jcd11235

clicky I think the part I added in boldface is implied in Obama's statement. I believe the possibility of prosecution by other parties remains. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If water boarding is torture? Water boarding was considered torture by the US at least as far back as the Viet Nam war. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It doesn't even require that much certainty. Only a very small portion of mortgages are carried for their full term, but sometimes it's still advantageous to get a mortgage with a penalty if it has better terms in other aspects. When comparing the mortgage with the early payoff penalty to the one without, the borrowers need to determine the payoff date at which the two mortgages cost the same in constant dollars. If it's more probable that the loan won't be paid off before that date, the borrowers are better off accepting the loan with the penalty, even if they anticipate ultimately paying it off ahead of schedule. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We should just sell Texas back to Mexico, and use the funds to pay for the bailout. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

As I've already pointed out, and history has proven, an air strike was not the only option. Feel free to point out some of those differences, something you have thus far failed to do. It is literally impossible to apply every insight Sun Tzu presented simultaneously, as they apply to different situations. Nice strawman. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker with each post. Nice red herring. Suicide bombers weren't used for the 9/11 attacks. And how many times, prior to 9/11, have commercial airliners been hijacked with box cutters and flown into large buildings, let alone buildings that were symbolic of our military and our economy? Because, like on 9/11, it wasn't obvious that those hijackings were going to occur, either, despite your claims to the contrary. That sounds like an imprecise definition of a subset of terrorism, but certainly not all of it. That's merely one of his insights, albeit an important one. Sun Tzu was a Taoist, which is what I was getting at. The Art of War could have been accurately titled The Tao of Conflict. I've given several examples. Perhaps you should read my previous posts before making such preposterous claims. Ahh … another preposterous claim. If you had read my previous posts on the topic, you would know that's not true. They claim responsibilty for mass murders and boast in their inequity as their brethren offer their praise and support. Taking responsibility for your actions is hardly the same as seeking fame. Right, because they were not acting in the service of any country or sovereign. Most applications of The Art of War are not made by generals leading national armies. Hell, it's probably the single most influential book I've ever read, and one of very few that I've read a dozen times or more. I am constantly finding ways to apply its lessons, yet the only army I've ever led has been on a chess board. You misunderstand the passage. Sun Tzu readily acknowledges that it is not always possible to manipulate one's enemy to do what you want him to do, while thinking it was his own idea to do it. That is the ultimate success, but it is certainly not the only path to success that he promotes. Heck, you even quoted a passage from the chapter in which he speaks of fighting on "death ground," which is the antithesis of defeating one's enemy without fighting. I didn't say anything of the sort. The US overreacted, going to war against an entire country, while al Qaeda was, by comparison, only a tiny organization. However, by invading, we have managed to make enemies out of many of the citizens of Afghanistan (and later Iraq). The end result is that we have to fight harder than al Qaeda does, because our actions ensured that we have to fight more than just al Qaeda. perhaps you can start another thread called "The Terrorists are winning!" or "Al Quaeda is responsible for the recession, not us!" Cool. A nice flippant response to avoid answering the question and acknowledging that spending billions of dollars on the War on Terror plays right into the terrorists hands. Do you really misunderstand everything I write, or are you just having trouble acknowledging the reality of the situation? Nothing I wrote can be objectively interpreted in such a way. I've already offered support in previous posts. You've ignored them, only to bring up more issues that have already been addressed. Sigh … As you wish. Here are a few that apply directly to al Qaeda. I've refrained from adding many more that highlight predictable mistakes we have made in the GWOT. From the Giles translation: I. LAYING PLANS 22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. 23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. 24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. II. WAGING WAR 7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on. 15. Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store. III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM 18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. IV. TACTICAL DISPOSITIONS 1. Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy. 2. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. 7. The general who is skilled in defense hides in the most secret recesses of the earth; he who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven. Thus on the one hand we have ability to protect ourselves; on the other, a victory that is complete. V. ENERGY 6. Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are inexhaustible as Heaven and Earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and moon, they end but to begin anew; like the four seasons, they pass away to return once more. VI. WEAK POINTS AND STRONG 7. You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended.You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked. 8. Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack. 18. Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us. XI. THE ARMY ON THE MARCH 23. Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength. 35. It is the business of a general to be quiet and thus ensure secrecy; upright and just, and thus maintain order. 36. He must be able to mystify his officers and men by false reports and appearances, and thus keep them in total ignorance. 37. By altering his arrangements and changing his plans, he keeps the enemy without definite knowledge. By shifting his camp and taking circuitous routes, he prevents the enemy from anticipating his purpose. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sir... it says nothing about the general welfare of the people... “pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” In my lay interpretation from below... that means to take care of the house, not the people inside. Technically, taking care of the people inside... is more of a state responsibility if, 1) a part of the State Constitution, or 2) the State Constitution is ratified by its citizens to encompass that care... The grant of power to “provide ... for the general welfare” raises a two-fold question: how may Congress provide for “the general welfare” and what is “the general welfare” that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. The citizens are the greatest resource of the United States. The general welfare of the nation's citizens are is important part of the general welfare of the nation. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

