The Angry White Man

Hi Jeff, studied your post.

On Feb 25, 1:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



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.
Mongols slaughtered 30 million chinese using a
sword (not the same one), hence the sword is a
weapon of mass destruction, that's why I think
one should take care to the analysis of the 1000
ancedotal tactical battles, humans have fought.

Okay, hang on.

In your original post, you implied that wars weren't going to happen
any more, because they would be a "business mistake", that the world
had gotten too interdependent for a wider war. Others (including
myself) pointed out that for most of human history, war has been a bad
move, economically, and that in fact your thesis had been put forward
early in the 20th Century just before the most devastating wars the
human race has ever fought-

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

and that wars keep happening anyway,
besides being really bad for business in general. In the post you
replied to, I pointed those things out, and asked what you thought had
changed in the years since that meant that this time, business
concerns would trump out, and wars wouldn't happen.

In response, you're invoking 5000 years of history, and calling us to
analyze the wars that humans have fought.

From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
is Right", and War = Strength, including economical
but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
unified by force.
The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
(according to our simulations).

That's a non sequieter, but let's look at it for a second. The last
time anyone could make a case that "war pays for war" between
civilized states with a straight face was in the early 18th Century,
when conscript armies under folks like Blenheim were merrily marching
back and forth blowing the Hell out of civilized Europe. They spent
most of their time "levying contributions", which is a nice way of
saying "we marched into this state and forcibly stripped it of pretty
much anything of value to feed and pay the troops". Since the armies
didn't require a terrible lot of manufactured goods that couldn't be
captured and since international trade wasn't a big deal at the time,
this meant that an army in the field could more or less sustain itself
indefinitely with minimal expenditure from home. Any territory it
captured was more or less gravy for the homeland. As you can imagine,
this led to some awfully long wars.

I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
everyone they were purchasing goods from were
far more economically more powerful, because
they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

*After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way. Sustaining
an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of high-end
manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food and
clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because armies
have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by "levying
contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All of that
takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that since (I
would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning a war is
almost always going to cost more money than any *economic* benefit you
could get out of it.

[All of this applies, of course, to wars between cultures with roughly
equal technology. I haven't looked at the figures in detail, but it's
entirely possible that some of the colonial wars that pitted breech-
loading rifles against spears ended up being economic wins in the long
run. Although conquest was generally one thing, pacification
another.]

I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.

The thing is, though, that wars still happen between industrialized
countries, and have for a long time. Even though they're economic
losers, they still happen. Because they can bring political benefits,
like more territory for the Big Man to rule or showing that your
country is not to be trifled with. Because they can fulfill
somebody's idea of national destiny. Because people do stupid things,
don't consider the consequences that their actions might have years
down the road, and get painted into corners. And any of those things
could still happen between the U.S. and China.

I devoutly hope they don't, because the one thing I do think you're
right about is that such a war would very likely be ruinous for both
sides and because I think wars in general are to be avoided, even if
they're sometimes necessary. But saying that it can't happen is
wrong, and dangerous because if we assume it can't happen we may not
be vigilant enough to keep it from happening.

So, with the above in mind: why, specifically, do you think that the
U.S. and China are so economically interdependent as to render war
between them impossible?

I claimed war would be a bad business decision,
only nothing is impossible,

-JTD

Regards
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

Hi Jeff, studied your post.

On Feb 25, 1:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



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.
Mongols slaughtered 30 million chinese using a
sword (not the same one), hence the sword is a
weapon of mass destruction, that's why I think
one should take care to the analysis of the 1000
ancedotal tactical battles, humans have fought.

Okay, hang on.

In your original post, you implied that wars weren't going to happen
any more, because they would be a "business mistake", that the world
had gotten too interdependent for a wider war. Others (including
myself) pointed out that for most of human history, war has been a
bad move, economically, and that in fact your thesis had been put
forward early in the 20th Century just before the most devastating
wars the human race has ever fought-

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

and that wars keep happening anyway,
besides being really bad for business in general. In the post you
replied to, I pointed those things out, and asked what you thought
had changed in the years since that meant that this time, business
concerns would trump out, and wars wouldn't happen.

In response, you're invoking 5000 years of history, and calling us to
analyze the wars that humans have fought.

From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
is Right", and War = Strength, including economical
but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
unified by force.
The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
(according to our simulations).

That's a non sequieter, but let's look at it for a second. The last
time anyone could make a case that "war pays for war" between
civilized states with a straight face was in the early 18th Century,
when conscript armies under folks like Blenheim were merrily marching
back and forth blowing the Hell out of civilized Europe. They spent
most of their time "levying contributions", which is a nice way of
saying "we marched into this state and forcibly stripped it of pretty
much anything of value to feed and pay the troops". Since the armies
didn't require a terrible lot of manufactured goods that couldn't be
captured and since international trade wasn't a big deal at the time,
this meant that an army in the field could more or less sustain
itself indefinitely with minimal expenditure from home. Any
territory it captured was more or less gravy for the homeland. As
you can imagine, this led to some awfully long wars.

