Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Which is more powerful threats or actual weapons?

Expand Messages
  • Wil
    If given a powerful weapon should you use it or use the threat of it to control behavior?  Using it will hasten your competitors counter to the weapon where
    Message 1 of 23 , Oct 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      If given a powerful weapon should you use it or use the threat of it to control behavior?  Using it will hasten your competitors counter to the weapon where as the treat can be used for much longer periods of time to evolve the competitors behavior. This is also true in the case of weapons under development. While your competitor debates the intent or even the existence of the weapon they may reason that there are more profitable channels to invest in besides countering a non existing weapon.  Hence you can guide the competitors behavior over longer periods of time by credibly threatenging to develop weapons, than to give them a clear objective by actually doing it.
       
      What has Iran gained by advancing their nuclear weapons program to the point where international focus has a clear objective to rally around against it? Would more have been gained by focusing their efforts on their economy so that if they choose to develop such a weapon they could do so very quickly with little international condemnation and repeated pattern of lies? Japan for instance could very quickly develop a number program to counter North Korea but by focusing on its economy it has far outpaced that backwater country. 
       
      Has the US jumped the gun in deploying a missile defense shield in Europe which has heightened Russia’s Soviet era fears of not being able to counter the deployment and the Iranian fears that attack is a very real possibility? Or is causality the other way around, where Iran’s development of nuclear capability hastened the development and deployment of US counter measures to meet its obligations to protect its allies?
    • Scott Ingleman
      Star Wars was a bluff that put the USSR over the edge in the Cold War. ________________________________ From: Wil To:
      Message 2 of 23 , Oct 7, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Star Wars was a bluff that put the USSR over the edge in the Cold War.


        From: Wil <wilm123@...>
        To: sun_tzu@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, October 6, 2009 2:49:55 PM
        Subject: [Sun_Tzu] Which is more powerful threats or actual weapons?

         

        If given a powerful weapon should you use it or use the threat of it to control behavior?  Using it will hasten your competitors counter to the weapon where as the treat can be used for much longer periods of time to evolve the competitors behavior. This is also true in the case of weapons under development. While your competitor debates the intent or even the existence of the weapon they may reason that there are more profitable channels to invest in besides countering a non existing weapon.  Hence you can guide the competitors behavior over longer periods of time by credibly threatenging to develop weapons, than to give them a clear objective by actually doing it.
         
        What has Iran gained by advancing their nuclear weapons program to the point where international focus has a clear objective to rally around against it? Would more have been gained by focusing their efforts on their economy so that if they choose to develop such a weapon they could do so very quickly with little international condemnation and repeated pattern of lies? Japan for instance could very quickly develop a number program to counter North Korea but by focusing on its economy it has far outpaced that backwater country. 
         
        Has the US jumped the gun in deploying a missile defense shield in Europe which has heightened Russia’s Soviet era fears of not being able to counter the deployment and the Iranian fears that attack is a very real possibility? Or is causality the other way around, where Iran’s development of nuclear capability hastened the development and deployment of US counter measures to meet its obligations to protect its allies?


      • Shibumi
        The greater threat is to appear disinterested.
        Message 3 of 23 , Oct 10, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          The greater threat is to appear disinterested.



          --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@...> wrote:
          >
          > If given a powerful weapon should you use it or use the threat of it to control behavior?  Using it will hasten your competitors counter to the weapon where as the treat can be used for much longer periods of time to evolve the competitors behavior. This is also true in the case of weapons under development. While your competitor debates the intent or even the existence of the weapon they may reason that there are more profitable channels to invest in besides countering a non existing weapon.  Hence you can guide the competitors behavior over longer periods of time by credibly threatenging to develop weapons, than to give them a clear objective by actually doing it.
          >  
          > What has Iran gained by advancing their nuclear weapons program to the point where international focus has a clear objective to rally around against it? Would more have been gained by focusing their efforts on their economy so that if they choose to develop such a weapon they could do so very quickly with little international condemnation and repeated pattern of lies? Japan for instance could very quickly develop a number program to counter North Korea but by focusing on its economy it has far outpaced that backwater country. 
          >  
          > Has the US jumped the gun in deploying a missile defense shield in Europe which has heightened Russia’s Soviet era fears of not being able to counter the deployment and the Iranian fears that attack is a very real possibility? Or is causality the other way around, where Iran’s development of nuclear capability hastened the development and deployment of US counter measures to meet its obligations to protect its allies?
          >
        • kueikutzu
          Do you mean disinterested (unbiased by personal interest or advantage; not influenced by selfish motives) or uninterested (not showing any interest or not
          Message 4 of 23 , Oct 12, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Do you mean disinterested (unbiased by personal interest or advantage; not influenced by selfish motives)
            or uninterested (not showing any interest or not interested)?

