[J m HofMarN]

Cobnat - So if everyone got all their tactics from Sun Tzu, why say it? That's like saying "Che Guevara breathes oxygen!" or something. You were trying to pass of Che since his tactics supposedly come from Sun Tzu, but you just admitted that everyone else's did too, so why did you point it out?

Bond - Hehehehehehe "even against terrorists" Jesus you sound like Billy in some American propagandamercial. That's right, terrorists are a completely new enemy like none we've ever faced and we must be prepared. Support homeland security, report your neighbors and be sure to take note of the threat level.

In non silly news, would you finally just concede the damned argument or present some manner of proof that Che Guevara wasn't a doctor? Or perhaps you'd like to say what he did that needs to be excused?

[Bond]

Guevara killed innocent civilians and tried to start a couple of insurrections in Bolivia, which embarrassed Castro's government.

There, happy?

[Cobnat]

Cobnat - So if everyone got all their tactics from Sun Tzu, why say it? That's like saying "Che Guevara breathes oxygen!" or something. You were trying to pass of Che since his tactics supposedly come from Sun Tzu, but you just admitted that everyone else's did too, so why did you point it out?

You said Guevara brought something new to the art of war, I said he didn’t; that’s what we are arguing about if you have forgotten.

Guevara killed innocent civilians and tried to start a couple of insurrections in Bolivia, which embarrassed Castro's government.

There, happy?

Killing civilians embarrassed a totalitarian regime?

Even against terrorists, Cobnat? I must admit, you'd be hard-pressed to try to apply any of Sun-Tzu's rules to them...

He did cover counter-espionage and guerrilla warfare but no he didn’t since they didn’t have explosive belts 3,000 years ago.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 02 September 2007 - 10:55 PM

[Bond]

Killing civilians embarrassed a totalitarian regime?

I believe they were trying to look legitimate; having a former lieutenant go off on a killing spree wasn't going to do anything good for their public image.

He did cover counter-espionage and guerrilla warfare but no he didn’t since they didn’t have explosive belts 3,000 years ago.

Well, that's true, but I doubt Sun-Tzu would have predicted how much religion would play into warfare in the coming centuries...

[J m HofMarN]

Guevara killed innocent civilians and tried to start a couple of insurrections in Bolivia, which embarrassed Castro's government.

I already stated those people were involved with abuses from the former regime and were given trials. Next silly accusation.

Dr. Guevara started one insurrection in Bolivia. When it failed and his band was captured they were beaten, shot several times for no reason, and finally executed and dumped in a mass grave that wasn't located for 25 years. But yeah, the Bolivian regime were great people and he was horrible for trying to stop them.

The other insurrection you speak of was against one Mobutu Seseseko. You'd like him since he hung out with Nixon and George Bush the first and Reagan. Che Guevara had a small problem with him because he led a military coup against the democratic government of the Congo, tortured to death the former leaders, then tortured to death some random people, then comitted genocide in Katanga province, then executed a bunch more people all at the behest of the CIA.

The one thing Dr. Guevara DID do that embarassed His Excellency was when he spoke out against the way the Soviets were running an empire similiar to the Americans.

You said Guevara brought something new to the art of war, I said he didn’t; that’s what we are arguing about if you have forgotten.

I still believe he did. And I believe logic backs my argument since I'm saying that people can contribute new ideas and innovations in warfare, whereas you're claiming that everything is because of Sun Tzu. It's a rather simplified and adolescent argument, similiar to dismissing every philosopher because they're all ripping off Plato.

I believe they were trying to look legitimate; having a former lieutenant go off on a killing spree wasn't going to do anything good for their public image.

Killing spree? Belgian mercenaries and CIA trained murder squads defeated Che's band in the Congo, and one of his comraddes in Bolivia was captured and tortured by Felix Rodriguez, also CIA, until he gave up Che's position. These were not killing sprees except on the part of the imperialists.

[Bond]

Well, I must admit, Guevara certainly helped advance the Communist cause more after his death than he ever could have beforehand.

[Cobnat]

I still believe he did. And I believe logic backs my argument since I'm saying that people can contribute new ideas and innovations in warfare, whereas you're claiming that everything is because of Sun Tzu. It's a rather simplified and adolescent argument, similiar to dismissing every philosopher because they're all ripping off Plato.

I was using Sun-Tzu as an example; no doubt he also got his ideas from his predecessors. Your logic is flawed because it would mean that the study of war is limitless unlike, say, philosophy. The rules of war (the best way to kill or capture your enemy while at the same time avoiding casualties) is older then written history.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 03 September 2007 - 12:33 AM

[Bond]

True, but many warring groups throughout history have seemed hellbent on breaking them, such as the kamikaze pilots of WWII or the terrorists of today all throughout the Middle East.

[Cobnat]

True, but many warring groups throughout history have seemed hellbent on breaking them, such as the kamikaze pilots of WWII or the terrorists of today all throughout the Middle East.

The idea of suicide bombers has been long before WW2. When Napoleon entered and garrisoned in Moscow; half the city was levelled and Napoleons army virtually wiped out by suicide bombers who hid in the cellars full of gunpowder barrels.