I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
everyone they were purchasing goods from were
far more economically more powerful, because
they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

*After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way.
Sustaining an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of
high-end manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food
and clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because
armies have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by
"levying contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All
of that takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that
since (I would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning
a war is almost always going to cost more money than any *economic*
benefit you could get out of it.

[All of this applies, of course, to wars between cultures with
roughly equal technology. I haven't looked at the figures in detail,
but it's entirely possible that some of the colonial wars that pitted
breech- loading rifles against spears ended up being economic wins in
the long run. Although conquest was generally one thing,
pacification another.]

I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.

Yes, you'd have the RCAF flying paper darts if it were up to you ,
though.

Bertie

On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?

From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
is Right", and War = Strength, including economical
but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
unified by force.
The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
(according to our simulations).


Hunh? Which? SimCity?

I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
everyone they were purchasing goods from were
far more economically more powerful, because
they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

So you read something --- that's always a good reason to posit some
unsupported theory on global economics, certainly.

I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.


Regards
Ken

The United States "Attacked the Taliban" and overwhelmed the entire
pathetic country in a matter of weeks. This because the Taliban were
Muslim jihadists who harbored and supported those who attacked us on
September 11th, when 2,974 people died --- 246 on four airplanes.


Dan

On Feb 26, 4:49 am, " wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?

It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
WW1 did, something few know about.
Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.

From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
is Right", and War = Strength, including economical
but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
unified by force.
The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
(according to our simulations).

Hunh? Which? SimCity?

No, the sims were automated.

I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
everyone they were purchasing goods from were
far more economically more powerful, because
they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

So you read something --- that's always a good reason to posit some
unsupported theory on global economics, certainly.

I can now tell I likely more "well read" than you,
and with far better comprehesion, your wasting.

I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.

Regards
Ken

The United States "Attacked the Taliban" and overwhelmed the entire
pathetic country in a matter of weeks. This because the Taliban were
Muslim jihadists who harbored and supported those who attacked us on
September 11th, when 2,974 people died --- 246 on four airplanes.

LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
Ever heard of NATO?

Dan

Regrads
Ken

On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?

It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
WW1 did, something few know about.
Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.

So according to you, a war is "sissy" if the 'entire race" wasn't
wiped out.


Hunh? Which? SimCity?

No, the sims were automated.


Well, there you go. Who can gainsay such compelling evidence! They
were AUTOMATED!


I can now tell I likely more "well read" than you,
and with far better comprehesion, your wasting.


Clearly, you're far more quote well read unquote than me.

It's undeniable. My comprehension (that's how it's spelled, FWIW) of
kook history and inane logic is clearly sub par, in comparison to your
demonstrated superiority.


LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
Ever heard of NATO?

Dan

Regrads
Ken

Yes, I heard of NATO. Served in the US Army in support of NATO in
Germany.

You?

OK, time to read The National Enquirer to catch up with Ken.


Dan

On Feb 26, 9:59 am, " wrote:
On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?

It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
WW1 did, something few know about.
Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.

So according to you, a war is "sissy" if the 'entire race" wasn't
wiped out.

POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
enslaved.

Hunh? Which? SimCity?

No, the sims were automated.

Well, there you go. Who can gainsay such compelling evidence! They
were AUTOMATED!

The "automation" removes contamination.
It's rather like growing bacteria on a Petri dish.
One merely introduces various bacteria on to
the dish with variables in it's reproduction habits,
and statistically determines the winner.
It's bit more complex, but you get the picture.

I can now tell I likely more "well read" than you,
and with far better comprehesion, your wasting.

Clearly, you're far more quote well read unquote than me.
It's undeniable. My comprehension (that's how it's spelled, FWIW) of
kook history and inane logic is clearly sub par, in comparison to your
demonstrated superiority.

Evidentally, you tend to name calling, that is an
inferior trait, in normal discourse.

LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
Ever heard of NATO?

Dan

Regrads
Ken

Yes, I heard of NATO. Served in the US Army in support of NATO in
Germany.

Well then duh you should know the Afghan mission is
a NATO operation and entire force of NATO cannot get Bin
Lauden, so why do think the Taliban could, you're wasting?
Ken

On Feb 26, 2:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
enslaved.

What does this have to do with your inane argument?

[Great. I'm going to keep this going. The more you reply the more you
remove any doubt....]


The "automation" removes contamination.
It's rather like growing bacteria on a Petri dish.
One merely introduces various bacteria on to
the dish with variables in it's reproduction habits,
and statistically determines the winner.
It's bit more complex, but you get the picture.

Thanks so much for deigning to descend to my level, just this once.

As we pilots know, computer models never lie.