            And how does either pose a threat?


            Douglas

            --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > The greater threat is to appear disinterested.
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
            > >
            > > If given a powerful weapon should you use it or use the threat of it to control behavior?  Using it will hasten your competitors counter to the weapon where as the treat can be used for much longer periods of time to evolve the competitors behavior. This is also true in the case of weapons under development. While your competitor debates the intent or even the existence of the weapon they may reason that there are more profitable channels to invest in besides countering a non existing weapon.  Hence you can guide the competitors behavior over longer periods of time by credibly threatenging to develop weapons, than to give them a clear objective by actually doing it.
            > >  
            > > What has Iran gained by advancing their nuclear weapons program to the point where international focus has a clear objective to rally around against it? Would more have been gained by focusing their efforts on their economy so that if they choose to develop such a weapon they could do so very quickly with little international condemnation and repeated pattern of lies? Japan for instance could very quickly develop a number program to counter North Korea but by focusing on its economy it has far outpaced that backwater country. 
            > >  
            > > Has the US jumped the gun in deploying a missile defense shield in Europe which has heightened Russia’s Soviet era fears of not being able to counter the deployment and the Iranian fears that attack is a very real possibility? Or is causality the other way around, where Iran’s development of nuclear capability hastened the development and deployment of US counter measures to meet its obligations to protect its allies?
            > >
            >
          • Shibumi
            The key word was appear. Never indicate interest or concern. Act only when you must.
            Message 5 of 23 , Oct 13, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              The key word was "appear." Never indicate interest or concern. Act only when you must.

              --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@...> wrote:
              >
              > Do you mean disinterested (unbiased by personal interest or advantage; not influenced by selfish motives)
              > or uninterested (not showing any interest or not interested)?
              >
              > And how does either pose a threat?
              >
              >
              > Douglas
              >
              > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > The greater threat is to appear disinterested.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > If given a powerful weapon should you use it or use the threat of it to control behavior?  Using it will hasten your competitors counter to the weapon where as the treat can be used for much longer periods of time to evolve the competitors behavior. This is also true in the case of weapons under development. While your competitor debates the intent or even the existence of the weapon they may reason that there are more profitable channels to invest in besides countering a non existing weapon.  Hence you can guide the competitors behavior over longer periods of time by credibly threatenging to develop weapons, than to give them a clear objective by actually doing it.
              > > >  
              > > > What has Iran gained by advancing their nuclear weapons program to the point where international focus has a clear objective to rally around against it? Would more have been gained by focusing their efforts on their economy so that if they choose to develop such a weapon they could do so very quickly with little international condemnation and repeated pattern of lies? Japan for instance could very quickly develop a number program to counter North Korea but by focusing on its economy it has far outpaced that backwater country. 
              > > >  
              > > > Has the US jumped the gun in deploying a missile defense shield in Europe which has heightened Russia’s Soviet era fears of not being able to counter the deployment and the Iranian fears that attack is a very real possibility? Or is causality the other way around, where Iran’s development of nuclear capability hastened the development and deployment of US counter measures to meet its obligations to protect its allies?
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • Wil
              I understood the comment to refer to a tactical situation. On a geopolitical stage I don t believe you can appear uninterested because your allies would
              Message 6 of 23 , Oct 13, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                I understood the comment to refer to a tactical situation.
                 
                On a geopolitical stage I don't believe you can appear uninterested because your allies would quickly abondon you as a leader, someone who they have confidence in to address their particular concerns.  For instance Japan and Saudi Arabia do not seek to elevate their military influence in their respective regions even under theat, precisely because the US appears very interested their particular issues, and they choose to allie with us.
                 
                On the other hand if you are in a heated engagement, the commander in the field may choose to appear uninterested for the purpose of lulling the competitor into a false sense of security.  The commander may choose to hide the vulnerability of his enemy by not attacking it imediately because the competitor continues to make himself more and more vulnerable on his own.
                 

