BlueHummingbird News

Messages From BlueHummingbird

BlueHummingbird News

                        MSN Communities - BlueHummingbird News 
                        BlueHummingbird (manager)

                    Messages : National Missile Defense

                              Message 1 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbird  (Original Message)Sent:
                              2/16/2001 1:22 AM
                              Feel free to voice your opinions on this matter or
                              to start a new discussion
                              Message 2 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 2/16/2001 11:11 PM

                              Message 3 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 3/13/2001 10:38 PM
                              I think that we've headed down a path that will
                              reach no satisfactory conclusion. In fact, I feel
                              that we have needlessly endangered the future of
                              mankind by starting a whole new arms race.

                              Message 4 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 3/18/2001 11:43 PM
                              Please visit the web journal that I have started
                              on this issue. The following was my first entry in
                              the journal:
                                Date: 2/13/2001Headline: National Missile Defense
                                I don't think it likely that the development of
                                this new technology of warfare will be stopped
                                peaceably. It is highly popular in the United
                                States, but I think it sets a bad precedent to
                                place weapons in space.
                                We should have a treaty to keep
                            weapons out of space and not ignore it.
                                March 18, 2001: I heard a blurb on the CBS
                                Evening News last night that the Bush
                                administration had decided to back off a little
                                on this system since the science hasn't come
                                along as well as expected.

                              Message 5 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 3/29/2001 4:14 PM
                              Will US intransigence over a system that won't
                              work and hasn't yet been developed lead to world

                              Message 6 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 4/11/2001 10:20 PM
                                I think I will only post news clippings in the
                                web journal from now on. These are the next
                                messages that I posted there:
                                Date: 2/14/2001
                                Let's consider that all the leaders of the world
                                go along with this plan to put a "defense"
                                system in space, who will be the ones who are at
                                thecontrol of these orbital weapons? Do you
                                expect world leaders to be in agreement on this?


                                Date: 2/14/2001Headline: NMD
                                What will this require of the NATO alliance -
                                for the European Union to have total
                                responsibility for the ones over their
                                territory?  Will we give them to Russia and deny
                                them to China?  Won't all the other nations want
                                something similar in orbit for "self-defense"? 
                                Do we want to force the hand of the rest of the
                                world's militaries?
  If this goes forward, won't
                                it create a totalitarian one-world government
                                that is governed by the ones who are at the
                                controls of this machinery?  I think only if it
                                doesn't start a nuclear world war.  And then
                                what would be left?  It would be strange if the
                                United Nations was silent on this issue.

                                Date: 2/18/2001Headline: Possible Scenarios?
                                Why turn back the recently-made progress in
                                world-wide relations?  Isn't the hawkish stance
                                of the new administration seen as a threat by
                                Russia and China?  What happened to "detente"? 
                                Now who's to say if the old Soviet Union doesn't
                                reassemble, or that Russia doesn't form an
                                alliance with China?  Once you get something
                                started, it's harder to stop it. This adds fuel
                                to a new arms race.
                                (You know that the only option for any nuclear
                                capable opponent is to rely on an all-out
                                surprise first strike. It's good to have a good
                                idea of what the odds and consequences are
                                before you head toward war over something.)

                              Message 7 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 4/21/2001 5:28 PM
                              You can see that my position on this then is that
                              the rhetoric for a missile defense system alone
                              could be enough cause for any country in the world
                              to start putting weapons in space, especially if
                              the ABM Treaty is abandoned and the US itself is
                              the first.  And, that before any missile defense
                              could be fully operational the US could also be
                              bombarded by thousands of nuclear missiles in a
                              first strike attempt.  Some other people might say
                              that war is inevitable.

                              Message 8 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 4/21/2001 5:36 PM
                              IMHO, this certainly raises the risks.

                              Message 9 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 4/30/2001 3:12 AM
                              I feel sorry that America looks like it will take
                              the military high ground and not the moral high
                              road by becoming the first to place weapons in
                              orbit and thereby threatening to take control of
                              space. This is not the process of agreement and
                              diplomacy, but that of war and subjugation. I hope
                              people will come to their senses before it's too

                              Message 10 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/1/2001 6:59 PM
                              Another scenerio might be that the Russians sell
                              nuclear missiles and more technology to China and
                              North Korea or others in Asia. It looks like an
                              arms race now to me. Can this so-called shield be
                              of any use?

