Every once in a while, you come across a comment on here from somebody who just gets it. There is a huge difference between holding strong principles (something people ought to do a lot more of) and putting causes ahead of the human element (something people tend to do far too much of, especially in this day and age). You understand the difference, and you've put it in a way that makes it easy for people to grasp. We need more people like you in this world.

Well put, my friend, very well put.

Nicely written

You should be president of USA.

With any skill and a bit of luck, I will be (I'm Canadian though, so I'll have to run for Prime-Minister instead)

Rare, not impossible.

You're a real psychoanalyst.

The guy had some insight but the rest was egotistical horseshit. I'm sorry that I've offended your personal idol.

You're one of many deluded kids who thinks that quoting Sun Tzu, or reading The Art of War makes him a 'real man.' The guy was out of touch with reality, most narcissists are.

It doesn't take an expert to see you're copping out.

Well, tactics and strategies that are able to be remodeled and applied in this day and age, over a thousand years after his life and time, is not just 'some insight'. Nor is any of it egotistical horseshit, he never even mentioned himself in the book. Have you ever even read it?

You did not offend anyone, nor is he my personal idol, I can just recognize genius when it appears, and that is where you fail because of your own personal feelings.

Mudslinging is also a cop out.

I read the Art of War for the same reason I read The Prince, or The Kingdom of God Is Within You, or Above Life's Turmoil, or The Alchemist, or White Fang, because I enjoy reading, because I enjoy learning and exploring and expanding my mind, because my ego always takes a step down toward my curiosity. Something you obviously have trouble with.

Perhaps, instead of letting your anti-war propaganda dictate how you feel toward things, you should read it yourself and look at who he was and THEN decide your opinion without bias. Just because you do not agree with something doesn't mean you cannot learn from it, nor does it mean that it is without fruits.

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I'm under the influence of "anti-war propaganda" either.

I am against waging war because it is a waste of the resources expended in the endeavor. We cannot continue to live at the expense of other people if we wish to accomplish anything more than ensuring our failure as a species. War isn't worth the time, money, or lives expended. I'm not saying that a country shouldn't protect itself if it is attacked but the mistake is made by the aggressor.

Because you claimed that the greatest strategist to ever live was a brute who only cared about killing. Again, it doesn't take an expert.

It also gains resources through people captured and lands taken.

One of the bad facts about life is that no matter how rich and powerful everyone may become, someone still has to scrub the toilets. For every person on top, there must be one at the bottom. For every victory there must be a loser. And this is okay, and to say that it's not is to make everything equal, and if everything was truly equal it would just collapse on itself.

Sure it is, considering what you're fighting for, or over.

I didn't say he only cared about killing.

The guy "liked winning" even if that meant the deaths of thousands. The price of his enjoyment was blood.

I don't expect a world of perfect equality, what I expect us to strive for is a system in which we are progressing, not slipping backwards because of bogus causes like nationalism and conquest. Assessing the impacts of our actions, rather than assuming we posses the capability to bend and shape the world as we wish it to be. No matter how much you want it to be as simple as killing or staying your hand, it will never be so simple and so it must be dealt with an a manner which attends to the complexity of the situation.

"he was one of many people who would leap at the opportunity to spill blood"

He didn't go to war because he enjoyed fighting. He ENJOYED winning, but he saw war as a necessity for his time, which it was. You speak as if he intentionally led millions to their deaths for shits and giggles alone.

Nationalism and conquest are important. Even your own views, that humanity should unite to something greater, INVOLVE Nationalism (love for the human race) and conquest (pushing everyone toward a certain ideal). Your methods simply differ, but in that way you count as a 'warmonger' too.

Indeed, but that's the job of a politician. A strategists job is to win, that's it. That's also one of the greatest reasons why Sun Tzu said that a king should leave command to his forces to another general, rather than himself.

I'm not copping out, I get on FJ and see some stupid comment about something every single day. I get replies like this by the dozen. I'm sick of having continued discussions with people over this shit.

"anti-war propaganda"

Yep, like I said, having discussions (read as retarded arguments) with people on FJ isn't something I particularly enjoy. I read plenty, I read just about anything I can. I haven't gotten around to the art of war yet but I have certainly read things which I disagree with, to see their perspective and try to learn from it. What I don't get is how someone can honestly think that every single thing he has said is a pillar of wisdom, or how some of his black and white statements are ALWAYS correct no matter the context. I think he was likely a sociopath or delusional, I don't see why that prompted the response I got. Please, tell me why his generalizing statements are so wise? "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight." Is hardly applicable to every decision to be made about war. It's like an autistic child spewing random shit he read. It's completely out of context and is out of touch with the realities those decisions are made in.

And yet never once have you considered the fact that you are the one mistaken. Quite an ego you have there.

Implying there is no such thing as "Anti-War propaganda" is as stupid as saying blacks cannot be racist.

