Tim,
---one--- If you dispute my fatality numbers, show yours. If you
reject my time frame, select your own. Go ahead; make my day.
---two--- Where did you get that cost figure ("trillions")? The
Center for Contemporary Conflict gives "a total direct cost of
$27.2 billion".
---three--- Do you intend to refute my points with non-existent
futuristic "what ifs"? Good luck with that.
---four--- HA! They haven't even caught Osama yet. Apparently it
takes more than a 500 billion dollar war :-o
---five--- I wish I would have read all the way through, to where
you claim drug prohibition doesn't cause crime, before I started
to reply. Anyone who makes such an uneducated claim certainly
loses all credibility. I could have saved myself the effort of
the above four replies.
----------------------------
--- In [email protected], "ma ni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Like a previous poster, you strategically omit any references to
>any numbers in order to make your "points". Why don't you
>directly address my main figures??
---one--- Because you tried to rig your numbers to arrive at a
simple
mathematical calculation to win the argument, but you were wrong
to
do so because your assumptions were wrong.
>Of course there are already laws against the crime of arson.
>Likewise, we already had laws against the crime of terrorism
>before the hysterical 500 billion dollar over-reaction.
---two--- 1) The estimated monetary costs of the 9/11 attacks
were in the
_trillions_ of dollars. By the sort of straight mathematical
calculation you prefer, it's worth it to spend $500 billion to
prevent trillions more in costs.
---three--- 2) The 9/11 attacks could easily have been much
worse, if only more
of the tens of thousands of people in the WTC had died instead of
being evacuated. WMD attacks could be even higher. What's your
cost
estimate for the detonation of a hiroshima-style bomb in a
shipping
container in any one of America's major ports?
>are you seriously claiming that dealing with international
criminals
>can not be accomplished by anything other than a 500 billion
dollar
>war??
---four--- Yes. Law-enforcement doesn't work when it comes to
"criminals"
outside your jurisdiction. Osama Bin Laden wasn't in US
jurisdiction
when the 9/11 attacks happened, nor was the Taliban willing to
extradite him. He had been eluding capture for at least 3 years,
since he was indicted after the US embassy bombings in 1998.
>Your statements blaming prohibition-related crime on those who
>commit it are obviously implying that their guilt is worse than
>the government prohibitionists who cause it.
---five--- Criminals cause crimes, not drug prohibition. The
Mafia didn't
vanish after alcohol prohibition's repeal. You are engaging in
environmental determinism.
Tim Starr
Fight for Liberty!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightforliberty/