                From: kueikutzu <kueikutzu@...>
                To: Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Mon, October 12, 2009 11:24:23 PM
                Subject: [Sun_Tzu] Re: Which is more powerful threats or actual weapons?

                 

                Do you mean disinterested (unbiased by personal interest or advantage; not influenced by selfish motives)
                or uninterested (not showing any interest or not interested)?

                And how does either pose a threat?

                Douglas

                --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management @...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > The greater threat is to appear disinterested.
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
                > >
                > > If given a powerful weapon should you use it or use the threat of it to control behavior?  Using it will hasten your competitors counter to the weapon where as the treat can be used for much longer periods of time to evolve the competitors behavior. This is also true in the case of weapons under development. While your competitor debates the intent or even the existence of the weapon they may reason that there are more profitable channels to invest in besides countering a non existing weapon.  Hence you can guide the competitors behavior over longer periods of time by credibly threatenging to develop weapons, than to give them a clear objective by actually doing it.
                > >  
                > > What has Iran gained by advancing their nuclear weapons program to the point where international focus has a clear objective to rally around against it? Would more have been gained by focusing their efforts on their economy so that if they choose to develop such a weapon they could do so very quickly with little international condemnation and repeated pattern of lies? Japan for instance could very quickly develop a number program to counter North Korea but by focusing on its economy it has far outpaced that backwater country. 
                > >  
                > > Has the US jumped the gun in deploying a missile defense shield in Europe which has heightened Russia’s Soviet era fears of not being able to counter the deployment and the Iranian fears that attack is a very real possibility? Or is causality the other way around, where Iran’s development of nuclear capability hastened the development and deployment of US counter measures to meet its obligations to protect its allies?
                > >
                >


              • kueikutzu
                And how is this a threat? Please elaborate Laozi and Bassho can get away with brief cryptic comments, since this is a discussion group, being less gnomic
                Message 7 of 23 , Oct 13, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  And how is this a threat? Please elaborate

                  Laozi and Bassho can get away with brief cryptic comments, since this is a discussion group, being less gnomic would be a help <grin>

                  And what if seeming or being interested forestalls the need for action?

                  Douglas

                  --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > The key word was "appear." Never indicate interest or concern. Act only when you must.
                  >
                  > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Do you mean disinterested (unbiased by personal interest or advantage; not influenced by selfish motives)
                  > > or uninterested (not showing any interest or not interested)?
                  > >
                  > > And how does either pose a threat?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Douglas
                  > >
                  > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > The greater threat is to appear disinterested.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > If given a powerful weapon should you use it or use the threat of it to control behavior?  Using it will hasten your competitors counter to the weapon where as the treat can be used for much longer periods of time to evolve the competitors behavior. This is also true in the case of weapons under development. While your competitor debates the intent or even the existence of the weapon they may reason that there are more profitable channels to invest in besides countering a non existing weapon.  Hence you can guide the competitors behavior over longer periods of time by credibly threatenging to develop weapons, than to give them a clear objective by actually doing it.
                  > > > >  
                  > > > > What has Iran gained by advancing their nuclear weapons program to the point where international focus has a clear objective to rally around against it? Would more have been gained by focusing their efforts on their economy so that if they choose to develop such a weapon they could do so very quickly with little international condemnation and repeated pattern of lies? Japan for instance could very quickly develop a number program to counter North Korea but by focusing on its economy it has far outpaced that backwater country. 
                  > > > >  
                  > > > > Has the US jumped the gun in deploying a missile defense shield in Europe which has heightened Russia’s Soviet era fears of not being able to counter the deployment and the Iranian fears that attack is a very real possibility? Or is causality the other way around, where Iran’s development of nuclear capability hastened the development and deployment of US counter measures to meet its obligations to protect its allies?
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Shibumi
                  The principle of strength is applied effectively by all good martial artists; and very badly by all those who take a militarist approach to international
                  Message 8 of 23 , Oct 13, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The principle of strength is applied effectively by all good martial artists; and very badly by all those who take a militarist approach to international relations. The threat is communicated by one's confidence and evident intelligence: that it proves nothing to wave swords, cannons or aircraft carriers about. These are transitory and can be demolished. Unstated or understated strength does not betray its depth. And it is therefore fearsome. If action is warranted, the action is carefully defined and never exceeds the need.