                              Message 11 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/3/2001 12:43 AM
                              Bush has thrown down the gauntlet to China. How
                              many ICBMs can they build or buy before his stars
                              wars weapons are ready? We don't even know that a
                              shield will work or do much good at all anyway.
                              Runners take your marks. Ready, set, go! The race
                              is on.

                              Message 12 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/3/2001 12:58 AM
                              sorry for the typo the other day, i meant scenario.

                              Message 13 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/3/2001 5:08 PM
                              When you place weapons in space, you are not
                              talking about a shield any more or even defense.
                              Lasers in orbit could attack any target on earth.
                              This would not be a shield but a cloak of daggers
                              over the earth.

                               Message 14 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/8/2001 1:11 AM

                              Message 15 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/9/2001 12:42 PM
                              (The page numbers change, so look for
                              Or, here's one:

                              Message 16 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 5/25/2001 6:17 PM
                              I use several aliases at yahoo. here's the latest post:
                              I think Bush wants to manufacture robots, drones,
                              and space lasers to fight wars for him. And when
                              the missiles start flying, he'll need the military
                              men and women to impose order on our own luckless
                              population under martial law.

                              Message 17 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 6/7/2001 9:52 PM
                              I see that old messages that I have links to will
                              be deleted. In the future I will not only give the
                              link to my messages, but also the content of them.

                              Message 18 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 6/13/2001 10:24 PM
                              I wonder what those three military shipments from
                              China to Cuba recently were. I guess our
                              satellites have the evidence. I hope they weren't
                              missiles. Not another Cuban missile crises, I
                              hope. hmm?

                              Message 19 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 6/13/2001 10:26 PM
                              shucks, another typo. i meant crisis, singular.

                              Message 20 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 6/17/2001 3:15 PM
                              U.S. to proceed on missile plan
                              Rice: Time to move past 72 ABM treaty
                              So I guess the "consultations" with our allies and
                              Russia are over. But, I'm sure we'll let them know
                              how things are going.

                              Message 21 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 6/25/2001 8:52 PM

                              What if any other nation did what the Bush
                              administration has done? What would we say if they
                              said they were going to place anti-missile systems
                              to counter our missiles anyplace on earth? What if
                              they said that they would be placing weapons in
                              space and taking control of the skies? Do you
                              think that it would rile any Americans? Would
                              Americans see it as a threat? ... a nuclear arms
                              race threatens the whole world, as does putting
                              weapons in space.

                              Message 22 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/17/2001 11:33 PM
                              Pentagon Presses Congress for Anti-Missile Support
                              By John Whitesides
                              Tuesday July 17 2:01 PM ET
                              "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Pentagon officials
                              warned Congress on Tuesday that failure to pay
                              fully for research on a missile defense system
                              could impair the administration's ability to
                              negotiate a new arms pact with Russia. ...    "                           
                              This suggests to me that there will be no
                              negotiations and no new arms pact, just a limited
                              threat or bluff from this administration.

                              Message 23 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/18/2001 1:56 PM
                              Democrats Are Warned on Missile Stance
                              By JAMES DAO                     July 18, 2001

                              "WASHINGTON, July 17  Buoyed by a successful
                              antimissile test on Saturday, the Pentagon warned
                              Senate Democrats today that a protracted fight
                              over the administration's ambitious missile
                              defense plans would undermine President Bush's
                              effort to overhaul the 1972 Antiballistic Missile
                              Treaty in coming talks with Russia.
                              In testimony before the Senate Armed Services
                              Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
                              Wolfowitz said threats by the Democrats to cut Mr.
                              Bush's proposed $8.3 billion missile defense
                              budget would give Russian leaders "the mistaken
                              impression that they can somehow exercise a veto
                              over our development of missile defenses." ...
                              "The unintended consequence of such action could
                              be to rule out a cooperative solution, and leave
                              the president no choice but to walk away from the
                              treaty unilaterally" an outcome none of us surely
                              wants," Mr. Wolfowitz said.
                              The administration's first preference was to amend
                              or replace the treaty in talks with Russia.
                              Failing that, Mr. Bush would unilaterally withdraw
                              from the pact before the Pentagon broke any of its
                              provisions, Mr. Wolfowitz said.
                              With today's appearance, just days after a
                              prototype interceptor shot down a mock warhead 140
                              miles over the Pacific, Mr. Wolfowitz stepped up
                              the administration's efforts to confront Democrats
                              who strongly oppose swift deployment of missile
                              defenses, as many Republicans have urged.    "