Clearly, you're far more quote well read unquote than me.
It's undeniable. My comprehension (that's how it's spelled, FWIW) of
kook history and inane logic is clearly sub par, in comparison to your
demonstrated superiority.

Evidentally, you tend to name calling, that is an
inferior trait, in normal discourse.

No, if I were name calling I would have said you were a "blathering
idiot" or "moron" or "oxygen thief."

I'm sure you've heard others reply with far, far better names.

Yes, I heard of NATO. Served in the US Army in support of NATO in
Germany.

Well then duh you should know the Afghan mission is
a NATO operation and entire force of NATO cannot get Bin
Lauden, so why do think the Taliban could, you're wasting?

The Taliban had no incentive to "get Bin Laden." They harbored and
supported him and his malevolent cronies.

Maybe you were asleep, but NATO took over *after* the US dismantled
the Taliban.

Now, have you taken this afternoon's dose or are you waiting for the
shakes to get worse?


Dan

"I do my killin before breakfast..."

On Feb 26, 12:07 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
enslaved.

What does this have to do with your argument?

You don't Need To Know, fine with me.
Ken
[snip waste]

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:f14ed691-6e53-
:

On Feb 26, 9:59 am, " wrote:
On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?

It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
WW1 did, something few know about.
Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.

So according to you, a war is "sissy" if the 'entire race" wasn't
wiped out.

POW's where taken in WW1&2, but historically, the
captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
enslaved.



Ken, you have to stop eating the old jujubes you find stuck on the
carpet.


Hunh? Which? SimCity?

No, the sims were automated.

Well, there you go. Who can gainsay such compelling evidence! They
were AUTOMATED!

The "automation" removes contamination.
It's rather like growing bacteria on a Petri dish.
One merely introduces various bacteria on to
the dish with variables in it's reproduction habits,
and statistically determines the winner.
It's bit more complex, but you get the picture.


Oh yeah. I's like you're Michaelangelo with words.

I can now tell I likely more "well read" than you,
and with far better comprehesion, your wasting.

Clearly, you're far more quote well read unquote than me.
It's undeniable. My comprehension (that's how it's spelled, FWIW) of
kook history and inane logic is clearly sub par, in comparison to
your
demonstrated superiority.

Evidentally, you tend to name calling, that is an
inferior trait, in normal discourse.

Dickhead.


LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
Ever heard of NATO?

Dan

Regrads
Ken

Yes, I heard of NATO. Served in the US Army in support of NATO in
Germany.

Well then duh you should know the Afghan mission is
a NATO operation and entire force of NATO cannot get Bin
Lauden, so why do think the Taliban could, you're wasting?


Uh yeh.


Bertie

On Feb 26, 2:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Feb 26, 9:59 am, " wrote:



On Feb 26, 12:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?

It's a matter of proportion, try to keep a global
perspective, eg. Spanish Flu killed more than
WW1 did, something few know about.
Entire races were wiped out in the past, 99%.

So according to you, a war is "sissy" if the 'entire race" wasn't
wiped out.

POW's where taken in WW1&2,

Except on the Eastern Front during WWII and in the island fighting
against the Japanese, when they mostly weren't.

but historically, the
captive soldiers had genitals removed, salted and shipped
back for consumption, and the rest slaughtered or
enslaved.

Except when they weren't, which was most of the time. See my previous
post for discussion.

Hunh? Which? SimCity?

No, the sims were automated.

Well, there you go. Who can gainsay such compelling evidence! They
were AUTOMATED!

The "automation" removes contamination.
It's rather like growing bacteria on a Petri dish.
One merely introduces various bacteria on to
the dish with variables in it's reproduction habits,
and statistically determines the winner.
It's bit more complex, but you get the picture.

OK, hang on. I did my degree in molecular biology and I work in a
research lab, and I can't figure out what experiment you're
describing. I also know that:

a) What works in a model system does not always work in a more complex
system. The bacteria that grows out of control on a petri dish may
not grow as well in a living host, and so on. There are always
variables you didn't allow for.

b) Any experiment is only as good as its design, not as good as its
techniques. Having an automated simulation is meaningless if it's not
designed to reflect reality, just like having clean glassware in the
lab is meaningless if you don't have proper controls. If I'm going to
accept that your automated models show something relevant to the real
world you're going to have to convince me that they actually model
what's going on in the real world accurately.

snip


LOL, I guess you'd bomb Sicily to attack organized crime.
Ever heard of NATO?

Dan

Regrads
Ken

Yes, I heard of NATO. Served in the US Army in support of NATO in
Germany.

Well then duh you should know the Afghan mission is
a NATO operation and entire force of NATO cannot get Bin
Lauden, so why do think the Taliban could, you're wasting?
Ken

Sigh. I know I said I'd stay out of this, but...does it occur to you
that the U.S. and NATO *might* have been just a bit more interested in
finding bin Laden than the Taliban were?

-JTD