                    --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > And how is this a threat? Please elaborate
                    >
                    > Laozi and Bassho can get away with brief cryptic comments, since this is a discussion group, being less gnomic would be a help <grin>
                    >
                    > And what if seeming or being interested forestalls the need for action?
                    >
                    > Douglas
                    >
                    > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > The key word was "appear." Never indicate interest or concern. Act only when you must.
                    > >
                    > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Do you mean disinterested (unbiased by personal interest or advantage; not influenced by selfish motives)
                    > > > or uninterested (not showing any interest or not interested)?
                    > > >
                    > > > And how does either pose a threat?
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Douglas
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > The greater threat is to appear disinterested.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > If given a powerful weapon should you use it or use the threat of it to control behavior?  Using it will hasten your competitors counter to the weapon where as the treat can be used for much longer periods of time to evolve the competitors behavior. This is also true in the case of weapons under development. While your competitor debates the intent or even the existence of the weapon they may reason that there are more profitable channels to invest in besides countering a non existing weapon.  Hence you can guide the competitors behavior over longer periods of time by credibly threatenging to develop weapons, than to give them a clear objective by actually doing it.
                    > > > > >  
                    > > > > > What has Iran gained by advancing their nuclear weapons program to the point where international focus has a clear objective to rally around against it? Would more have been gained by focusing their efforts on their economy so that if they choose to develop such a weapon they could do so very quickly with little international condemnation and repeated pattern of lies? Japan for instance could very quickly develop a number program to counter North Korea but by focusing on its economy it has far outpaced that backwater country. 
                    > > > > >  
                    > > > > > Has the US jumped the gun in deploying a missile defense shield in Europe which has heightened Russia’s Soviet era fears of not being able to counter the deployment and the Iranian fears that attack is a very real possibility? Or is causality the other way around, where Iran’s development of nuclear capability hastened the development and deployment of US counter measures to meet its obligations to protect its allies?
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Wil
                    I agree with your statement that good strategy utilizes strengths confidently and wisely, but I m not sure I understand the statement about the militaristic
                    Message 9 of 23 , Oct 14, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I agree with your statement that good strategy utilizes strengths confidently and wisely, but I'm not sure I understand the statement about the militaristic approach.
                       
                      On the one hand to say the militarist approach doesn't work seems to lessen the fact that it is that very militaristic approach that allowed the European form of warfare to dominate the planet for a very long time.  The US allies follow us because they believe in our weapons abilities and willingness to use them. So to me its not so much that you should not use your sword or militaristic approaches or anyone who does is not using good strategy, but to know when and how to use them. Good strategy acts confidently in its employment even when it is still sheathed, and intelligently in its deployment to be effective and efficient.
                       I believe that fear or uncertainty produced when a competitor acts confidently or intelligently can only be brought about because we believe they possess a weapon of sufficient capabilities. While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.

                      Wil
                       

                      From: Shibumi <shibumi.management@...>
                      To: Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Tue, October 13, 2009 2:20:31 PM
                      Subject: [Sun_Tzu] Re: Which is more powerful threats or actual weapons?

                       

                      The principle of strength is applied effectively by all good martial artists; and very badly by all those who take a militarist approach to international relations. The threat is communicated by one's confidence and evident intelligence: that it proves nothing to wave swords, cannons or aircraft carriers about. These are transitory and can be demolished. Unstated or understated strength does not betray its depth. And it is therefore fearsome. If action is warranted, the action is carefully defined and never exceeds the need.

                      --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@. ..> wrote:
                      >
                      > And how is this a threat? Please elaborate
                      >
                      > Laozi and Bassho can get away with brief cryptic comments, since this is a discussion group, being less gnomic would be a help <grin>
                      >
                      > And what if seeming or being interested forestalls the need for action?
                      >
                      > Douglas
                      >
                      > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management @> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > The key word was "appear." Never indicate interest or concern. Act only when you must.
                      > >
                      > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Do you mean disinterested (unbiased by personal interest or advantage; not influenced by selfish motives)
                      > > > or uninterested (not showing any interest or not interested)?
                      > > >
                      > > > And how does either pose a threat?
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Douglas
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management @> wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > The greater threat is to appear disinterested.
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > If given a powerful weapon should you use it or use the threat of it to control behavior?  Using it will hasten your competitors counter to the weapon where as the treat can be used for much longer periods of time to evolve the competitors behavior. This is also true in the case of weapons under development. While your competitor debates the intent or even the existence of the weapon they may reason that there are more profitable channels to invest in besides countering a non existing weapon.  Hence you can guide the competitors behavior over longer periods of time by credibly threatenging to develop weapons, than to give them a clear objective by actually doing it.
                      > > > > >  
                      > > > > > What has Iran gained by advancing their nuclear weapons program to the point where international focus has a clear objective to rally around against it? Would more have been gained by focusing their efforts on their economy so that if they choose to develop such a weapon they could do so very quickly with little international condemnation and repeated pattern of lies? Japan for instance could very quickly develop a number program to counter North Korea but by focusing on its economy it has far outpaced that backwater country. 
                      > > > > >  
                      > > > > > Has the US jumped the gun in deploying a missile defense shield in Europe which has heightened Russia’s Soviet era fears of not being able to counter the deployment and the Iranian fears that attack is a very real possibility? Or is causality the other way around, where Iran’s development of nuclear capability hastened the development and deployment of US counter measures to meet its obligations to protect its allies?
                      > > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >


