Jonathan Gibson wrote:
>
> Who's arguing absolute pacifism?
> I operate on the Fight end of the Spectrum and not Fear, but that
> doesn't mean I need to reduce everything to fisticuffs. I simply face
> my fears head on. It's the only way that works for me.
> I don't understand your ref to atomic material...
>
Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH,
nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just
to show they have it.
> do you still believe
> Saddam had nukes or even anywhere near to this?!?
>
I believe that this is irrelevant. We _know_ now that Saddam had no
nukes _then_. We know that Saddam wanted to have nukes - he
would buy nuclear stuff from anyone.
> BushCo would be touting the rad-counts and beakers-residues high and
> low if they could find any. Apparently, your willing to throw your
> own family {maybe a better way to phrase this is, you are willing to
> sacrifice Somebody Else's family} on a sacrificial alter at the mere
> mention of skeery-monster boogeyman of nuclear fire without rationally
> assessing facts. I don't even have to raise this issue since you think
> a Drug War is justification enough to lose your family to local
> crossfire.
> Life is cheap{er}, for some, apparently.
>
I didn't say that - I said that my family _is right now_ in the crossfire
of a drug war. I also said that your family is right now in the crossfire
of another war.
>>> What if this nice round conceptually dead-simple number of
>>> 100K isn't enough dead and the battles continue decades,
>>> and numbers reach millions? When is enough dead enough?
>>> When all you and yours lay at your feet? Are you prepared
>>> for that, because this is a logical {and time-tested!}
>>> course of action your apparently willing to embrace.
>>
>> Obviously, there's a limit to how many people should die
>> to prevent a tyrant to have his wishes. It would be wrong
>> to start a nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war.
>
> So, still no quantification? What exactly is your measure for success
> of this effort?
>
Ok, you want numbers. How many people could die to prevent how
many deaths? How many (precious-to-me) lives could die to
prevent (not-precious-to-me) deaths?
On a first estimation, I don't care how many supporters-of-a-tyranny
die if their deaths prevent just a single innocent death. Call me
callous, but people who chose to support a tyrant have no sympathy.
OTOH, if once far-away innocent person must die to prevent one
friendly person, I will accept this equation - I am no hypocrite that
will say that "all lives are equally precious to me".
Now, let's make the inverse count. How many precious-to-me
lives I would sacrifice to save strangers? I don't know, but
here the count is certainly not 1:1!
> I fail to see why the criminal elements would pursue ever-more violent
> crimes in the face of these profit drains... seems like it's when the
> profits soar that they break out weapons.
> Is there some study of the Dutch aftermath you are aware of and can
> share?
>
No, there's no such study. I am just extrapolating from the behaviour
of criminals in my home city. When one profitable way is cut down,
they switch to another kind of crime. If suddenly they would lose
the huge profit from drug trade, they might use their formidable
arsenal to rob homes or mass kidnapping.
Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
