![[F]](9080_files/site.gif) 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.
 (9079 previous messages)
mazza9
- 10:11am Feb 18, 2003 EST (#
9080 of 9087)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic
Commentaries
No I didn't see that film.
I grew up in the 50s and was amazed that everyone didn't
subscribe to our form of government since it was THE BEST! We
discussed this in Civics and History classes. e came to the
conclusion that the freedom we believe in cannot be "forced"
on other people. I quit smoking but I sure don't expect
everyone to quit. That's their choice and I can't change the
world by fiat as some would.
I do believe that the open exchange of ideas, as some of us
pursue in these forums is helpful. Unlike Robert I don't count
the number of lives I've saved and the world being a safger
place due to my ramblings here.
Maybe, just mabe, I'm alittle like HG Wells. I believe that
a technology/science based society will benefit most of
mankind. Like Spock I believe in logic over emotion.
blah blah...sorry.
almarst2002
- 10:29am Feb 18, 2003 EST (#
9081 of 9087)
mazza - "freedom we believe in cannot be "forced" on
other people."
We can agree on that. Finaly.
However, one have to have a very serous mental problem even
to suggest that "freedom can be forced". On the other hand, it
was written on the Buhenvald's Gate "The Work brings Freedom".
lchic
- 01:56pm Feb 18, 2003 EST (#
9082 of 9087)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed
~~~~
?? NOW at war | WILL BE at war ??
""There are two possible explanations for the great
trans-Atlantic media divide. One is that European media have
a pervasive anti-American bias that leads them to distort
the news, even in countries like the U.K. where the leaders
of both major parties are pro-Bush and support an attack on
Iraq. The other is that some U.S. media outlets — operating
in an environment in which anyone who questions the
administration's foreign policy is accused of being
unpatriotic — have taken it as their assignment to sell the
war, not to present a mix of information that might call the
justification for war into question.
So which is it? I've reported, you decide.
----------------
If Krugman read this board ..... Gisterme, here, who RS
says has the Bush-viewpoint
Then --- i noted and commented months-back-above that
Gisterme was 'AT WAR'
(5 following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
| 
