2003 - 07:18pm Sep 10, 2003 EST (# 13591 of 13598)

Geoff Hoon's chance of avoiding the sack all but disappeared yesterday with an allegation that he had given MPs "misleading" evidence on the Government's intelligence on Iraq. - http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=442228

Hang him high and dry. And let him watch his Boss look the other side like they never met. YES!

almarst2003 - 08:22pm Sep 10, 2003 EST (# 13592 of 13598)

In an effort to quell the controversy over the “16 words” in U.S. President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address, the White House declassified and released intelligence documents on July 18, 2003 to prove there was ample evidence that Saddam Hussein had a continuing and expanding nuclear weapons program. Yet those same documents indicate that some senior officials had serious doubts about the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and the regime’s links to al Qaeda. A look back at President Bush’s October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he made a detailed case for war against Iraq, reveals that what the president said did not always reflect what U.S. intelligence analysts believed at that time.

By Joseph Cirincione and Dipali Mukhopadhyay

This speech includes no mention of the alleged Niger uranium deal. On October 5 and 6, 2002, the CIA sent Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley two memos raising objections to references in a draft of the speech that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. One of the memos was also sent to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also telephoned Hadley about the claims. The memos detailed a long list of CIA doubts about the Niger story, reportedly saying there was “weakness in the evidence” and that the purchase, even if true, “was not particularly significant.” [Note to Readers: This article will be updated as new intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program becomes available.]

Move your cursor over the bolded red text to read the authors' commentary. Click on underlined text for links to related documents. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=1381

rshow55 - 08:45pm Sep 10, 2003 EST (# 13593 of 13598)
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 the Front Page of NYT on the Web - September 12, 2001 - showing journalism that was part of the great effort that won so many Pulitzer Prizes for the NYT. http://www.mrshowalter.net/NYTWebFrontPage_9_11_02.htm

almarst2003 - 09:03pm Sep 10, 2003 EST (# 13594 of 13598)

Pulitzer Prize ... Isn't it the one granted to T. Friedman of NYT?

rshow55 - 09:10pm Sep 10, 2003 EST (# 13595 of 13598)
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.

Friedman has won the Pulitzer three times, I think.

And if you can't appreciate and respect that achievement - even as you disagree with Friedman - you're missing a lot that matters.

Questions:

How do you disagree about logical structure ?

How do you disagree about facts ?

How do you disagree about weights ?

How do you differ in team identifications ?

With answers to those questions asked more often - a lot more could be sorted out between people than is now.

Sometimes there have to be fights. But they should be about the right things. Fights at the level of ideas don't have to rend flesh.

Often - if key issues are straight - tragedies and messes can be avoided. Or, if not avoided, made smaller than they would be otherwise.

almarst2003 - 10:27pm Sep 10, 2003 EST (# 13596 of 13598)

Campaign to Stop the War Profiteers and End the Corporate Invasion of Iraq -- http://www.southernstudies.org/campaignpage.asp

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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