![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article et,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: Finally a sensible statment. Sorry, Jay, as much as I wish it weren't so, you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out. Why not? Jumping in hear. The problem with the drug war is that we are attacking it from the supply side and as a criminal problem (which it is). However the real problem with drugs is more on the demand side. As long as teh demand exists people will use and get drugs. Some drugs are easier to obtain than others (eg. meth vs. cocaine) but if there's a will there's a way. Further we do very little in prevention and treatment, which has a small (in fact very small) reduction in demand. Terrorist are not overly concerned about the legalities of their actions. Laws ONLY affect people that actually CHOOSE to obey them. And while we can put in place laws/procedures to make it more difficult to commit acts of terror (much like drugs) we can not eliminate them. Even if we lived in a police state you can not control every human's actions24/7. There are battles you win, battles you lose and some battles that you just have to forever keep fighting. Drugs of abuse of existed nearly as long as record history. And when one looks at human history it is often a collection of wars (and the mating habits of the nobility). We can no more stop terrorist than we can stop war, or future wars, or acts of mans disreguard for the life of other men. What we can do is attempt to minimize the damage that these people can inflict on our lives. The question becomes were do we as a society and each person as a citizen want to draw the line of personal freedom vs. safety. Some don't mind living in a police state, I do. And I believe that the USA is not, was not and should not become a police state. I believe that a free nation should have free citizens and as much as possible open doors. I believe that part of THE PRICE OF FREEDOM is that some people will choose to abuse that freedom to commit criminal acts including terrorism. But _I_ would rather live in a nation that is most free with risk, even high risk; than a well 'controlled/planned' society with lower risk, risk never reaches zero. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|