(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 01:15 AM
Original message |
What's with all this crap about Clark and Sun Tzu |
|
I have to say I'm not impressed. Art of War is not a particularly long book or a difficult read and it is required of military students. I've read it at least four times and I don't think it's that impressive. What we need is a president who has read "On Guerrilla War" by Mao Tse Tung not "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu.
|
truthspeaker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 09:00 AM
Response to Original message |
1. At this point I'd settle for a president who reads books, period |
|
"I don't have much time for reading." - George W. Bush
|
marie123
(156 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
that is funny!
thanks for the laugh
|
rasputin1952
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 09:12 AM
Response to Original message |
3. The basic idea that Sun Tzu proposed... |
|
was to win altercations without force whenever possible. If you know and understand your enemies weaknesses, you can beat them without the sword.
There have been many extrapolations on Sun Tzu's works, some of them quite good; but in any case, while somewhat boring, Sun makes some excellent points, such as winning over the people to what you wish to achieve.
As for bush, "The Hungry Worm" is well worn at this point.
O8)
|
NewJeffCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 09:19 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Criticizing a West Point grad for reading the Art of War is like criticizing an English major for reading Shakespeare. It's a classic book.
|
Az
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 09:26 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Easy read, difficult to master |
|
Guerrilla War and The Prince are two examples of short sighted tactical approaches. They are in the end selfdestructive. They are not progressive. And they do not build things.
The Art of War is an approach to all conflicts with an eye for the betterment of all (including the enemy). An enemy is just a potential ally. To destroy them is to dismantle your own potential strength.
More aggressive tactical approaches may be quicker in the short term but they leave a scorched earth behind them and destroy resources that we all need. If you were in a enclosed sphere would you rather the combatants use fire or words to try to work out their differences?
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 09:28 AM
Response to Original message |
6. If I may stop this rumor right here.... |
|
In a moment of jest last night, after the overwhelming landslide in Dixville Notch, I made the comment that General Clark had read Sun Tzu 7 times and that a small psychological victory may demoralize his enemies....I confess. I have no idea how many times he has read SunTzu. If this is where it started, permit me the opportunity to clarify? It was a jovial moment...about Ham-mentum, etc. :)
|
Skinner
ADMIN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-27-04 09:29 AM
Response to Original message |
7. This is in the wrong forum. |
|
I am locking.
Skinner DU Admin
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:19 AM
Response to Original message |