Individual,

You seem somewhat confused.

Yes, Prof. Gerald S. Dickinson is an Assistant
Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh.
And he certainly is an expert - focusing on
constitutional property, state and local government
law, land use, affordable housing law and policy
and urban development. He's the perfect person to
write about the biggest problem for Trump's
border wall (which isn't the money) it's getting
the land. Prof. Dickinson knows what he's talking
about.

I don't understand your problem with him. You have
always claimed that discussions should be left up to the
experts in their fields - have you changed your mind now?

rache,

Thanks for the link.

Since warfare is highly unpleasant for the combatants,
why is warfare such a common phenomenon? An answer frequently
offered, it seems, is that we humans are naturally
warlike. Many people assume that "human nature" includes some
kind of an aggressive "instinct", and popular writers have
advanced this view widely. Thus Konrad Lorenz, an expert on
animal behaviour, claimed that humanity shared an aggressive
drive with lower animals, and Robert Ardrey, a playwright, argued
that we are descended from "killer apes" and so are destined
to do battle with one another.

An obvious problem with this approach is that one could just
as easily make the reverse argument. Most people and
societies are not at war most of the time - so on this
evidence we could say that human nature includes a "peaceful
instinct" and that we are destined to co-operate with one
another.

In fact we are all capable ob both aggression and friendship,
war and peace - but we are not biologically driven to them.
Some people are willing to fight, some people are not.

Then why war? The answer is that war occurs as a result of
a political decision - usually a decision by older men
that younger men should fight for what the older men believe
to be worth fighting for. There can be no war unless
the leaders of at least two societies with conflicting
interests decide that they prefer war to any alternative
means of settling their differences.

Whether we choose to destroy our civilisation or save it
is a collective decision and hopefully it is one that will
be made within our lifetimes. But as Helen Caldicott
has pointed out - if more and more nuclear weapons are
built, and if more sophisticated means of delivering
them are devised - and if more nations get control of
these vile devices, then we surely risk our own destruction.

If ways are found to reverse that process, then we can
divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real
problems that face us, including poverty, disease,
overpopulation, injustice, oppression, etc.

I offer the last months American stock exchange as evidence how Trumps plan is doing
And refuse to let uninformed posters glorify the man
America PTY LTD still wants to control the world every bit as much as China does

Belly,
It is obvious from your posts here, and on other threads, that your hatred for Trump,and the USA in general, is paramount in your life. Yet you give no reason for that.

I can only see it as the 'tall poppy syndrone' simply because Trump is rich and the USA is a rich country. To my mind it is lucky that the US has all the resourses it has but it was hard work by its citizens that made it rich.

You do not appear to have the same hatred for other colonial powers that made wealth from exploiting what others had.

I think we are very fortunate that the US entered WW11 as the world would now be a very different place if it had not. For that we should be forever grateful.

It seems excessive envy can turn to hate

In reply to Foxy- The very reason for a renewed arms race is the failure of the UN to perform its primary function because of project creep. The UN was never meant to be a world government. Probably the main cause of the current world instability is population. If the UN had have addressed this in the 70's then we wouldn't be in our current malaise. Unfortunately the UN can only be as strong as the people that run it- perhaps we need to be looking for UN reps and leaders with different resumes- but I think the problem is much deeper- needs a root and branch approach. Aggression I've found is more of a symptom than a cause when there is no profit for the aggressors. Like criminal investigation- means, motive, opportunity.

I wonder at Foxy's view of warfare and where her apparent disrespect of the participants has originated. I'd be interested if her ancestors participated in a conflict. I think that females are perhaps wired to capitulate in a confrontation- maybe this is some sort of genetic survival mechanism.

At one time I read the biography of Marie Curie- her father was a chemist- she taught Polish under Russian occupation at 16- a form of warfare (aggression) against tyranny. She was a woman who fought with her mind- except in desperate circumstances usually there is an attempt to protect women and children from the realities of war. Perhaps they will need to be trained. Marie Curie was a great woman- I wish more were as great. There is a theory from "The Prince" that war can only be delayed to the advantage of the enemy. Ironically those with peace in their hearts (the do gooders) may be the cause of war because they are incapable of action. The "Do Gooders" are the tools of the "Radicals" who don't care about peace at all.