                    • Shibumi
                      ... The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use
                      Message 10 of 23 , Oct 15, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.

                        The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                      • kueikutzu
                        David: Please give citations from the text for your assertions. Doug
                        Message 11 of 23 , Oct 15, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David:

                          Please give citations from the text for your assertions.

                          Doug
                          --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > >>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                          >
                          > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                          >
                        • rickstan@zianet.com
                          There are weapons and then there are weapons. The notion of shih, or momentum, comes to mind here. You poise your army wo that it acts like anavanalche
                          Message 12 of 23 , Oct 15, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            There are weapons and then there are weapons. The notion of shih, or
                            momentum, comes to mind here. You poise your army wo that it acts like
                            anavanalche rolling downhill. You choose the "terrain," as it were, so that
                            that happens. There are lots of ways of choosing or making the terrain. In
                            that sense I would say terrain is a weapon.

                            Shibumi writes:

                            >>>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                            >
                            > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                            >
                          • Wil
                            I aggree with you Rick that the terrain is another tool we use to achieve our ends.  In fact Sun Tzu predicts who will succeed by judging who has gained the
                            Message 13 of 23 , Oct 16, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I aggree with you Rick that the terrain is another tool we use to achieve our ends.  In fact Sun Tzu predicts who will succeed by judging who has gained the advantages of the terrain and positions. My understanding is that although it may not take much to wield about a club, The Art of War is still about how to use your weapons intelligently. Without posting the entire book I will have to aggree with Doug and ask that a specific citation be provided where The Art of War says it is foolish to use your weapons.  To me it says use them intelligently.

                              Wil

                              From: "rickstan@..." <rickstan@...>
                              To: Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Thu, October 15, 2009 11:58:14 AM
                              Subject: [Sun_Tzu] Re: Which is more powerful threats or actual weapons?

                               

                              There are weapons and then there are weapons. The notion of shih, or
                              momentum, comes to mind here. You poise your army wo that it acts like
                              anavanalche rolling downhill. You choose the "terrain," as it were, so that
                              that happens. There are lots of ways of choosing or making the terrain. In
                              that sense I would say terrain is a weapon.

                              Shibumi writes:

                              >>>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                              >
                              > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                              >



                            • kueikutzu
                              ... When you have to use them, that is. However, People forget that the best general wins without fighting and that this is the acme of skill , it does not
                              Message 14 of 23 , Oct 16, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I aggree with you Rick that the terrain is another tool we use to achieve our ends.  In fact Sun Tzu predicts who will succeed by judging who has gained the advantages of the terrain and positions. My understanding is that although it may not take much to wield about a club, The Art of War is still about how to use your weapons intelligently. Without posting the entire book I will have to aggree with Doug and ask that a specific citation be provided where The Art of War says it is foolish to use your weapons.  To me it says use them intelligently.
                                >
                                > Wil
                                >

                                When you have to use them, that is.

                                However, People forget that the "best" general wins without fighting and that this is "the acme of skill", it does not say that all battles are foolishness. In fact, if you have to fight because you are not a "heaven sent" general...

