Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (78267)	10/17/2004 10:45:55 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

You may be prepared to automatically expend 300,000 American lives to stop a dirty bomb over Westminster to make a statement about the unacceptability of such immorality but I think that the metrics have to be at least considered before rushing to war. If you hadn't noticed Karen, the stakes are already higher than Pearl Harbor. And if you consider near 30 years of fudging the problem to be "rushing to war", you're more patient than me. The criminal justice system does not differentiate between optimum murder and less than optimum murder - all murders are wrong, period, and law enforcement is obligated to stop all murders. The police do not stop investigating murders because the murder rate is "tolerable". Nor do we stop seeking to stop terrorists from blowing us up because, after all, Karen and Derek have such a slight probability of being the ones blown up. The criminal justice system doesn't use all means of preventing murder because it doesn't have the authority to do so. It can not address poverty, for instance. That isn't the instant case where we can seek to change the conditions that make terrorism a viable choice for millions of Arabs. Anyways, knowing our history, this conversation is going to descend into circularity because of the definition of a term, and we'll end up nowhere. :P Derek