                              So now this administration is going to blame the
                              democrats if or when Bush withdraws from the ABM

                              Message 24 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/19/2001 10:41 PM
                              I was just wondering about what would happen in
                              the future, if the Bush administration put up a
                              space-based weapon and the Russians or someone
                              else decided to shot it down.

                              Message 25 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/19/2001 10:43 PM
                              i mean shoot :) lol

                              Message 26 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/31/2001 3:37 PM
                              From discussions at Yahoo! News - Message Boards:
                              ....More anti-missiles for a missile defense just
                              means more missiles being prepared to launch as an
And the US position of taking control of
                              space bodes nothing good for world relations. ...
                              that threatens everyone who is not in control of
                              this technology. ...
                              It seems there are a lot of people in America who
                              are comfortable with an arms race, throwing away
                              treaties, and weaponizing space. But, I'm not one
                              of them.
                              Space was supposed to be the last frontier, one to
                              be entered into without weaponry - as agreed by
                              most nations on earth. (Outer Space Treaty) This
                              is not just the beginning of a "limited missile
                              defense shield"; this is a line you shouldn't buy.
                              It is the start of an arms race in space - the
                              militarization of space. The US rulers seem to
                              think that it is a game which they will win, and
                              they seemingly don't care much about the
                              consequences to world peace. They want the right
                              to call down fire-power from the heavens too. NMD
                              is just the start, and you can call it anything
                              you like. Offense and defense are much alike. The
                              goal is control and conquest. ...
                              How hard could it be to overcome this "shield"? -
                              answer: not very...
                              Russia just tested a scramjet missile - according
                              to The Washington Times. You should not
                              underestimate either country's (China, Russia)
                              reaction. The technology is available to anyone,
                              once it appears. ...
                              The point is - who is going to take over control
                              of space and by that control of the whole world?
                              And, technology is sold to the highest bidder.
                              That's capitalism. Now Russia, China, N. Korea,
                              etc. have the incentive to upgrade all systems and
                              build new factories. We'll see how it turns out.
                              Will the US actually share power with other
                              countries if it controls space? And if this grand
                              plan fails, what then?

                              Message 27 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/31/2001 5:38 PM
                              This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

                              Message 28 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 7/31/2001 5:50 PM
                              I deleted the previous message because the URL I used was too long.
                              maybe this is better

                              Message 29 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/4/2001 11:19 PM
                              "Military Chief Urges Space Weaponry - 08-01-2001
                              The United States' expanding commercial stake in
                              space makes it likely the military will be called
                              on to put both offensive and defensive weapons in
                              orbit, the Air Force's top general said Wednesday. "

                              Maybe now you know why it is important to the Bush
                              administration to get rid of these "old out-dated
                              relics" of treaties. Some of these treaties were
                              made to keep weapons out of space. For whoever
                              controls space militarily, rules the whole world
                              from on high - unless it starts a nuclear world war first.

                              Message 30 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/5/2001 4:34 PM
                              (Portions of) The Outer Space Treaty of 1967
                              RECALLING resolution 1884 (XVIII), calling upon
                              States to refrain from placing in orbit around the
                              earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any
                              other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or from
                              installing such weapons on celestial bodies, which
                              was adopted unanimously by the United Nations
                              General Assembly on 17 October 1963,
                              Article II
                              Outer space, including the moon and other
                              celestial bodies, is not subject to national
                              appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of
                              use or occupation, or by any other means.
                              Article IV
                              States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to
                              place in orbit around the earth any objects
                              carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of
                              weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons
                              on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in
                              outer space in any other manner.
                              Article VI
                              States Parties to the Treaty shall bear
                              international responsibility for national
                              activities in outer space, including the moon and
                              other celestial bodies, whether such activities
                              are carried on by governmental agencies or by
                              non-governmental entities, and for assuring that
                              national activities are carried out in conformity
                              with the provisions set forth in the present

