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 (4644 previous messages)

lchic - 05:23pm Sep 29, 2002 EST (# 4645 of 4676)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

It's heading into the pocket of a 'GREED'

There are lots of GREEDS with deep pockets - full of ill gotten gains.

GREEDS are 'everywhere'

How to reign-in and control them is the question

Or, how to 'remove' dangerous-killer-widgets that GREEDS could trade

There are GREEDS within the 'Establishments' ... as per those 'on the take' from public money-s ... that's why tax payer auditors must, and have the right, to check through as to 'how' money is spent.

These GREEDS equivocate with 'terrorists' .. but for them those 'dots' won't connect --- to others they do.

GREEDS don't have a problem stepping 'over' the line .... the dollar is king .... GREEDS exist throughout all systems - systems have to have 'regulation' that's overseen.

GREEDS - may manifest as 'dictators' interested in self-gain .... and lacking respect for the human rights of others.

Moral and Ethical values, standards, and a life-path that enhances culture are important. Systems need 'feedback', 'regulation', 'flexibility to react to change' so that all can 'shine shine shine' and do something fulfilling with their life-stint.

mazza9 - 05:28pm Sep 29, 2002 EST (# 4646 of 4676)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Of course, the darling of the Hollywood set isn't greedy. ex president Clinton is cashing in as is his right. Selling pardons, state secrets and sex in the Oval Office are all perfectly legitimate past times for him!

bbbuck - 05:49pm Sep 29, 2002 EST (# 4647 of 4676)
'How much do you make?'...'Well I'd half to look at the books, but I think around $100 week'....wife-'You don't make $100 a week'...husband-'They can't prove that, we don't keep books'..

lchic 9/29/02 10:06am

Your speculations on Condoleeza Rice becoming president, what is the missile defense connection?

I have reported you to the sysops,because of your off topic post.

I believe we should defend our missiles. You never know when someone might try to take them. I believe the best way to defend them is to have some military people watch them and report to the proper authorities if anyone tries to take them.

your buddy jimmy johnson.

lchic - 06:29pm Sep 29, 2002 EST (# 4648 of 4676)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"" GREEDS are 'everywhere'

    How to reign-in and control them is the question
    Or, how to 'remove' dangerous-killer-widgets that GREEDS could trade

lchic - 07:22pm Sep 29, 2002 EST (# 4649 of 4676)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Brilliant-Broadsider-Buck asks

"" Condoleeza Rice becoming president, what is the missile defense connection? ""

As a 'buck' you'd little know
The different thinking of a 'doe'

This science docco (part1) set out to show that women's thinking was 'more connected' than that of a male - which is more 'compartmentalised'.

[ http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s686728.htm http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s680863.htm ]

Natural logic therefore seems to suggest that peace breaks out - statistically more often - when a woman 'thinks' at the top of the heirachy.

Doe's on top - and all that!

Blokes have a place ... but they do get carried away ... see aggression as the solution rather than a last resort means to a solution ... whereas ... women are designed to get out of situations without resorting to violence.

So if a revised, reformed, informed and 'peace educated' Rice, after a 'Rise and Rise of Rice' campaigne did get to be 'Top Bird on the perch' - 'The Big Kanga - Leader in the Paddock', then a higher level of 'peace thinking' might occur.

" Showalter - hope you're working on a 'reading list' for Condi!"

:)

lchic - 07:25pm Sep 29, 2002 EST (# 4650 of 4676)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Blokes in frocks have been 'thinking' in the UK - but will the blue suits listen? http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,801239,00.html

More Messages Recent Messages (26 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 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us