I never said Sun Tzu was a pillar of wisdom, but he WAS a master of war, and thus it only makes sense to take ANYTHING he says about it very seriously. And did you honestly disagree with the quote I posted? Do you honestly see a situation where that might be incorrect? You admit you have not read the book (good for you, by the way. At least you do not lie in order to seem correct), but if that is the case then how can you make judgements about it? You do not have to experience something in order to have an opinion, but if you cannot even comprehend its contents than any opinion you hold is sure to be very wrong.

He very well might have been a Sociopath or Delusional, but that doesn't mean he was mistaken. Just as well, what prompted the responses was claiming he was a brute, he was incorrect in his judgements, he was a sociopath, he was not talented, and that he only cared for battle. Most, if not all of which are incorrect claims.

Sure it is. If you have the opportunity to win, you must take it. Seems pretty black and white to me.

I never said that there is no such thing as anti-war propaganda, I thought it was dumb to assume it is anti-war propaganda that lead to my conclusions.

My initial statement was about how his quotes are flung about as if they're correct in every context and as if there is no better solution, even in warfare. This isn't the age of Kind and Queens, this is the age of nuclear weapons and super carriers. I was annoyed by his every word being spewed as if it is applicable to all modern conflict, or all of modern life's tribulations.

I'm not some egotistical idiot who thinks I am correct about everything, I question just about everything, even myself. I don't think that because I had a thought, that it is automatically correct.

If you have an opportunity to win a battle, is that really a win in the long run for whatever is deemed of value. First we must assess what is of value? Is the goal something very short-sighted like simply removing a perceived threat? Or is it a goal that plays across a larger scale, perhaps there would be diplomatic fallout, the economic cost of such an action, even the loss of life costing the GWP billions.

Nothing is black and white, that's why I said it is naive because there is ALWAYS a secondary effect. Nothing happens perfectly, there is no perfect solution and that needs to be taken into account. "Go to war or don't go to war." Is hardly the way an intelligent person deals with the issues of conflict. There are many options beyond war and apathy.

Your conclusions had nothing to do with it. It was the way you put them.

That's just it, though. Most of his words and strategies, given a bit of reworking, ARE applicable in this day and age. That's WHY he's so famous and celebrated. It is nearly required reading for every soldier in the Western Hemisphere.

There are very few times that a loss contributes to the war effort. And even then, if you were never meant to win in the first-place, the "If you can achieve victory, you should" wouldn't matter, because the victory itself would BE losing.

I disagree, I think many things are black and white and that you just have to examine them to find out. (He wrote about that too, actually). Indeed, but sometimes war is absolutely necessary, and only an idiot would say that it's absolutely never. There is a very good reason why many great philosophers and idealists who lived in oppressed societies hated pacifists.

Yes, there are times to fight but nothing is black and white. If you believe that, you live in a fantasy world.

No, I live in the same reality you do.

Give me a situation you think is grey, and I will tell you exactly how it can be perceived as black and white.

LEL

Sure thing.

>I don't have a rebuttle because my argument was blown out of the water, but please assume I'm right and you're wrong for the sake of my ego.

You're a real psychoanalyst.

The guy had some insight but the rest was egotistical horseshit. I'm sorry that I've offended your personal idol.

You're one of many deluded kids who thinks that quoting Sun Tzu, or reading The Art of War makes him a 'real man.' The guy was out of touch with reality, most narcissists are.

It doesn't take an expert to see you're copping out.

Well, tactics and strategies that are able to be remodeled and applied in this day and age, over a thousand years after his life and time, is not just 'some insight'. Nor is any of it egotistical horseshit, he never even mentioned himself in the book. Have you ever even read it?

You did not offend anyone, nor is he my personal idol, I can just recognize genius when it appears, and that is where you fail because of your own personal feelings.

Mudslinging is also a cop out.

I read the Art of War for the same reason I read The Prince, or The Kingdom of God Is Within You, or Above Life's Turmoil, or The Alchemist, or White Fang, because I enjoy reading, because I enjoy learning and exploring and expanding my mind, because my ego always takes a step down toward my curiosity. Something you obviously have trouble with.

Perhaps, instead of letting your anti-war propaganda dictate how you feel toward things, you should read it yourself and look at who he was and THEN decide your opinion without bias. Just because you do not agree with something doesn't mean you cannot learn from it, nor does it mean that it is without fruits.

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I'm under the influence of "anti-war propaganda" either.

I am against waging war because it is a waste of the resources expended in the endeavor. We cannot continue to live at the expense of other people if we wish to accomplish anything more than ensuring our failure as a species. War isn't worth the time, money, or lives expended. I'm not saying that a country shouldn't protect itself if it is attacked but the mistake is made by the aggressor.

Because you claimed that the greatest strategist to ever live was a brute who only cared about killing. Again, it doesn't take an expert.

It also gains resources through people captured and lands taken.