                              Message 31 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/7/2001 9:15 PM
                              I think having treaties to keep weapons out of
                              space is better than having weapons in space. It
                              just doesn't seem to me to be in the best
                              interests of the human race to escalate militarily
                              to an arms race in space. Nor does it seem
                              necessary to me for the US to become the sole
                              dictatorship of the world by taking military
                              control of space. It seems more likely than not to
                              lead to warfare and conflict. It could possibly
                              pit the US against all other nations.
The Outer
                              Space Treaty of 1967 would have to be another
                              international treaty from which this
                              administration would have to withdraw.

                              Message 32 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/9/2001 5:13 PM
                              As far as communication satellites are concerned,
                              if it comes to warfare, I've heard that the
                              electromagnetic pulse from one nuclear explosion
                              in nearby space would be enough to take out a
                              whole constellation of satellites. That would
                              likely have to be the first of many nuclear
                              missiles launched in war, if it comes to that.

                              Message 33 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/13/2001 3:08 AM
                              Still arguing at yahoo! :)
                              Msg: 478 of 552
                              I would assume it would have to be more powerful
                              incentives than these for the Russians to withdraw
                              also from the ABM treaty. I would think they would
                              love to see the US flap in the breeze of world
                              opinion over this NMD plan. World opinion can be
                              acute. ;)
                              (Sorry, I didn't keep the link to the article this
                              was in response to.)
                              Msg: 485 of 553
                              Nonsense? That is what the administration said
                              they wanted most, mutual withdrawal. I'd be
                              willing to bet that there will be no "Amendments
                              and Protocols" to the ABM Treaty. The debate will
                              only be that, a debate. Russia has proclaimed its
                              postion on this many times, and has made the
                              statements with other nations of the world. Like I
                              said, the US would have to offer some powerful
                              incentives for Russia to agree to the modification
                              of or the withdrawal from this treaty. Of course
                              this administration would go ahead anyway as they
                              have said; no matter of "world opinion" seems to
                              bother them yet.
                              Msg: 490 of 553 
                              Like I said, they would have to have some powerful
                              incentives to abandon or change the treaty. What
                              incentives could the US give, and how would it be
                              in their best interests? If the US starts a new
                              arms race, one that will include space, how are
                              they negatively effected? The arsenal they have
                              now is a better defence against war than some
                              fanciful anti-missile defense.
                              Msg: 495 of 553
                              US unilaterism threatens Russia's strategic world
                              position, if it goes along. But doesn't if they
                              don't go along with the abandonment of the treaty.
                              They have enough nukes not to worry, unlike China.
                              They also have agreements with China and other
                              China's (oops, see correction below) premier just
                              visited a particle accelerator in Siberia. Lasers
                              and space weapons can be constructed by many
                              nations nowadays. The knowledge is common in
                              universities throughout the world. But space is
                              the last place we need to place weapons because it
                              is the most destablizing of all scenerios, unless
                              the whole world is in agreement on it. NMD is just
                              the start of the program, and it will take much
                              money and many years to be effective against any
                              likely assault from even a "rogue nation".
                              Counter-measures are much cheaper. Even China
                              could send two missiles with multiple warheads for
                              every unbuilt kill-vehicle. And again, don't
                              underestimate the wrath of world opinion even if a
                              few countries agree. Does the US want
                              world-dominance of a hostile populace?

