New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(4722 previous messages)
gisterme
- 12:55am Oct 3, 2002 EST (#
4723 of 4733)
lchic
10/2/02 9:03pm
"...Carry on with the realms of spiel Gisterme - pull up
a soapbox - hold forth ..... watch out there's a white nuclear
elephant parked #!@##%!!! behind you ... too late :)"
Was it a suicide white nuclear elephant, lchic? I
didn't notice a thing.
But the first part of your comment I take as high praise
coming from a spielmeister like yourself. Thanks!
gisterme
- 02:24am Oct 3, 2002 EST (#
4724 of 4733)
almarst2002
10/2/02 9:28pm
"...On the other hand, if you trully believe the US
Government is so foolish, why don't you question their
statements and assumptions today?.."
Alex, you must realize the the US government is a huge
bureaucracy. It is not an all-knowing monolith. It is made up
of many departments, each having its own budget and
management. Yes, the Congress and executive branches are
overseers of all those departments; but, they are only humans
too. Remember that there are lobbies that drive the
congress...lobbies that mean well and are often genuinely
interested in the well being of humanity. However in their
zeal to accomplish some good thing, such as the eradication of
disease in this case, they exert political pressure on the
congress to make things happen. Now I don't have any knowledge
of the details of how that ransfer of bio-strains came to pass
but I'll bet the decision was not politically driven. I would
doubt that at that time the CDC needed to even inform the
congress of the transfer of those bio-strains for the purpose
of medical research.
That said, I'll also say that was then, this is now. If
it's our mess, then why would you complain about us cleaning
it up?
I said, in part: " there are plenty of other places that
better watch out."
"...Indeed there are. And they know it. If as a realists
claim, the Al Capone's world id the only real-politics
possible, better watch out even your sweared "friends"..."
What you (very creatively) edited out was the next sentence
that didn't serve your purpose. The complete quote should have
been:
From: gisterme
10/2/02 7:35pm
"If a declaration of loyalty to the stars-and-stripes is a
criteria for not being attacked by the United States, then
there are plenty of other places that better watch out. Of
course your conclusion is nonsense"
You know, Alex, taking what other people say out of context
for the advancement of your own purpose is also deceptive and
dishonest. Have you caught something from Robert? Better get
to the shrink...quick!
"...Bush nor Blair was able to provide any credible
evidence of that. (that Iraq has supported terrorism).
Right. No doubt they are more interested in the continued
existance on this earth of their sources than they are in
whether or not you know how they know. Believe me, if
there is action against Saddam there will be a suberabundance
of evidence to support the position that Iraq is actively
developing WMD. Unfortunatly, as is happening now, the
innocent people of Iraq will probably continue to be the ones
who suffer most. Of course, the consequences of doing
nothing will likely be far worse.
"...That was never proved more then a speculation,
however reasonable it may be..."
Huh? Are you saying that it's just specuation that Iraq
hasn't abided by UN resolutions regarding WMD? You must be
about the only person on the planet including Saddam Hussein
that thinks that. Get real, Alex.
continued...
gisterme
- 02:25am Oct 3, 2002 EST (#
4725 of 4733)
gisterme
10/3/02 2:24am (continued)
"...May be he knows how many people are seriously
interested in what lies deep in Iraqi's oil? Including our
great friend - Turkey. No to mention the Big Boss..."
Now there's a cryptic statement. What do you mean by "lies
deep in Iraq's oil"? Who's the "Big Boss"?
"...Can you count just how many countries already have
such missiles and nuclear bombs?..."
Sure I can. There are the US, the UK, France, Russia, China
and maybe Israel. Fortunately, none of those are ruled by
crazy dictators. Do you think we were unfair not to share
Manhattan project research with Hitler or Hirohito? Nothing
has changed since then. You already know that I wish there
were no nuclear bombs in the world. How can we five or six
counties that now posess these weapons ever hope to get rid of
them if we aloow other folks, especially crazy dictators get
their hands on them?
"...If you believe in suicidal nations, then the only
way for US to feel safe is to eliminate the rest of the World
once and for all..."
I don't believe in suicidal nations. Only suicidal
dicatators who really don't care much about what happens to
their nations.
"...And, on the same line, how dear you get out on the
street with no assurance some suicidal maniac attacks and
kills you even before the eyes of a policemen?..."
I can't. That's exacly why something needs to be done. Call
us calloused, ignorant, foolish, suckers...whatever you like
because we've failed to act for so long. Call us insensitive
because we haven't done more to help other contries that are
plagued by these suicide bombers. Say we're selfish because we
waited until it was done to us. What I say to that is better
late than never...and it's way late.
"...Connect the dots if you can. But it does not seems
so simple to me..."
What can I say, Alex? So far as I'm concerned the dots
are connected. Still, I've known people who can make a
complicated puzzle out of soup spoon. Reminds me of one of the
other principal posters on this forum. :-)
(8 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|