One of the bad facts about life is that no matter how rich and powerful everyone may become, someone still has to scrub the toilets. For every person on top, there must be one at the bottom. For every victory there must be a loser. And this is okay, and to say that it's not is to make everything equal, and if everything was truly equal it would just collapse on itself.

Sure it is, considering what you're fighting for, or over.

I didn't say he only cared about killing.

The guy "liked winning" even if that meant the deaths of thousands. The price of his enjoyment was blood.

I don't expect a world of perfect equality, what I expect us to strive for is a system in which we are progressing, not slipping backwards because of bogus causes like nationalism and conquest. Assessing the impacts of our actions, rather than assuming we posses the capability to bend and shape the world as we wish it to be. No matter how much you want it to be as simple as killing or staying your hand, it will never be so simple and so it must be dealt with an a manner which attends to the complexity of the situation.

"he was one of many people who would leap at the opportunity to spill blood"

He didn't go to war because he enjoyed fighting. He ENJOYED winning, but he saw war as a necessity for his time, which it was. You speak as if he intentionally led millions to their deaths for shits and giggles alone.

Nationalism and conquest are important. Even your own views, that humanity should unite to something greater, INVOLVE Nationalism (love for the human race) and conquest (pushing everyone toward a certain ideal). Your methods simply differ, but in that way you count as a 'warmonger' too.

Indeed, but that's the job of a politician. A strategists job is to win, that's it. That's also one of the greatest reasons why Sun Tzu said that a king should leave command to his forces to another general, rather than himself.

I'm not copping out, I get on FJ and see some stupid comment about something every single day. I get replies like this by the dozen. I'm sick of having continued discussions with people over this shit.

"anti-war propaganda"

Yep, like I said, having discussions (read as retarded arguments) with people on FJ isn't something I particularly enjoy. I read plenty, I read just about anything I can. I haven't gotten around to the art of war yet but I have certainly read things which I disagree with, to see their perspective and try to learn from it. What I don't get is how someone can honestly think that every single thing he has said is a pillar of wisdom, or how some of his black and white statements are ALWAYS correct no matter the context. I think he was likely a sociopath or delusional, I don't see why that prompted the response I got. Please, tell me why his generalizing statements are so wise? "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight." Is hardly applicable to every decision to be made about war. It's like an autistic child spewing random shit he read. It's completely out of context and is out of touch with the realities those decisions are made in.

And yet never once have you considered the fact that you are the one mistaken. Quite an ego you have there.

Implying there is no such thing as "Anti-War propaganda" is as stupid as saying blacks cannot be racist.

I never said Sun Tzu was a pillar of wisdom, but he WAS a master of war, and thus it only makes sense to take ANYTHING he says about it very seriously. And did you honestly disagree with the quote I posted? Do you honestly see a situation where that might be incorrect? You admit you have not read the book (good for you, by the way. At least you do not lie in order to seem correct), but if that is the case then how can you make judgements about it? You do not have to experience something in order to have an opinion, but if you cannot even comprehend its contents than any opinion you hold is sure to be very wrong.

He very well might have been a Sociopath or Delusional, but that doesn't mean he was mistaken. Just as well, what prompted the responses was claiming he was a brute, he was incorrect in his judgements, he was a sociopath, he was not talented, and that he only cared for battle. Most, if not all of which are incorrect claims.

Sure it is. If you have the opportunity to win, you must take it. Seems pretty black and white to me.

I never said that there is no such thing as anti-war propaganda, I thought it was dumb to assume it is anti-war propaganda that lead to my conclusions.

My initial statement was about how his quotes are flung about as if they're correct in every context and as if there is no better solution, even in warfare. This isn't the age of Kind and Queens, this is the age of nuclear weapons and super carriers. I was annoyed by his every word being spewed as if it is applicable to all modern conflict, or all of modern life's tribulations.

I'm not some egotistical idiot who thinks I am correct about everything, I question just about everything, even myself. I don't think that because I had a thought, that it is automatically correct.

If you have an opportunity to win a battle, is that really a win in the long run for whatever is deemed of value. First we must assess what is of value? Is the goal something very short-sighted like simply removing a perceived threat? Or is it a goal that plays across a larger scale, perhaps there would be diplomatic fallout, the economic cost of such an action, even the loss of life costing the GWP billions.

Nothing is black and white, that's why I said it is naive because there is ALWAYS a secondary effect. Nothing happens perfectly, there is no perfect solution and that needs to be taken into account. "Go to war or don't go to war." Is hardly the way an intelligent person deals with the issues of conflict. There are many options beyond war and apathy.

Your conclusions had nothing to do with it. It was the way you put them.

That's just it, though. Most of his words and strategies, given a bit of reworking, ARE applicable in this day and age. That's WHY he's so famous and celebrated. It is nearly required reading for every soldier in the Western Hemisphere.

