On Sep 8, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
I assume you'll toss your own family into the furnace first
just to be sure we have enough to cover your ethically
challenged accounting methods.
The problem is that my own family _is_ into the furnace right
now. And probably yours too - but a difference furnace, one
powered by fissionable nuclei.
The world is a dangerous place, and absolute pacifism sounds
like unconditional surrender.
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... do you still believe
Saddam had nukes or even anywhere near to this?!? You are foolishly
mistaken if you do, because this has been disproven six-ways to Sunday.
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.
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?
Having lived in Holland I've seen what happens when you
remove the profit from drug-running: the mafioso go away.
The guns go away. Petty crime goes down as junkies don't
need expensive per-diem fixes. Same thing with prostitution.
Ok, but that happened because the drug dealers could easily
cross the borders and continue their trade elsewhere. If
we wanted to have this solution for all western nations, there
would be an enormous increase in crime - because criminals
would find more violent ways to compensate their losses.
Your ignoring my point. There are ways to diffuse a conflict that do
not require more fists and blood. Sun Tzu in the Art of War often
describes the very best way to outwit your enemy is have them lose
heart and disband - giving one victory w/o conflict. The drug laws in
The Netherlands do just that... Now, if their neighbors wish to pursue
a Prohibition-style then they will maintain the mafia they deserve - at
a cost.
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?
Ghandi said something appropriate {roughly}:
" War will not stop war until darkness makes darkness go away"
Yes, but India's independence only succeeded after England
had suffered a lot in WW2. As much as I admire Ghandi's pacifism,
it could only work in those special circumstances. It would
not be possible, for example, for iraqi citizens to depose
Saddam with hunger strikes.
Alberto Monteiro
Um, I understood there was some 17 million Iraqis before we invaded.
Should they all pick and collectively decide to march on his palaces he
would be history. Unlikely, but then I never bought the line he had
nukes this time around. I did my background homework.
- Jonathan -
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
