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 (9744 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:48am Mar 10, 2003 EST (# 9745 of 9749) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Ivanov Says Russia Will Veto U.S.-Backed Resolution on Iraq By REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/international/10WIRE-IRAQ.html

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Monday Russia would vote against the new draft U.N. resolution on Iraq, a move that would veto the U.S.-sponsored measure.

"Russia thinks that now there is no need for any new U.N. resolutions, and that is why Russia has openly declared that if the draft that has been submitted for consideration, and which contains unfulfillable ultimatum-type demands, will be put to vote, Russia will vote against this resolution," he said.

Ivanov did not use the word "veto" but a Russian foreign ministry spokesman confirmed that he meant exactly that.

Ivanov, speaking at a ceremony at a Moscow university, said U.N. weapons inspectors needed several more months to finish their work in Iraq, where they are looking for suspected weapons of mass destruction.

"Today when we have a real possibility to answer the outstanding questions and do so not within years, but within months. This way is real, reliable and it allows us to resolve the problem through political means and defuse the Iraqi crisis," he said.

I hope, now, that all the nations at the Security Council vote as they believe and feel they should.

If the US withdraws the resolution - a statement of principles by the UN Security Council might well be drafted - and voted on clearly.

This is a time of enormous hope - if people face their responsibilities, rather than turn away from them.

almarst2003 - 11:16am Mar 10, 2003 EST (# 9746 of 9749)

The defining moment of this century in my view started at the end of the last one - the 78 days bombing of Serbia WITHOUT UN authorization by NATO countries acting against THEIR OWN charter and fueled by unprecedented ant-Serbian DEHUMANIZATION compain unprecedented since WWII.

I think the humanity is on accelerating course of self-destruction.

ElBaradei's report confirmed the following:

"The alleged Iraqi attempt of procuring Niger's uranium in the late nineties was based on unauthentic documents supplied by American and British intelligence." - http://yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1143

(UPI) -- Some evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the Washington Post reported Saturday. The faked evidence was described as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in Niger.

The correspondence was deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the U.N. Security Council.

The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the Post report said. - http://jewishworldreview.com/0303/fake_evidence.asp

"These documents — which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger — are in fact not authentic," ElBaradei told the United Nations on Friday. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/2020/GMA030310Iraq_weapons_evidence.html

The most recent strain emerged when U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded last week that U.S. and British claims about Iraq’s secret nuclear program were based on forged documents. - http://www.msnbc.com/news/882813.asp

UK nuclear evidence a fake - http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,910129,00.html

GISTERME, All the above is for your examination.

Feel free to disregard as a "communist's propaganda";)

almarst2003 - 11:19am Mar 10, 2003 EST (# 9747 of 9749)

Emergency Convergence March 15 to Stop the Countdown; Tens of Thousands to March on the White House Against the War Deadline The Politics of Deceit, Diplomacy, Oil and War - http://www.votenowar.org/

almarst2003 - 11:34am Mar 10, 2003 EST (# 9748 of 9749)

Markets threatened by 'new world disorder' http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,910206,00.html

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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