There are very few times that a loss contributes to the war effort. And even then, if you were never meant to win in the first-place, the "If you can achieve victory, you should" wouldn't matter, because the victory itself would BE losing.

I disagree, I think many things are black and white and that you just have to examine them to find out. (He wrote about that too, actually). Indeed, but sometimes war is absolutely necessary, and only an idiot would say that it's absolutely never. There is a very good reason why many great philosophers and idealists who lived in oppressed societies hated pacifists.

Yes, there are times to fight but nothing is black and white. If you believe that, you live in a fantasy world.

No, I live in the same reality you do.

Give me a situation you think is grey, and I will tell you exactly how it can be perceived as black and white.

I can't even believe I'm reading this.

No. I posted this because some edgy kid is going to say how great and wise he was, he was one of many people who would leap at the opportunity to spill blood. People like him are a burden to society, I suppose Bush, in all his wisdom, is not deserving of being 'degraded at every corner.'

I suppose it's not polite to call war mongering idiots terrible people.

Get over yourself, retard.

You're quite over-dramatic, aren't you.

That's because he WAS great and wise. He devoted himself to war and victory and literally mastered every principle and scenario for his time. There's a reason he's called the greatest strategist to ever live. He did not leap at the opportunity to spill blood, as a matter of fact he was apparently quite docile, but he went to war when it was required because he knew it WAS required. You do realize the society he existed in was over 1500 years ago? When people waged wars left, right, and center because it was might that made right? And it was through his interventions that kept the dynasty's of China thriving during his life-time?

Oh, look at that, now you're bringing up a president who started a war. Ya, you're TOTALLY not a liberal college kid, I'd say you were closer to highschool.

But he wasn't warmongering. As a matter of fact, he didn't love war, he loved victory. Nor was he an idiot considering he's been remembered all these years and you aren't famous for jack shit. Was he a terrible person? Maybe. I heard he was a dick, but than again, this was in a time when being a dick was the only way to properly thrive.

Get over yourself, hippie.

LEL

Sure thing.

>I don't have a rebuttle because my argument was blown out of the water, but please assume I'm right and you're wrong for the sake of my ego.

You're a real psychoanalyst.

The guy had some insight but the rest was egotistical horseshit. I'm sorry that I've offended your personal idol.

You're one of many deluded kids who thinks that quoting Sun Tzu, or reading The Art of War makes him a 'real man.' The guy was out of touch with reality, most narcissists are.

It doesn't take an expert to see you're copping out.

Well, tactics and strategies that are able to be remodeled and applied in this day and age, over a thousand years after his life and time, is not just 'some insight'. Nor is any of it egotistical horseshit, he never even mentioned himself in the book. Have you ever even read it?

You did not offend anyone, nor is he my personal idol, I can just recognize genius when it appears, and that is where you fail because of your own personal feelings.

Mudslinging is also a cop out.

I read the Art of War for the same reason I read The Prince, or The Kingdom of God Is Within You, or Above Life's Turmoil, or The Alchemist, or White Fang, because I enjoy reading, because I enjoy learning and exploring and expanding my mind, because my ego always takes a step down toward my curiosity. Something you obviously have trouble with.

Perhaps, instead of letting your anti-war propaganda dictate how you feel toward things, you should read it yourself and look at who he was and THEN decide your opinion without bias. Just because you do not agree with something doesn't mean you cannot learn from it, nor does it mean that it is without fruits.

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I'm under the influence of "anti-war propaganda" either.

I am against waging war because it is a waste of the resources expended in the endeavor. We cannot continue to live at the expense of other people if we wish to accomplish anything more than ensuring our failure as a species. War isn't worth the time, money, or lives expended. I'm not saying that a country shouldn't protect itself if it is attacked but the mistake is made by the aggressor.

Because you claimed that the greatest strategist to ever live was a brute who only cared about killing. Again, it doesn't take an expert.

It also gains resources through people captured and lands taken.

One of the bad facts about life is that no matter how rich and powerful everyone may become, someone still has to scrub the toilets. For every person on top, there must be one at the bottom. For every victory there must be a loser. And this is okay, and to say that it's not is to make everything equal, and if everything was truly equal it would just collapse on itself.

Sure it is, considering what you're fighting for, or over.

I didn't say he only cared about killing.

The guy "liked winning" even if that meant the deaths of thousands. The price of his enjoyment was blood.

I don't expect a world of perfect equality, what I expect us to strive for is a system in which we are progressing, not slipping backwards because of bogus causes like nationalism and conquest. Assessing the impacts of our actions, rather than assuming we posses the capability to bend and shape the world as we wish it to be. No matter how much you want it to be as simple as killing or staying your hand, it will never be so simple and so it must be dealt with an a manner which attends to the complexity of the situation.

