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 (9560 previous messages)

lchic - 12:10am Mar 7, 2003 EST (# 9561 of 9569)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

B I G -- QUESTION --- What's this war 'about' ??

    Looking at Palestine/Israel one notes America gives was it $10m per day to the latter to buy guns, to aquire land and build walls around the water supply - denying others.
    So will Israel be moving into Iraq to build walls around the twin rivers and pipe off the water back to Israel ?
What is this war 'about' ?
    One aspect mooted is that it provides an outlet for the US military to 'win medals', gain promotions, and 'feel big about themselves'; along with blasting off munitions --- that then have to be replenished ... by companies such as Carlyle that Old-Bush sits atop of.
What is this war 'about' ?
    Control of oil supplies -- to ensure oil -- or to create panic that pushes up prices at the pump giving shareholders in oil large dividends ... when the oil supply hasn't been interrupted.
What is this war 'about' ?
    A chance for the Monroe Doctor to sojourn abroad ?
What is this war 'about' ?
    Is it a chance for those with a 'lidded' virtual pattern of religion to set hellfire and brimstone on those they consider 'others'.
What is this war 'about' ?
    Is the question the world is asking.
What is this war 'about' ?
    Take the capital labour model of yore -- there was always a fight -- but that was then C19 C20
    The new model invokes contractual responsibilities -- the new worker has a foot in both camps -- and is everybody.
    Everybody knows that aggression and fights don't get folks that far. The new model if for all to have vision, an eye on the horizon, on the future, on tomorrow with an understanding of the journey and where the journey will take us.
So WHAT is this WAR 'about' ?
    Will it end in the usual way ... with the US leaving thousands of unexploded bombs for the children to stumble over ?
    Has the US considered that Old Europe is tired of picking up the pieces, of integrating refugees -- some of whom have their own mafia culture -- and will never fit into decent society see [DW - on Catherine the Great's folks returning to Germany - today ]

lchic - 12:16am Mar 7, 2003 EST (# 9562 of 9569)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

GU talk - middle east

US insisted on inspections, but israei govt didn't co-operate fully. Surely then after 4 decades war is the only viable option?

http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_vol7/0002_rubner.asp

The credibility of the US and the inspection teams is at stake.

Surely 4 decades is enough time?

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.4a90dc8c/0

gisterme - 12:58am Mar 7, 2003 EST (# 9563 of 9569)

lchic - 06:41am Mar 2, 2003 EST (# 9404 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.faSOa6tc4eW.471828@.f28e622/10942

"...Supposing Stalin was as MAD as a HATTER ...

Why did so many OTHERS enable his tyranny? "

Umm, do you suppose it's because they didn't care to spend the rest of their lives in Siberia (or worse)?

gisterme - 01:24am Mar 7, 2003 EST (# 9564 of 9569)

Lou and Fred...here's one:

A young lady in skin-tight leather pants saunters into a bar and hoists herself up onto a stool.

The gentleman who happens to be sitting on the next stool took all this in and was sincerely amazed at how tightly the leather pants fit the young woman.

After getting over his initial amazement, he inquires of her, "How in the world do you get into those pants?"

She immediately replies, "Well, you could start by buying me a drink!"

lchic - 01:28am Mar 7, 2003 EST (# 9565 of 9569)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

... even so ... some Russians today still say ... 'if only we could have talked to Stalin ... he wouldn't let these 'officials' treat us like this ... because Stalin is a good leader ...

Some Russians still think he was great! Well there were large statues of the man - everywhere ... he must have been great ?

And that's the problem --- people expect leaders to lead, to be great, to be flawless, to do the right thing ... that's why there are BIG statues ...

So goes the thinking ... some people are fooled all of the time.

More Messages Recent Messages (4 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 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us