                                "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding"
                                Ch 10 http://suntzusaid.com/about.php

                                > >
                                > >From: "rickstan@..." <rickstan@...>
                                > >To: Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com
                                > >Sent: Thu, October 15, 2009 11:58:14 AM
                                > >Subject: [Sun_Tzu] Re: Which is more powerful threats or actual weapons?
                                > >
                                > > 
                                > >There are weapons and then there are weapons. The notion of shih, or
                                > >momentum, comes to mind here. You poise your army wo that it acts like
                                > >anavanalche rolling downhill. You choose the "terrain," as it were, so that
                                > >that happens. There are lots of ways of choosing or making the terrain. In
                                > >that sense I would say terrain is a weapon.
                                > >
                                > >Shibumi writes:
                                > >
                                > >>>>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                                > >>
                                > >> The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                                > >>
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                              • Wil
                                We are already in a fight. The good general realizes this and wins withoug escalating to more costly means by intelligently utilizing the various sources
                                Message 15 of 23 , Oct 17, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  We are already in a fight. The good general realizes this and wins withoug escalating to more costly means by intelligently utilizing the various sources power in the space.
                                   
                                  "winning without fighting" for me does not say try not to fight or only fight in discrete instances, because we are constantly in a struggle from birth. It means to win without escalating to the more costly and destructive means. The "acme of skill" I interpret as knowing when and how to use the less destructive and more cost effective means at your disposal.
                                   
                                  So even if I have fifty tanks and my competitor has none the pinnacle of skill is to win without escalating to the more costly means by realizing the use of the political, economic, and psychological power associated with the tanks, their positions, deploymemts, terrain, alliances, ...  As a corollary to this, even if you don't have tanks, the "acme of skill" is to realize what innate political, economic, and psychological power you already possess and know how to use them.
                                   
                                  Some competitors don't understand what power they posses or how to use it, some military men only focus on the use of their technological advantage, and some political men only focus on their political position.  The acme of skill is to understand the various sources of power and know which to use and when  to realize your objectives in the most efficient manor, even if the focused political man or focused business man who rule in your space do not understand the advantage.
                                   
                                  As history shows we are constantly in a struggle which is punctuated by periods of high intensity.  During low intensity periods we use political and economic tools while in high intensity periods our tools change to the military.  Hence my original question: Has North Korea and Iran only accelerated the cycle by pursuing military tools, since I can not see them having a favorable military solution anytime soon. Even if you consider future weapon systems may be powered by nuclear technology, the brinkmanship practiced by North Korea has left them a backwater country and Iran seems to be in the early stages of a failed economy.
                                   
                                  Wil
                                   
                                   
                                   

                                  From: kueikutzu <kueikutzu@...>
                                  To: Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Fri, October 16, 2009 5:11:19 PM
                                  Subject: [Sun_Tzu] Re: Which is more powerful threats or actual weapons?

                                   



                                  --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com, Wil <wilm123@... > wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I aggree with you Rick that the terrain is another tool we use to achieve our ends.  In fact Sun Tzu predicts who will succeed by judging who has gained the advantages of the terrain and positions. My understanding is that although it may not take much to wield about a club, The Art of War is still about how to use your weapons intelligently. Without posting the entire book I will have to aggree with Doug and ask that a specific citation be provided where The Art of War says it is foolish to use your weapons.  To me it says use them intelligently.
                                  >
                                  > Wil
                                  >

                                  When you have to use them, that is.

                                  However, People forget that the "best" general wins without fighting and that this is "the acme of skill", it does not say that all battles are foolishness. In fact, if you have to fight because you are not a "heaven sent" general...

                                  "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding"
                                  Ch 10 http://suntzusaid. com/about. php

                                  > >
                                  > >From: "rickstan@.. ." <rickstan@.. .>
                                  > >To: Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com
                                  > >Sent: Thu, October 15, 2009 11:58:14 AM
                                  > >Subject: [Sun_Tzu] Re: Which is more powerful threats or actual weapons?
                                  > >
                                  > > 
                                  > >There are weapons and then there are weapons. The notion of shih, or
                                  > >momentum, comes to mind here. You poise your army wo that it acts like
                                  > >anavanalche rolling downhill. You choose the "terrain," as it were, so that
                                  > >that happens. There are lots of ways of choosing or making the terrain. In
                                  > >that sense I would say terrain is a weapon.
                                  > >
                                  > >Shibumi writes:
                                  > >
                                  > >>>>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                                  > >>
                                  > >> The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                                  > >>
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >


                                • Shibumi
                                  I don t understand re citations. It is in perfect context of Sun Tzu.
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Oct 22, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I don't understand re 'citations." It is in perfect context of Sun Tzu.