"he was one of many people who would leap at the opportunity to spill blood"

He didn't go to war because he enjoyed fighting. He ENJOYED winning, but he saw war as a necessity for his time, which it was. You speak as if he intentionally led millions to their deaths for shits and giggles alone.

Nationalism and conquest are important. Even your own views, that humanity should unite to something greater, INVOLVE Nationalism (love for the human race) and conquest (pushing everyone toward a certain ideal). Your methods simply differ, but in that way you count as a 'warmonger' too.

Indeed, but that's the job of a politician. A strategists job is to win, that's it. That's also one of the greatest reasons why Sun Tzu said that a king should leave command to his forces to another general, rather than himself.

I'm not copping out, I get on FJ and see some stupid comment about something every single day. I get replies like this by the dozen. I'm sick of having continued discussions with people over this shit.

"anti-war propaganda"

Yep, like I said, having discussions (read as retarded arguments) with people on FJ isn't something I particularly enjoy. I read plenty, I read just about anything I can. I haven't gotten around to the art of war yet but I have certainly read things which I disagree with, to see their perspective and try to learn from it. What I don't get is how someone can honestly think that every single thing he has said is a pillar of wisdom, or how some of his black and white statements are ALWAYS correct no matter the context. I think he was likely a sociopath or delusional, I don't see why that prompted the response I got. Please, tell me why his generalizing statements are so wise? "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight." Is hardly applicable to every decision to be made about war. It's like an autistic child spewing random shit he read. It's completely out of context and is out of touch with the realities those decisions are made in.

And yet never once have you considered the fact that you are the one mistaken. Quite an ego you have there.

Implying there is no such thing as "Anti-War propaganda" is as stupid as saying blacks cannot be racist.

I never said Sun Tzu was a pillar of wisdom, but he WAS a master of war, and thus it only makes sense to take ANYTHING he says about it very seriously. And did you honestly disagree with the quote I posted? Do you honestly see a situation where that might be incorrect? You admit you have not read the book (good for you, by the way. At least you do not lie in order to seem correct), but if that is the case then how can you make judgements about it? You do not have to experience something in order to have an opinion, but if you cannot even comprehend its contents than any opinion you hold is sure to be very wrong.

He very well might have been a Sociopath or Delusional, but that doesn't mean he was mistaken. Just as well, what prompted the responses was claiming he was a brute, he was incorrect in his judgements, he was a sociopath, he was not talented, and that he only cared for battle. Most, if not all of which are incorrect claims.

Sure it is. If you have the opportunity to win, you must take it. Seems pretty black and white to me.

I never said that there is no such thing as anti-war propaganda, I thought it was dumb to assume it is anti-war propaganda that lead to my conclusions.

My initial statement was about how his quotes are flung about as if they're correct in every context and as if there is no better solution, even in warfare. This isn't the age of Kind and Queens, this is the age of nuclear weapons and super carriers. I was annoyed by his every word being spewed as if it is applicable to all modern conflict, or all of modern life's tribulations.

I'm not some egotistical idiot who thinks I am correct about everything, I question just about everything, even myself. I don't think that because I had a thought, that it is automatically correct.

If you have an opportunity to win a battle, is that really a win in the long run for whatever is deemed of value. First we must assess what is of value? Is the goal something very short-sighted like simply removing a perceived threat? Or is it a goal that plays across a larger scale, perhaps there would be diplomatic fallout, the economic cost of such an action, even the loss of life costing the GWP billions.

Nothing is black and white, that's why I said it is naive because there is ALWAYS a secondary effect. Nothing happens perfectly, there is no perfect solution and that needs to be taken into account. "Go to war or don't go to war." Is hardly the way an intelligent person deals with the issues of conflict. There are many options beyond war and apathy.

Your conclusions had nothing to do with it. It was the way you put them.

That's just it, though. Most of his words and strategies, given a bit of reworking, ARE applicable in this day and age. That's WHY he's so famous and celebrated. It is nearly required reading for every soldier in the Western Hemisphere.

There are very few times that a loss contributes to the war effort. And even then, if you were never meant to win in the first-place, the "If you can achieve victory, you should" wouldn't matter, because the victory itself would BE losing.

I disagree, I think many things are black and white and that you just have to examine them to find out. (He wrote about that too, actually). Indeed, but sometimes war is absolutely necessary, and only an idiot would say that it's absolutely never. There is a very good reason why many great philosophers and idealists who lived in oppressed societies hated pacifists.

Yes, there are times to fight but nothing is black and white. If you believe that, you live in a fantasy world.

No, I live in the same reality you do.

Give me a situation you think is grey, and I will tell you exactly how it can be perceived as black and white.

Overdosed on sleeping pills because he couldn't sleep from being the Joker

On the Joker

Everyone has good and bad points. Aspire to enhance the good habits. Learn to overcome the bad habits.

he was cocky beyond measure.

but then again being one of the greatest strategic minds of human history does give you some right to brag

If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight.

