The Angry White Man

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

Hi Jeff,
I read your post and respect it.
Maybe we should repost this discussion in a more
appropriate group, it's far away from piloting :-).
Ken
PS: Let me know if you do.


Hey you fish long enouhg yuo eventually find a masochist. Maybe Jeff's the
one!


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On Feb 25, 11:30 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:

On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
Ken

Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps
the war
option, I suppose?

Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years
devoid of business interests.

Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to
go digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until
I find one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written
by a well- respected economist, that was very popular in its
time. It carefully explained how, due to the interconnected
nature of international trade, widespread war was now impossible
because it would call too much economic damage to everyone
involved. Written in 1912.
-JTD

That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
ICBM's because the other are guys are.

ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do tell.

Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
told they should.

Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world for
that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed in the
past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a situation
from devolving into war?
JTD

I'm lookin at history from 5000BC to the present.


Got stuck in your outhouse again, eh?


Bertie