so when you wrote: > As in National Welfare; not personal welfare... You were just trying to remain straddled on the fence? Whether or not you personally believe in it or not is not the topic of our discussion. My point was that a healthy public is in the interest of the general welfare of the country, thus Congress is fully within their power, as delegated by the Constitution, to pass legislation to promote and provide for a healthy public, including universal healthcare for all citizens, which is a valid (many would also argue practical) method of promoting and providing for good public health. Your quoted reference doesn't refute my point. Thanks for the snide comments, though. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html … Source: Robert A. Levy http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html Now, go fish... That's a really long quote that doesn't support your assertion that public health is not a matter of the general welfare of the United States. If anything, it contradicts it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So, you've opted to avoid answering the question, I see. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

As in National Welfare; not personal welfare... How are healthy citizens not in the interest of the general welfare of the United States? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It certainly does say exactly that. From Article I, section 8: The Congress shall have Power … to … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States; edit: billvon beat me. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sorry, al Qaeda members didn't consult with me. All I have to go by is my familiarity with Sun Tzu, and the consistency of his advice with the known actions of al Qaeda. It's entirely possible that their leaders directly studied Clausewitz's On War or other subsequent (to Sun Tzu) texts that repeated, intentionally or coincidentally, Sun Tzu's wisdom. It could also be that the al Qaeda leaders are just naturally gifted military leaders who simply acted intuitively. That would not change the fact that the attack demonstrated good comprehension of many insights from Sun Tzu's work. One does not need to directly study Leibniz in order to study and apply binary mathematics or calculus. Yet, if one studies binary mathematics or calculus, that person indeed studies the teachings of Leibniz. One does not need to directly study Euclid in order to understand and apply Euclidean geometry. Yet, if one studies Euclidean geometry, that person indeed studies the teachings of Euclid. The only option? You are aware that 9/11 wasn't the first time al Qaeda attacked the WTC, right? So, clearly, it was not the only option. If you don't see other similarities between the attack and Sun Tzu's teachings, perhaps you should research both a little more. If it was so obvious, why was the plot not stopped before the attacks were carried out? It only seems obvious with the benefit of hindsight. Tell us, please, what was "the heart of Sun Tzu's philosophy" (very easy question)? What do you mean by "the heart of terrorism"? (Let's see if you avoid these questions like you have most others I've asked that illuminate your unfamiliarity with Sun Tzu.) Few books have been written that have as wide applicability as The Art of War. That Sun Tzu was able to so concisely generalize so many insights is why it is considered such a timeless classic. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

and if you make that claim without qualification, you're are definitely engaging in truthiness. Remove the people who want to die, and the people that deserve to die (felons), and that number is quite different. How, exactly, is it truthiness to give the total without qualifications, when the total includes all gun deaths? It would only need to be qualified if certain gun deaths were left out, which doesn't appear to be the case. (Note that I don't know how accurate the 30,000 figure is.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's not necessarily true if the suicide bomber is part of a larger organization, which was the case on 9/11. Given their stated goal of destroying the US economy, it would appear that their desired end game is to eliminate the USA's status as (arguably) the world's only superpower. Fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan was a significant contributing factor to the demise of the USSR, who al Qaeda and other mujahideen terrorists fought against, with support of the United States. It's certainly not unreasonable to expect an attack that manipulates/motivates the US into a similar war would detrimentally affect the US economy in a similar manner. That is certainly not an example of "tactics without strategy." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, I'm caught up in your idea that what Al Qaeda did was brilliant and something to be proud of.... Concede that point and then maybe we can talk.... Until then.....fail. The application of Sun Tzu's wisdom was brilliant. That's not the same thing as saying the attack was brilliant. I never said we should be proud of al Qaeda's attack. I said Sun Tzu would have been proud to see how well al Quada applied his teachings with the attack. Anyone who is familiar with his work (i.e. has given his treatise more than a cursory read or two) should be able to see that. That does not and should not imply that Sun Tzu would have been proud that they decided to attack. Personally, I'm not familiar with Sun Tzu's ideologies. He generally left them out of The Art of War, and addressed strategies and tactics from the perspective of military leaders without respect to the political reasons a general might be charged with leading an army into war. You keep trying to make this about ideologies. It's not. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Is today named in honor of wmw999 or something? Did she rate a weekly holiday, or is this particular Wednesday Wendsday special? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can't believe no one has made the obvious Bonfire-esque reply to your post yet. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I.e. under the Articles, the central government did not have sufficient power over the states. Thus, a federal government with more authority was formed with the ratification of the Constitution. Right. But very little power was not delegated to the federal government by the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution. First, taxation without representation != overtaxing. Second, the Constitution was written because the framers understood that the Articles did not provide a sufficiently powerful central government. So, using Vattel's Law of Nations as a primary reference, the framers drafted the blueprints for a new, more powerful, yet just, federal government. "To define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations;" delegates substantial power to Congress not specifically enumerated elsewhere in Article I. The framers desired a just central government, not a weak one. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