As for the ideology (mentality of ultimate sacrifice) of a suicide bomber ; they have existed in the Japanese culture and Muslim culture for hundreds of years.

[Bond]

As for the ideology (mentality of ultimate sacrifice) of a suicide bomber ; they have existed in the Japanese culture and Muslim culture for hundreds of years.

Which is why, I would think, Sun-Tzu would not have considered them; he was from an entirely different culture.

[Cobnat]

Which is why, I would think, Sun-Tzu would not have considered them; he was from an entirely different culture.

True. Though warfare has barely evolved since his death (since military leaders use the same tactics and strategies from hundreds if not thousands of years ago) things like guns, aircrafts, radar artillery and suicide belts have dramatically changed the doctrines of nations.

So in reality scientists are the ones who are essential in the advancement of the art of war.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 03 September 2007 - 09:41 PM

[Jordan]

Napoleon's grand tactics and tactical maneuvering did heap loads for warfare. His style revolutionized the way battles were fought. He forced his enemies to adopt his strategies.

Sun Tzu, imo, is typical chinese philosphy, simple and stupid. "if you wash your hands, they will be clean". It's filled with boring truism, which are pretty obvious.

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html Take a gander.

I'm not sure if Sun Tzu even led armies into battles, or how many times he did it. But I know Napoleon well, and that guy put theory in to practice. Napoleonic warfare is the height of romance and grand strategy.

Sun Tzu didn't invent anything. I can't even find a brilliant battle of his online. He merely collected all the things people all ready knew and put them in a book.

Napoleon took many theories and put them into practice. A book I highly recommend is BATTLE TACTICS OF NAPOLEON AND HIS ENEMIES

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0094772401

That book teaches you about Grand strategy (something sun tzu spoke of) and small tactics, something sun tzu kind of ignored. Small tactics are what string together the grand strategey, and are the key to the art of war.

Sun Tzu "divide your enemy and you will be victorious"

Me "how do we do that sun tzu"

Sun Tzu "if your enemy is divided, you will win"

Me "thanks sunny boy"

[Cobnat]

Napoleon's grand tactics and tactical maneuvering did heap loads for warfare. His style revolutionized the way battles were fought. He forced his enemies to adopt his strategies.

Sun Tzu, imo, is typical chinese philosphy, simple and stupid. "if you wash your hands, they will be clean". It's filled with boring truism, which are pretty obvious.

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html Take a gander.

I'm not sure if Sun Tzu even led armies into battles, or how many times he did it. But I know Napoleon well, and that guy put theory in to practice. Napoleonic warfare is the height of romance and grand strategy.

Sun Tzu didn't invent anything. I can't even find a brilliant battle of his online. He merely collected all the things people all ready knew and put them in a book.

Napoleon took many theories and put them into practice. A book I highly recommend is BATTLE TACTICS OF NAPOLEON AND HIS ENEMIES

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0094772401

That book teaches you about Grand strategy (something sun tzu spoke of) and small tactics, something sun tzu kind of ignored. Small tactics are what string together the grand strategey, and are the key to the art of war.

Sun Tzu "divide your enemy and you will be victorious"

Me "how do we do that sun tzu"

Sun Tzu "if your enemy is divided, you will win"

Me "thanks sunny boy"

Well at least we can agree on everything except that Napoleon didn’t really ‘revolutionize’ warfare. He won by the simple strategy of divide and conquer and because of his logistic skills and as I mentioned before; his skilful use of artillery and cavalry.

He didn’t bring anything ‘new’ to war except for national conscription which was in semi-use for hundreds of years before his time.

[Jordan]

I dont' know what you mean by revolutionize. His strategies and and methods (maneuevering men, filing by rank, use of artillery and calvary) were so brilliant, he forced his enemies to adopt to his style. He took theory ingored by others and used them in such a way that they became the norm. Old stuffy generals from Austria and England refused to adopt these theories until they saw them used on the field by France. That to me is revolutionary.

http://en.wikipedia....leonic_strategy

http://www.molossia....y/strategy.html

"Napoleon I of France took advantage of these developments to pursue a brutally effective "strategy of annihilation" that cared little for the mathematical perfection of the geometric strategy. Napoleon invariably sought to achieve decision in battle, with the sole aim of utterly destroying his opponent, usually achieving success through superior manouevre. As ruler and general he dealt with the grand strategy as well as the operational strategy, making use of political and economic measures."

He took pre-made theory, which was ingored by other nations and made it work in the field. That too me is a revolutionary move.

If you think sun tzu telling us "surrounding the enemy is a good thing" is revolutionary then how come you won't do the same for Napoleon and his grand strategies, which reshaped european warfare.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 04 September 2007 - 12:39 PM

[Jordan]

I missed a bit your wrote. You're right, he didn't bring anything new to the table. But he did revolutionize warfare.

Warfare was pretty stagnant before he came along. It's mind boggling out how arrogant his contemporaries were during this period. They're refusal or laziness to reform their armies cost them dearly.