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 (8059 previous messages)

commondata - 04:18am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8060 of 8072)

Gisterme: I read an article a couple of days ago about some European anti-war folks who are travelling to Iraq to volunteer to Saddam Hussein to be his human shields. Can't find the link.

It's been a big story here in the UK. They left in a convoy of buses from London Bridge and will pick up hundreds more protesters on the way to Baghdad. The interviews that I saw some of them give impressed me immensely; they're articulate, motivated by the best of reasons, they condemn Saddam, they have lots of cameras and, in the bright London sunshine, seemed willing to die. They're a propaganda nightmare for Blair and Bush and I applaud them.

They're racists! They think that by being "superior" to their brown brothers they will somehow be able to prevent a war.

You're reliably predictably wrong and they've got your measure. You said two posts back "I've never killed or maimed anyone and don't want to see anyone get killed or maimed, especially my fellow Americans. So, if there are a bunch of Americans taking tea in a presidential palace, would you be more or less likely to bomb it?

I read a couple of weeks ago that a poll revealed that 50% of Americans now believe that Iraq was actually responsible for downing the twin towers so it's no surprise to hear you mindlessly link AQ and Iraq. Surely it would be more rational to complain about the billion dollars worth of US arms sales to Saudi Arabia annually; didn't that perverse and abhorrent system produce 15 of the 19 hijackers?

A big difference between me and thee, Robert, is that I'll back up any difinitve statements that I make. If I'm spectulating, just saying what I think or expressing my opinion I say that too. You have to admit that most of what I say holds far more appeal to common sense than what you say.

I laughed out loud when I read that. The myths I often hear you espouse are those of the dominant US tribe and are always presented without analysis or justification. You're religious (blind faith in your government's fairy stories) and lazy. Why not present your evidence for the link between AQ and Iraq? As you so often use that as a reason for war, I'd say you have an obligation.

commondata - 04:29am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8061 of 8072)

'Human shields' head for Iraq

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2693289.stm

commondata - 04:35am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8062 of 8072)

A second convoy is planning to leave on 15 February, when up to 600 people are expected to fill a further six double-decker buses.

If you go to war, Gisterme, you're going to end up wiping out half of the English Home Counties. Now, that's news in these parts!

commondata - 04:56am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8063 of 8072)

Missing gene 'increases aggression'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2692299.stm

Has the U.S. bred out its PET-1s?

lchic - 05:22am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8064 of 8072)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Double Deckers ---- Cliff started it http://home3.ecore.net/reneschubert/422.html

lchic - 05:32am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8065 of 8072)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Gisterme (who thinks he knows who he is) says Saddam must be Ousted.

Commondata says ..

Showalter says ... the USA conditions put on the UN by the USA have been met by Iraq.

(A war without justification may bounce-legal international law).

Almarst says ... Iraq has debts to pay - pay the debt without disturbance .. damn it ... PAY THE DEBT!

Limpseed says --- who are these posters? Limpseed you'd have a higher chance of response if you asked for their sperm count! Bare in mind that the moniker may sometimes be, and at other times, represent the mind-behind the moniker .... have you got that George?

More Messages Recent Messages (7 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences  Logout

 [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