Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
Understand this and be fulfilled.
18 Comments
Hey Frank, do you ever read much Richard Marcinko? He was a Navy SEAL, and he quotes Sun Tzu quite often, and his novels are filled with real-life spec-war combat philosophy.
Ok, lemme give it a shot. This is like, lawyers only ask questions in court that they already know the answers to, right?
I’m feeling some fulfillment now, yeah baby!
My assumption is that a really hot asian chick just moved into Frank’s neighborhood so he’s boning up on his oriental philosophy before chasing after her.
Hey, some of those asian chicks are really hot.
So what you are saying is is those losers that declare a moral victory are a bunch of whining hippies and should be beat. Also did they have hippies to beat in Sun Tzu’s time?
Heh. Reminds me of the classic Zen exercise…
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.
(It is an ice cream koan.)
To rephrase it:
The loser fires the weapon first, then sees where the shot has landed.
The winner decides where the shot lands, then fires the weapon.
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.
If you’re hungry, nobody will feed you. So work until you’re no longer hungry, and you’ll be fed. To overweight, if you’re not careful.
Also did they have hippies to beat in Sun Tzu’s time?
I think hippies back then went around touching the samurai’s swords… and getting killed instantly. We should reinstate that rule. Anybody touches a samurai’s (and by extension a ronin’s) weapon dies by that same weapon. Right away. No questions asked.
Megan,
Courage and victory have nothing to do with one another. Fighting is scary, whether you win or not. Ergo the need for courage. However, without courage, you’re more likely to lose.
Anyone who fights without a strategy isn’t brave, just stupid.
Slab out.
Is Sun Tzu suggesting that;
1) We should engage only in battles where victory is assured, or
2) We should strategise carefully before engaging in battle?
The first proposition is cowardly. The second proposition offers no great insight and doesn’t need Mr. Tzu’s wordiness.
Maybe I am missing something.
1) We should engage only in battles where victory is assured, or
2) We should strategise carefully before engaging in battle?
Neither. Strategy and battling are less important than BELIEVING, strongly, that you’ll win. It’s about the mindset, not about the strategy, nor the battle.
Many people lose because they THINK they believe they can win, instead of BELIEVING they can win. They’re insecure. But that’s for another quote 😉
I think the three things that contribute to a total, overwhelming victory that just shouts “OWNED!” are strategy, supply, and a strong belief in the cause. Sun Tzu rightly stated that you “fight emptiness with fullness.” Obviously that means you fight people who are worn out or out of supplies when you are in top shape and have all the stuff you need. The US just so happens to have all the stuff it needs. We have superior generals and leadership who probably already read Sun Tzu’s work, no modern general should go without it. (Besides that, it is a great guide for business. I also reccomend Miyamoto Musashi’s “Book of Five Rings.” You’ll be surprised how much military strategy has to do with business.) What kind of leadership do these pathetic terrorists, who can’t even organize properly, have? The only weakness is the area of morale and belief. More Americans need to be convinced that we have the moral upper hand in this battle. Once we do that, there is absolutely no way we can loose, and the terrorists are doomed to choose between a swift, painful defeat or a slow, equally painful defeat as we track down each cell and exterminate them.
Trust me. Sun Tzu’s strategies have rung true in almost every military conflict the world has seen. The technology doesn’t make a difference, after all, when it’s all finished and the dust has cleared, it’s still the art of killing.
Hey Frank, do you ever read much Richard Marcinko? He was a Navy SEAL, and he quotes Sun Tzu quite often, and his novels are filled with real-life spec-war combat philosophy.
Ok, lemme give it a shot. This is like, lawyers only ask questions in court that they already know the answers to, right?
I’m feeling some fulfillment now, yeah baby!
My assumption is that a really hot asian chick just moved into Frank’s neighborhood so he’s boning up on his oriental philosophy before chasing after her.
Hey, some of those asian chicks are really hot.
Heh heh. You said “boning”.
So what you are saying is is those losers that declare a moral victory are a bunch of whining hippies and should be beat. Also did they have hippies to beat in Sun Tzu’s time?
Heh. Reminds me of the classic Zen exercise…
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.
(It is an ice cream koan.)
To rephrase it:
The loser fires the weapon first, then sees where the shot has landed.
The winner decides where the shot lands, then fires the weapon.
Actually, Dave, yes, that is how trial lawyers work. You never ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to unless you absolutely have to.
Ahh. But isn’t the definition of courage fighting depite victory being unattainable? Does this mean all strategists are cowards?
Yeah, I know Phelps. I knew that Perry Mason stuff was a bunch of crap.
But wasn’t Della hot?
Megan,
Courage and victory have nothing to do with one another. Fighting is scary, whether you win or not. Ergo the need for courage. However, without courage, you’re more likely to lose.
Anyone who fights without a strategy isn’t brave, just stupid.
Slab out.
where’s Rachel???
LibertyBob: yea, like Michelle Malkin too bad she’s married
Is Sun Tzu suggesting that;
1) We should engage only in battles where victory is assured, or
2) We should strategise carefully before engaging in battle?
The first proposition is cowardly. The second proposition offers no great insight and doesn’t need Mr. Tzu’s wordiness.
Maybe I am missing something.
Sun Tzu didn’t have Nukes or his thinking would have been completely different. Remember, only the winners get to write history.
I think the three things that contribute to a total, overwhelming victory that just shouts “OWNED!” are strategy, supply, and a strong belief in the cause. Sun Tzu rightly stated that you “fight emptiness with fullness.” Obviously that means you fight people who are worn out or out of supplies when you are in top shape and have all the stuff you need. The US just so happens to have all the stuff it needs. We have superior generals and leadership who probably already read Sun Tzu’s work, no modern general should go without it. (Besides that, it is a great guide for business. I also reccomend Miyamoto Musashi’s “Book of Five Rings.” You’ll be surprised how much military strategy has to do with business.) What kind of leadership do these pathetic terrorists, who can’t even organize properly, have? The only weakness is the area of morale and belief. More Americans need to be convinced that we have the moral upper hand in this battle. Once we do that, there is absolutely no way we can loose, and the terrorists are doomed to choose between a swift, painful defeat or a slow, equally painful defeat as we track down each cell and exterminate them.
Trust me. Sun Tzu’s strategies have rung true in almost every military conflict the world has seen. The technology doesn’t make a difference, after all, when it’s all finished and the dust has cleared, it’s still the art of killing.
8248 How can this all be right? Check out my site http://www.pai-gow-keno.com