                              Correction: Sorry, I think it was probably
                              NKorea's president who visited the particle
                              accelerator in Siberia. I couldn't find a link for
                              the article anymore, but maybe I could find it if
                              I searched around a bit.
                              Msg: 501 of 553
                              Once the treaty is gone, the step after getting
                              the ground-based anti-missile system is the sea
                              and space-based "anti-missile" systems, And, the
                              goal of controlling space militarily is
                              Msg: 503 of 553
                              The whole scheme is unworkable and bound to cause
                              more conflict. They should back out of this now
                              while they still can!
                              Re: MAD
                              Msg: 547 of 553
                              MAD still exists. We can never get away from it
                              until all nuclear weapons are gone.
                              Msg: 549 of 553
                              Why I say this is that the consequences of any
                              nuclear war is liely to cause cataclysmic changes
                              and clouds of radiation. (Read the book "Alas,
                              Babylon" sometime.) Everyone knows no one wins in
                              a nuclear exchange. I guess though if humanity
                              wants to destroy themselves, they will.
                              Msg: 551 of 554
                              And, when do the real tests come using X-band
                              radar? The real tests are actual warfare and any
                              combination of any number of decoys, multiple
                              warheads, and multiple missile launches. And, what
                              if they detonate one in space first, destroying
                              all your satellite reconnaiscance at the outset?
                              Msg: 552 of 554
                              Seems to me the US has set out the doormat labeled
                              "trouble" and is begging anyone to walk across.

                              Message 34 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/14/2001 12:14 AM
                              "The emporer has no clothes."  I don't see why it
                              is necessary for me to tell you the obvious.

                              Message 35 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/14/2001 12:18 AM
                              oops :) LOL, I meant "emperor."

                              Message 36 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/15/2001 12:42 AM
                              more on the previous thread at yahoo:
                              Msg: 568 of 577
                              Re: Russia is hurting
                              The Russians have said they are willing to
                              negotiate changes to the treaty, but the Bush
                              administration is in a hurry to withdraw from it
                              rather than waste time trying to modify it. The
                              Bush administration doesn't want to be held or
                              bound to any treaties, and want to start right
                              away on the missile shield.
                              Msg: 571 of 577
                              Like Bush said when he heard how many nuclear
                              warheads we have, "Why do we need so many?" It
                              doesn't take 14,000 nuclear warheads to destroy
                              the whole world. 
                              Msg: 573 of 577
                              One thing I don't quite understand is that if an
                              arms race is supposed to be good for our economy
                              and we can afford many billion$s of debt to create
                              an NMD, why much small expenditures to maintain
                              their existing missiles and produce new technology
                              will ruin Russia's economy. I think Republicans
                              give to much credit to Reagan for the collapse of
                              the Soviet empire.
                              Msg: 577 of 577
                              How many warheads does a country need to wipe out
                              a civilization at once? It's not as many as we
                              each have now. The financial problem with that is
                              in the maintenance of the excess. These high
                              numbers of the current arsenals of warheads and
                              their delivery systems is a fallacy of deterrence
                              by numbers. If Russia and the US wanted to
                              annihilate each other - a thousand warheads each
                              would be overkill. They don't need more quantity,
                              just quality.

                              And, by pushing this "Star Wars" program over
                              their objections, it only heightens the tensions
                              between the peoples of the nations and the
                              propostion that nuclear war might quickly become a
                              possibilty. And that their forces are aging would
                              seem to add to the notion of any urgency to that

                              Instead of forcing a missile defense on an
                              unwilling world, this administration should have
                              continued with the practise of diplomacy, as the
                              Clinton administration did. And not come off
                              looking like a blow-hard with nothing as of yet to
                              show for the reality of the working of this beast
                              of Star Wars.

                              Message 37 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/15/2001 12:50 AM
                              message board at
                              Space weapons

                              If they are going to put weapons in space, then I
                              would guess that logically the space station
                              itself would be put to use as a weapon.

                              Message 38 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/19/2001 4:32 PM
                              This administration totally discounts the
                              Russians. They're getting ready for a war with
                              China. But first, they want to get a foot in the
                              door with a "few missiles" for a defense "shield".
                              When the number of missiles and budget grows
                              larger, they expect the citizens of the US to
                              accept that as a part of "security".

                              Message 39 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/22/2001 2:29 PM
                              The Bush administration would definitely have to
                              have an agreement with the Russians if they went
                              forward with the militarization of space. The
                              Russians, Chinese, or someone else could very
                              possibly highjack the weapon or just destroy it.
                              How are all countries in the world supposed to
                              agree to this prospect of space weapons? It seems
                              that war would be almost inevitable to break out
                              over this. And weapons in space would not be as
                              preventative as it will likely be billed as being,
                              but rather a provocation.

