[Mr. K]

what the he!! do liberals have against a DEFENSE shield???

I could never understand the idiocy behind ANY argument the put forth on this- ITS DEFENSE not OFFFENSE

[DBrow]

“what the he!! do liberals have against a DEFENSE shield???”

Things you frequently hear from liberals:

If you own a gun you will be shot;

(In the UK): Carrying a knife will get you stabbed;

Fighting terrorists begets more terrorism;

Guns cause crime.

So defending yourself or being prepared to defend yourself is seen as a risky thing that brings the threat of atack, disgrace, maybe even decision-making where some liberal must decide.

The Soviets say that they will attack if there is a defense shield, so maybe there is something to that.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The agitation against missile defense goes back a long way. It was started by Moscow using agents of influence in the United States. The KGB either covertly contributed money to those who sought to undermine U.S. policies with which Moscow disagreed, making them sincere but unwitting allies of the Soviet Union or paid journalists and others who were sympathetic them to promote the Soviet line.

There are always a certain faction of people who are hostile to any policy, especially defense policies, for deep psychological reasons. Mostly it stems from resentment, or egotism. People who feel alienated from their native country are susceptible as are people with oversized feelings of self worth, who embrace unpopular or contrarian ideas as a way of feeling superior or as a way of striking back. Academics are especially prone to this disorder.

The sophistry and rationalizations they employ are similar to circle squarers, perpetual motion machine inventors or similar cranks. It is too exhausting and unrewarding to engage them, emotionally and mentally healthy people tend to avoid them.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

BTW, speaking of engaging neurotic circle squarers, I worked with a guy who once had the assignment of refuting a paper by Theodore Postol. Postol, despite the ex cathedra awe extended to him in the LSM, is kinda easy pickins, 'cause he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about most of the time. He makes wrong-headed sweeping statements on topics in which he has absolutely no training or experience.

I remember a couple of his colleagues at MIT (who actually knew what they were talking about) testifying before Congress that they did not believe he could have made the conclusions he did based on the information he claimed to have used. Basically physics professors, not professors of "Science, Technology, and International Security" were calling him a quack.

Whom do you think CNN is going to call upon when they want an opinion on Missile Defense?