New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
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
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
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 (4305 previous messages)

lchic - 05:48am Sep 14, 2002 EST (# 4306 of 4309)

GU talk Kissinger

"" How Kissinger Set up the Checkmate of Europe on Aug 25 with Bush making the final move on 9/12

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.3ba74460/0

lchic - 06:51am Sep 14, 2002 EST (# 4307 of 4309)

The Bush 'logics' re HIS proposed war with Iraq are 'lost' on people ....
looking for an 'end game'

rshow55 - 10:12am Sep 14, 2002 EST (# 4308 of 4309) Delete Message
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.

I'm very concerned, for all kinds of reasons, and was impressed with Frank Rich's Never Forget What? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/14/opinion/14RICH.html . . . a piece that I hope is widely read.

All the same, it seems to me that even Rich may be being unduly optimistic on a key issue. Rich dismisses the possibility that Iraq could be a quagmire, like Vietnam. I wouldn't be so quick to do that - the issue bears thinking about. The "bad guys" and the "good guys" were not simple, or simply motivated.

We need to remember some painful, awkward things about what Vietnam was like, and what American hopes and calculations and rationales were like. For all the horrors of that war, the still unfaced horrors of the Kennedy assassination, and all the carnage - it is also true that Lyndon Johnson, and many of the people around him, were in many ways very liberal and well-intentioned people. If it had been possible to convert enough Vietnamese for a political settlement that, in strategic terms, rejected Communism - many Americans would have tried, and tried hard - with resources as well as words, to make Vietnamese society prosperous and good in Vietnamese terms as we were then able to understand them. It didn't work.

But we shouldn't say "of course" it didn't work.

We didn't understand why that conversion couldn't be made to work then - and we don't understand now.

And the results of the Vietnamese war, for us, for Vietnam, and for the whole world have been in many ways far worse than "might have been" if we could have understood. Some responsible people knew they had a problem here - and I was asked to look at it - if I could figure something out.

Some things happening, it seems to me, are just as dangerous as they seem - and more dangerous than they seem on the surface.

When we try to impose our will on Saddam - on Iraq - however reasonable our reasons -- we ought to remember these ancient lines from Maurice. Not to say that they apply simply - but that the compexities connected to these words are vital matters of decency, life and death.

"This only makes a war lawful: that it is a struggle for law against force; for the life of the people as expressed in their laws, their language, and their government, against any effort to impose on them a law, a language, a government that is not theirs."

People in the Islamic countries want to accomodate modernity - in many ways - but they are conflicted and confused, so are we, and some things are going very wrong - many times surreally wrong. It is a time to be very careful.

4135 rshow55 9/2/02 7:23pm> . sets out Piaget's developmental stages

4136 rshow55 9/2/02 7:28pm contains a good poem, and asks "When information flows are degraded, and other patterns are manipulated, can we be reduced to thinking and acting like children? http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?224@@.ee74d94/5493

Have Karl Rove and his operatives evolved a system that reduces the American people to children with all the flaws Piaget describes?

We can't afford to make childish mistakes now. Nor can we forget that children can be very brutal.

With A Measured Pace on Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/14/opinion/14SAT2.html there is some time to sort some things out. The TIMES is surely right that "President Bush . . . has not shown that immediate action is warranted."

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us