                              Message 40 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/22/2001 3:09 PM
                              Re: he who rules space rules the univer
                              08/20/01 06:06 pm
                              Msg: 589 of 633
                              So it's the "good guys" who throw away treaties
                              that have been created to keep peace?
                              And, it's the "good guys" who want to militarize
                              space and start a new arms race? And who looks
                              after the "good guys" to make sure they don't go
                              08/20/01 06:52 pm
                              Msg: 591 of 634
                              They say absolute power absolutely corrupts. It
                              will be even harder for the American public to
                              control anything once weapons start filling the
                              skies. The ones in control will be the ones who
                              control the space lasers, unless it all spirals
                              out of control and war starts over this.
                              08/20/01 08:43 pm
                              Msg: 592 of 634
                              They would definitely have to have an agreement
                              with the Russians if they went forward with the
                              militarization of space. The Russians, Chinese or
                              someone else could very possibly highjack the
                              weapon or just destroy it. How are all countries
                              in the world supposed to agree to this prospect of
                              space weapons?
                              08/21/01 08:57 pm
                              Msg: 606 of 634
                              I really don't see how war could be avoided
                              myself, if we deny the use of space to others and
                              are the first to break a long-standing taboo and
                              put weapons in orbit. I don't think many others in
                              the world could view it any other way than an evil
                              plot. :) The "good guys" or peacemakers would aim
                              to keep space free from weapons.
                              08/22/01 03:06 pm
                              Msg: 637 of 637
                              I agree that the technology and plans should be
                              developed to counter any threat to our interests
                              in space. But once you start to deploy weapons in
                              space, you breach the peace.

                              Message 41 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/23/2001 2:21 AM
                              08/23/01 12:39 am
                              Msg: 661 of 670
                              My point being that you can make all these plans,
                              but you'd better not implement them unless it is
                              necessary. I don't see any reason to yet, but the
                              threat of this heightens the chance and almost
                              becomes self-fulfilling.

                              08/23/01 01:53 am
                              Msg: 667 of 670
                              Of course I think the military-industrial complex
                              will manufacture the necessity.
                              08/23/01 02:01 am
                              Msg: 669 of 670
                              Throwing away treaties facilitates the military's
                              goals, but not that of the citizens.

                              Message 42 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/24/2001 12:41 AM
                              08/23/01 01:52 pm
                              Msg: 705 of 737
                              I'm not surprised either. I just think it is a
                              foolish plan that will lead to war. I would have
                              but a faint hope the rest of Congress can do
                              something wiser.

                              Message 43 of 43 in Discussion 
                              From: BlueHummingbirdSent: 8/24/2001 7:45 PM
                              note: in msg #33, "populous" should be populace (so I changed it here).

Sent: 5/19/2001
To clarify what the American people want,
maybe we should call for a vote of confidence in
the administration of George W. Bush. Do we want
him to lead us into war with his dreams of space
weapons and defense missiles, and say to hell with
the environment?

Sent: 5/19/2001 7:59 PM
If we don't care what the rest of the world
thinks, we'd better bring ALL our troups home from
overseas before they get kicked out.


Sent: 5/21/2001 3:57 PM
You don't think the rest of the world notices
the appearance. You Republicans say you want the
US to go it alone. That's a pretty stupid
strategy. One that leads to war.

Sent: 9/5/2001 2:17 AM
Actually, the double-speak from
this administration makes it unclear exactly what
they are thinking, except that their policy has
already been laid out. I only know it's not good
and hasn't been good. They think they own the
world and are not about to opt for cooperation
with our neighbors. It's the America first policy.
They are only looking to keep the upper hand and
dictate their own delusional policies to the
world. They are not preparing any options for
peace, but only the option of war.

More Messages - Next Page

Index of News Archive

News Articles: NMD and Foreign Policy

BACK to start of Space Weapons messages
BACK to News Index

by keywords:

(Opens in new window)
In Association with

BlueHummingbird's Blog
My News Commentary

Donate through PayPal
(Not Tax Deductible)

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More