-Sun Tzu

"Watch the backblast, you idiot"

-Sun Tzu

I really wish this wasn't the first thing I thought of when I saw that quote.

The keyword is "if"

I sincerely hope you don't think Sun Tzu is some beacon of wisdom. He waged war like a million other brutes. The ways of life have changed and even in his age, waging wars was a good way to caste your empire into the grave. He was a run of the mill sociopath. There is nothing special about him.

Oh look, anoher young Liberal college student who thinks that just because someone went to war they are the epitome of evil and should be degraded at every corner.

I can't even believe I'm reading this.

No. I posted this because some edgy kid is going to say how great and wise he was, he was one of many people who would leap at the opportunity to spill blood. People like him are a burden to society, I suppose Bush, in all his wisdom, is not deserving of being 'degraded at every corner.'

I suppose it's not polite to call war mongering idiots terrible people.

Get over yourself, retard.

You're quite over-dramatic, aren't you.

That's because he WAS great and wise. He devoted himself to war and victory and literally mastered every principle and scenario for his time. There's a reason he's called the greatest strategist to ever live. He did not leap at the opportunity to spill blood, as a matter of fact he was apparently quite docile, but he went to war when it was required because he knew it WAS required. You do realize the society he existed in was over 1500 years ago? When people waged wars left, right, and center because it was might that made right? And it was through his interventions that kept the dynasty's of China thriving during his life-time?

Oh, look at that, now you're bringing up a president who started a war. Ya, you're TOTALLY not a liberal college kid, I'd say you were closer to highschool.

But he wasn't warmongering. As a matter of fact, he didn't love war, he loved victory. Nor was he an idiot considering he's been remembered all these years and you aren't famous for jack shit. Was he a terrible person? Maybe. I heard he was a dick, but than again, this was in a time when being a dick was the only way to properly thrive.

Get over yourself, hippie.

LEL

Sure thing.

>I don't have a rebuttle because my argument was blown out of the water, but please assume I'm right and you're wrong for the sake of my ego.

You're a real psychoanalyst.

The guy had some insight but the rest was egotistical horseshit. I'm sorry that I've offended your personal idol.

You're one of many deluded kids who thinks that quoting Sun Tzu, or reading The Art of War makes him a 'real man.' The guy was out of touch with reality, most narcissists are.

It doesn't take an expert to see you're copping out.

Well, tactics and strategies that are able to be remodeled and applied in this day and age, over a thousand years after his life and time, is not just 'some insight'. Nor is any of it egotistical horseshit, he never even mentioned himself in the book. Have you ever even read it?

You did not offend anyone, nor is he my personal idol, I can just recognize genius when it appears, and that is where you fail because of your own personal feelings.

Mudslinging is also a cop out.

I read the Art of War for the same reason I read The Prince, or The Kingdom of God Is Within You, or Above Life's Turmoil, or The Alchemist, or White Fang, because I enjoy reading, because I enjoy learning and exploring and expanding my mind, because my ego always takes a step down toward my curiosity. Something you obviously have trouble with.

Perhaps, instead of letting your anti-war propaganda dictate how you feel toward things, you should read it yourself and look at who he was and THEN decide your opinion without bias. Just because you do not agree with something doesn't mean you cannot learn from it, nor does it mean that it is without fruits.

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I'm under the influence of "anti-war propaganda" either.

I am against waging war because it is a waste of the resources expended in the endeavor. We cannot continue to live at the expense of other people if we wish to accomplish anything more than ensuring our failure as a species. War isn't worth the time, money, or lives expended. I'm not saying that a country shouldn't protect itself if it is attacked but the mistake is made by the aggressor.

Because you claimed that the greatest strategist to ever live was a brute who only cared about killing. Again, it doesn't take an expert.

It also gains resources through people captured and lands taken.

One of the bad facts about life is that no matter how rich and powerful everyone may become, someone still has to scrub the toilets. For every person on top, there must be one at the bottom. For every victory there must be a loser. And this is okay, and to say that it's not is to make everything equal, and if everything was truly equal it would just collapse on itself.

Sure it is, considering what you're fighting for, or over.

I didn't say he only cared about killing.

The guy "liked winning" even if that meant the deaths of thousands. The price of his enjoyment was blood.

I don't expect a world of perfect equality, what I expect us to strive for is a system in which we are progressing, not slipping backwards because of bogus causes like nationalism and conquest. Assessing the impacts of our actions, rather than assuming we posses the capability to bend and shape the world as we wish it to be. No matter how much you want it to be as simple as killing or staying your hand, it will never be so simple and so it must be dealt with an a manner which attends to the complexity of the situation.

"he was one of many people who would leap at the opportunity to spill blood"

He didn't go to war because he enjoyed fighting. He ENJOYED winning, but he saw war as a necessity for his time, which it was. You speak as if he intentionally led millions to their deaths for shits and giggles alone.