In and of themselves? No, they're not. They lack context. Yet, most of them still clearly apply. You also didn't quote many, many more passages that are even more applicable, his advice regarding logistics and utilizing the enemy's supplies. Sun Tzu didn't make judgement calls about causes. It is not the general's place to decide why a country (in this case, an organization) should go to war. You seem to be caught up in the incorrect idea that Sun Tzu's treatise can only be applied for just causes, and that is absolutely incorrect. So … Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It appears that you need to read a bit more then. Because Article I, Section 8 provides no such broad discretionary power to Congress, or the Executive Branch. It's not written there. Sure it is. You just have to read the document. ;-) It's rather ironic that such an accusation comes from you. That could not be further from the truth. The purpose of the Constitution was to replace the Articles of Confederation with a federal government that had enough authority to be able to control the individual states. The lack of such authority is one of the primary reason the Articles of Confederation failed. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Quite the contrary. If the framers had wanted to limit government control as you (and many others) like to claim, they would have used far more precise language than they did. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not only can they be, they were. (You don't do Sun Tzu's wisdom justice when you take passages out of context as you have.) I don't think his advice about marching armies onto "death ground" is applicable to the attack. Nor does it appear that there was any intent to take over the US, so Sun Tzu's reasoning behind that passage is not applicable. Nonetheless, using hijacked planes as missiles the hijackers were able to hit their targets with reasonable precision to maximize the effect of their attack without needing to "shatter and destroy" the US. That one is quite applicable. Bin Laden stated that his strategy for defeating the US was to destroy our economy. He planned to do so by spending $1 for every $1 million dollars the US spends fighting him. One example of tactics used to implement that strategy was to get his pilot-hijackers to train in the US, and use American commercial jets to destroy highly symbolic buildings located on very expensive real estate. Let's not forget that the box cutters used as weapons are incredibly inexpensive, as combat weapons go. What actions, exactly, have bin Laden or other al Qaeda leaders made that offer indication that they covet fame, in your opinion? Are you suggesting that al Qaeda leaders have not engaged in strategic retreat, when necessary, in order to fight another day? Did you see al Qaeda battling on the streets of NYC? Did you notice that the US is fighting war on two fronts, neither of which are in locations controlled by al Qaeda? Did you happen to notice the price tag of those wars? Do you think those wars are good for our economy? Strategies promoted by Sun Tzu have been implemented rather well by al Qaeda leaders. My comment that Sun Tzu would have been proud was limited to those implementations. It had nothing to do with whether or not I agreed with al Qaeda's actions; such opinions would be completely irrelevant to an objective evaluation of al Qaeda's attack. I didn't accuse Sun Tzu of anything, except being (arguably) history's greatest military leader. His treatise offers advice that can be effectively implemented by a wide variety of people, not just military leaders. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm not sure that I'd go quite that far, but I definitely agree that more people use sound strategy at the higher buy in games. This one was just a cheap $1.15 double or nothing S & G that I entered to just kill some time. It only took me two times before I learned to make sure my mouse pointer is nowhere near the buttons until I'm ready to click one. Tap to click trackpads can be dangerous! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I was playing a ten person, single table No Limit Hold'em (real money) tournament on PokerStars. Blinds were $10/$20, and I was immediately to the left of the big blind. I was dealt: A 9. It was a marginal starting hand, but since the blinds were still cheap, I called the big blind. The next five players folded; the next player called; the dealer folded; the small blind called; big blind checked. The pot was $80. The flop was dealt: 7 5 5. I was a little bit worried about someone having another 5 as one of their hole cards. If anyone did have it, they weren't advertising the fact. Everybody checked. The turn came, and the board became: 7 5 5 5. At that point, I still wasn't convinced that no one was slow playing a 5. I wasn't feeling very confident about my A 9. Once again, everyone checked. Another free card, the river made the board: 7 5 5 5 5. I no longer needed to be worried about anyone having a 5 in their hand. My ace gave me the nut hand, since at that point we were essentially betting on having the high card. Small blind and big blind both checked. In hindsight, it was not the best play, but just for shits and grins, I pushed all in. Everyone else folded, except for the small blind, who went all in, calling my bet. I figured he had an ace, too, or at least a king. Then he showed his cards: 6 4 Why would anyone make such a foolish play? He had to know that I eliminated his opportunity to bluff when I pushed all in. WTF? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

High school debate team quality cheap shot. That would indicate a step up from most of the debating in SC. I don't, nor have I ever claimed to, have it all figured out. Nice middle school debate team quality tactic, though. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!