                                    --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > David:
                                    >
                                    > Please give citations from the text for your assertions.
                                    >
                                    > Doug
                                    > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > >>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                                    > >
                                    > > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • kueikutzu
                                    Where? What chapters in what edition/translation? Doug
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Oct 22, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Where? What chapters in what edition/translation? Doug

                                      --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > I don't understand re 'citations." It is in perfect context of Sun Tzu.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > David:
                                      > >
                                      > > Please give citations from the text for your assertions.
                                      > >
                                      > > Doug
                                      > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > >>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                                      > > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                    • kueikutzu
                                      By the way, if you don r reply by November 5 with a substantive response, you will be removed from the list Douglas Henderson List Owner/Moderator
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Oct 27, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        By the way, if you don'r reply by November 5 with a substantive response, you will be removed from the list

                                        Douglas Henderson
                                        List Owner/Moderator

                                        --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Where? What chapters in what edition/translation? Doug
                                        >
                                        > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > I don't understand re 'citations." It is in perfect context of Sun Tzu.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > David:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Please give citations from the text for your assertions.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Doug
                                        > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > >>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      • Shibumi
                                        I m very busy, but happy to comply if you ask nicely. You want me to do this work, don t threaten.
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Nov 2, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I'm very busy, but happy to comply if you ask nicely. You want me to do this work, don't threaten.



                                          --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > By the way, if you don'r reply by November 5 with a substantive response, you will be removed from the list
                                          >
                                          > Douglas Henderson
                                          > List Owner/Moderator
                                          >
                                          > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > Where? What chapters in what edition/translation? Doug
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I don't understand re 'citations." It is in perfect context of Sun Tzu.
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > David:
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Please give citations from the text for your assertions.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Doug
                                          > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > >>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                        • kueikutzu
                                          It is not a threat, it is a statement of fact. If you make an assertion that runs counter to what the common understanding of a topic is, providing support for
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Nov 2, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            It is not a threat, it is a statement of fact.

                                            If you make an assertion that runs counter to what the common understanding of a topic is, providing support for that assertion is not "work",it is essential.

                                            I am not going to waste the time of the group with things not related to the topic, and related to the facts. This is not a group for "fan fiction" about Sunzi.

                                            I am perfectly open to the suggestion that you may have a new and interesting perspective on the Sunzi, but you have to demonstrate it. If it is the same one that you have been discussing for the last several years, and you finally have some evidence to support it, let's hear it.

                                            As it is, this discussion bears an eerie resemblance to the original discussion topic <grin>. Don't be a North Korea <smile>.

                                            Sincerely
                                            Douglas
                                            List Owner/Moderator



                                            --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > I'm very busy, but happy to comply if you ask nicely. You want me to do this work, don't threaten.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > By the way, if you don'r reply by November 5 with a substantive response, you will be removed from the list
                                            > >
                                            > > Douglas Henderson
                                            > > List Owner/Moderator
                                            > >
                                            > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Where? What chapters in what edition/translation? Doug
                                            > > >
                                            > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > I don't understand re 'citations." It is in perfect context of Sun Tzu.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > David:
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > Please give citations from the text for your assertions.
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > Doug
                                            > > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                          • Shibumi
                                            So. Are you asking politely now? If not, kick me off.
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Nov 2, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              So. Are you asking politely now? If not, kick me off.



                                              --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > It is not a threat, it is a statement of fact.
                                              >
                                              > If you make an assertion that runs counter to what the common understanding of a topic is, providing support for that assertion is not "work",it is essential.
                                              >
                                              > I am not going to waste the time of the group with things not related to the topic, and related to the facts. This is not a group for "fan fiction" about Sunzi.
                                              >
                                              > I am perfectly open to the suggestion that you may have a new and interesting perspective on the Sunzi, but you have to demonstrate it. If it is the same one that you have been discussing for the last several years, and you finally have some evidence to support it, let's hear it.
                                              >
                                              > As it is, this discussion bears an eerie resemblance to the original discussion topic <grin>. Don't be a North Korea <smile>.
                                              >
                                              > Sincerely
                                              > Douglas
                                              > List Owner/Moderator
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > I'm very busy, but happy to comply if you ask nicely. You want me to do this work, don't threaten.
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > By the way, if you don'r reply by November 5 with a substantive response, you will be removed from the list
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Douglas Henderson
                                              > > > List Owner/Moderator
                                              > > >
                                              > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > Where? What chapters in what edition/translation? Doug
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > > I don't understand re 'citations." It is in perfect context of Sun Tzu.
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > David:
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > Please give citations from the text for your assertions.
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > Doug
                                              > > > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                                              > > > > > > >
                                              > > > > > >
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                            • kueikutzu
                                              All of my communications with you have been polite. This is not usenet. Douglas Henderson List Owner/Moderator
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Nov 2, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                All of my communications with you have been polite. This is not usenet.