Nationalism and conquest are important. Even your own views, that humanity should unite to something greater, INVOLVE Nationalism (love for the human race) and conquest (pushing everyone toward a certain ideal). Your methods simply differ, but in that way you count as a 'warmonger' too.

Indeed, but that's the job of a politician. A strategists job is to win, that's it. That's also one of the greatest reasons why Sun Tzu said that a king should leave command to his forces to another general, rather than himself.

I'm not copping out, I get on FJ and see some stupid comment about something every single day. I get replies like this by the dozen. I'm sick of having continued discussions with people over this shit.

"anti-war propaganda"

Yep, like I said, having discussions (read as retarded arguments) with people on FJ isn't something I particularly enjoy. I read plenty, I read just about anything I can. I haven't gotten around to the art of war yet but I have certainly read things which I disagree with, to see their perspective and try to learn from it. What I don't get is how someone can honestly think that every single thing he has said is a pillar of wisdom, or how some of his black and white statements are ALWAYS correct no matter the context. I think he was likely a sociopath or delusional, I don't see why that prompted the response I got. Please, tell me why his generalizing statements are so wise? "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight." Is hardly applicable to every decision to be made about war. It's like an autistic child spewing random shit he read. It's completely out of context and is out of touch with the realities those decisions are made in.

And yet never once have you considered the fact that you are the one mistaken. Quite an ego you have there.

Implying there is no such thing as "Anti-War propaganda" is as stupid as saying blacks cannot be racist.

I never said Sun Tzu was a pillar of wisdom, but he WAS a master of war, and thus it only makes sense to take ANYTHING he says about it very seriously. And did you honestly disagree with the quote I posted? Do you honestly see a situation where that might be incorrect? You admit you have not read the book (good for you, by the way. At least you do not lie in order to seem correct), but if that is the case then how can you make judgements about it? You do not have to experience something in order to have an opinion, but if you cannot even comprehend its contents than any opinion you hold is sure to be very wrong.

He very well might have been a Sociopath or Delusional, but that doesn't mean he was mistaken. Just as well, what prompted the responses was claiming he was a brute, he was incorrect in his judgements, he was a sociopath, he was not talented, and that he only cared for battle. Most, if not all of which are incorrect claims.

Sure it is. If you have the opportunity to win, you must take it. Seems pretty black and white to me.

I never said that there is no such thing as anti-war propaganda, I thought it was dumb to assume it is anti-war propaganda that lead to my conclusions.

My initial statement was about how his quotes are flung about as if they're correct in every context and as if there is no better solution, even in warfare. This isn't the age of Kind and Queens, this is the age of nuclear weapons and super carriers. I was annoyed by his every word being spewed as if it is applicable to all modern conflict, or all of modern life's tribulations.

I'm not some egotistical idiot who thinks I am correct about everything, I question just about everything, even myself. I don't think that because I had a thought, that it is automatically correct.

If you have an opportunity to win a battle, is that really a win in the long run for whatever is deemed of value. First we must assess what is of value? Is the goal something very short-sighted like simply removing a perceived threat? Or is it a goal that plays across a larger scale, perhaps there would be diplomatic fallout, the economic cost of such an action, even the loss of life costing the GWP billions.

Nothing is black and white, that's why I said it is naive because there is ALWAYS a secondary effect. Nothing happens perfectly, there is no perfect solution and that needs to be taken into account. "Go to war or don't go to war." Is hardly the way an intelligent person deals with the issues of conflict. There are many options beyond war and apathy.

Your conclusions had nothing to do with it. It was the way you put them.

That's just it, though. Most of his words and strategies, given a bit of reworking, ARE applicable in this day and age. That's WHY he's so famous and celebrated. It is nearly required reading for every soldier in the Western Hemisphere.

There are very few times that a loss contributes to the war effort. And even then, if you were never meant to win in the first-place, the "If you can achieve victory, you should" wouldn't matter, because the victory itself would BE losing.

I disagree, I think many things are black and white and that you just have to examine them to find out. (He wrote about that too, actually). Indeed, but sometimes war is absolutely necessary, and only an idiot would say that it's absolutely never. There is a very good reason why many great philosophers and idealists who lived in oppressed societies hated pacifists.

Yes, there are times to fight but nothing is black and white. If you believe that, you live in a fantasy world.

No, I live in the same reality you do.

Give me a situation you think is grey, and I will tell you exactly how it can be perceived as black and white.

One of the few people who is almost universally correct IMO.

He was also apparently a massive douchebag, but we don't need to talk about that.

Everyone has good and bad points. Aspire to enhance the good habits. Learn to overcome the bad habits.

he was cocky beyond measure.

but then again being one of the greatest strategic minds of human history does give you some right to brag

Isn't that how Heath Ledger died?