                                                Douglas Henderson
                                                List Owner/Moderator

                                                --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > So. Are you asking politely now? If not, kick me off.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > It is not a threat, it is a statement of fact.
                                                > >
                                                > > If you make an assertion that runs counter to what the common understanding of a topic is, providing support for that assertion is not "work",it is essential.
                                                > >
                                                > > I am not going to waste the time of the group with things not related to the topic, and related to the facts. This is not a group for "fan fiction" about Sunzi.
                                                > >
                                                > > I am perfectly open to the suggestion that you may have a new and interesting perspective on the Sunzi, but you have to demonstrate it. If it is the same one that you have been discussing for the last several years, and you finally have some evidence to support it, let's hear it.
                                                > >
                                                > > As it is, this discussion bears an eerie resemblance to the original discussion topic <grin>. Don't be a North Korea <smile>.
                                                > >
                                                > > Sincerely
                                                > > Douglas
                                                > > List Owner/Moderator
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                                > > >
                                                > > > I'm very busy, but happy to comply if you ask nicely. You want me to do this work, don't threaten.
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > > By the way, if you don'r reply by November 5 with a substantive response, you will be removed from the list
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > > Douglas Henderson
                                                > > > > List Owner/Moderator
                                                > > > >
                                                > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > > Where? What chapters in what edition/translation? Doug
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                                > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > I don't understand re 'citations." It is in perfect context of Sun Tzu.
                                                > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > David:
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > Please give citations from the text for your assertions.
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > Doug
                                                > > > > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > > > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                                                > > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > > >
                                                > > > > > >
                                                > > > > >
                                                > > > >
                                                > > >
                                                > >
                                                >
                                              • Shibumi
                                                If I can get to it I ll post some notes before the weekend.
                                                Message 23 of 23 , Nov 3, 2009
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  If I can get to it I'll post some notes before the weekend.



                                                  --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > All of my communications with you have been polite. This is not usenet.
                                                  >
                                                  > Douglas Henderson
                                                  > List Owner/Moderator
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > So. Are you asking politely now? If not, kick me off.
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > It is not a threat, it is a statement of fact.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > If you make an assertion that runs counter to what the common understanding of a topic is, providing support for that assertion is not "work",it is essential.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I am not going to waste the time of the group with things not related to the topic, and related to the facts. This is not a group for "fan fiction" about Sunzi.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > I am perfectly open to the suggestion that you may have a new and interesting perspective on the Sunzi, but you have to demonstrate it. If it is the same one that you have been discussing for the last several years, and you finally have some evidence to support it, let's hear it.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > As it is, this discussion bears an eerie resemblance to the original discussion topic <grin>. Don't be a North Korea <smile>.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > Sincerely
                                                  > > > Douglas
                                                  > > > List Owner/Moderator
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > I'm very busy, but happy to comply if you ask nicely. You want me to do this work, don't threaten.
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > By the way, if you don'r reply by November 5 with a substantive response, you will be removed from the list
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > Douglas Henderson
                                                  > > > > > List Owner/Moderator
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                                  > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > Where? What chapters in what edition/translation? Doug
                                                  > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                                  > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > > I don't understand re 'citations." It is in perfect context of Sun Tzu.
                                                  > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "kueikutzu" <kueikutzu@> wrote:
                                                  > > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > > > David:
                                                  > > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > > > Please give citations from the text for your assertions.
                                                  > > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > > > Doug
                                                  > > > > > > > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "Shibumi" <shibumi.management@> wrote:
                                                  > > > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>While The Art of War is about wining without fighting, there is also no doubt that the use of your weapons clearly plays a major part in the Art of War.
                                                  > > > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > > > > The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is your opinion, but inconsistent with Art of War. The book makes it very clear that the use of weapons in "warfare" is foolish. War is neither desirable nor inevitable. Sun Tzu is very clear. If generals lose control they should be fired.
                                                  > > > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > > >
                                                  > > > > >
                                                  > > > >
                                                  > > >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.