Yeah there's loads of theories. He kept a notebook where he researched the joker, and as the book went on, it got more and more disturbing, and basically Heath ledger took on the joker persona too much and went a little insane. The last page of the notebook had the words BYE BYE scribbled over his research in silver ink.

sauce? it sounds.. interesting

I think it was a video where his dad comes out for the first time to the media since his death and reveals the notebook

Source I think
metro.co.uk/2013/06/02/heath-ledgers-haunting-joker-diary-written-during-the-dark-knight-unveiled-3825677/

<<relevant it's the last page

thanks mate it quenched my thirst of wanting to know

No, he overdosed.

Overdosed on sleeping pills because he couldn't sleep from being the Joker

On the Joker

I thought the same thing! I would squeeze my balls to try and pee faster.

Semen is only produced in the balls, and is actually stored in another bladder

Only sperm is produced in the balls. The other components that make up semen come from the seminal vesicles, the prostate, and the bulbourethral glands. 60-70 % of the fluid comes from the seminal vesicles, and I think I read somewhere that sperm makes up less than 5 % of semen.

Hm didn't know that! but my main point was that is isnt stored in the balls

Yea

It's on the second i see your username

I know, you've had four years to get used to that;)

I think I'm gonna have to let you have the last word for now because my sisters mates round smoking in the garden and i haven't had one in like 3 days..

Yeah maybe in a few years, well I don't think martial arts is going to affect my relationships in any way and after this relationship advice I'm now much more convinced that you're gay and we've gone very off topic

I met her in 2010 at school spoke to her a lot and eventually got with her, i was with her for about 5 months and then we started arguing all the time and i broke up with her and got with some other girl a few months later for quite a while, and then another girlfriend after that 2011-2012 I was with her for a whole year until she found out i slept with three of her friends and had been sleeping with a 4th girl for a week, we broke up and i got with another girl about 3 months later, this girl was nice and had a personality quite similar to the first girl but i slept with her best friend, was with a few girls since then and didn't really see this first girl much but then started to see her more about a year ago and got back with her and everything was quite good until she started getting miserable about other stuff going on so i slept with this other girl and now we're here, i think i've cheated in some way on every girl ive ever been with and im sure you can agree it's for the best i'm not with anyone haha also a main reason why we're not friends when we're not together, because she(and also they) all hated me when we wasnt

I can understand sarcasm perfectly fine, you just suck at giving insults.

Thanks!

Nope never have been friends with her, i met her 5 years ago and was only ever a love interest ever since, she's friends with my friends but i've never been just friends with her it was only ever leading to a relationship or not at all

thx man, ok if I add you on friends, you seem kind of cool

That's the nicest thing I've heard all day.

Certainly, anyone may add me for any reason.

It says state of something.

Yeah, because I thought you weren't serious...

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condition
Check definition 5

She makes me happy, but only for a while and then i get bored and interested in other girls, I'm not going to get back with her but it'd be nice to see her once in a while which would still be wrong of me because I'd be giving her the wrong impression, I'm 19 and always regret any missed opportunities when i'm with other girls so probably best not

I'll await round 2 next week.

It's on the second i see your username

Eh, you can think whatever you like, it doesn't bother me.

Considering we were already very off topic before, I'd say we're not more 'on-topic', actually.

I know, you've had four years to get used to that;)

I think I'm gonna have to let you have the last word for now because my sisters mates round smoking in the garden and i haven't had one in like 3 days..

Well then it is quite obvious indeed. But you are a young man and your libido is high, wait a bit and it will go down and you may not feel the urge as badly as you did before. Just as well, if you'd LIKE to learn self-restraint and discipline, I hear martial arts is really good for that.

Yeah maybe in a few years, well I don't think martial arts is going to affect my relationships in any way and after this relationship advice I'm now much more convinced that you're gay and we've gone very off topic

That's quite a shame if I do say so myself. But it's your call and nobody else has to be involved.

I met her in 2010 at school spoke to her a lot and eventually got with her, i was with her for about 5 months and then we started arguing all the time and i broke up with her and got with some other girl a few months later for quite a while, and then another girlfriend after that 2011-2012 I was with her for a whole year until she found out i slept with three of her friends and had been sleeping with a 4th girl for a week, we broke up and i got with another girl about 3 months later, this girl was nice and had a personality quite similar to the first girl but i slept with her best friend, was with a few girls since then and didn't really see this first girl much but then started to see her more about a year ago and got back with her and everything was quite good until she started getting miserable about other stuff going on so i slept with this other girl and now we're here, i think i've cheated in some way on every girl ive ever been with and im sure you can agree it's for the best i'm not with anyone haha also a main reason why we're not friends when we're not together, because she(and also they) all hated me when we wasnt

Why not? You guys can't still be friends?

Nope never have been friends with her, i met her 5 years ago and was only ever a love interest ever since, she's friends with my friends but i've never been just friends with her it was only ever leading to a relationship or not at all