<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: GOP convention yawner	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://calwatchdog.com/2010/03/13/gop-convention-yawner/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2010/03/13/gop-convention-yawner/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:32:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: PRI		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2010/03/13/gop-convention-yawner/#comment-504</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PRI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:32:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=2925#comment-504</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Curious statement about asymmetrical war from DeVore, with whom I&#039;ve long debated issues of war and peace, with him taking the pro-war side and me the pro-peace side. Like Chuck, I was in military intelligence in the U.S. Army, although in my case 10 years earlier (1978-82). He supports the Iraq and Afghan wars even though both are asymmetrical, with us being on the big, losing side, and the locals on the small, winning side.

One of Sun Tzu&#039;s wisest sayings was: &quot;There is no instance of a nation profiting from prolonged warfare.&quot; After more than 8 years of war in Afghanistan and, on the 19th of March, 7 years in Iraq, America is bankrupt and deep in debt, a broken empire.

Another: &quot;The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterward looks for victory.&quot; That&#039;s just what Bush did: He panicked after 9/11 and, instead of concentrating all his energies on getting Osama, took over two countries whose people didn&#039;t like it and have been resisting ever since. Neither war has had an exit strategy, or definition of victory. We&#039;re finding out -- the hard, expensive way -- why Afghanistan long has been called &quot;the graveyard of empires.&quot;

Curiously, if Chuck were to take the pro-peace side of Ron Paul, calling for bringing our troops home, he would have a lot better chance against Campbell and Carly. And he&#039;s wrong to think that he can cut government while maintaining a large, imperial army overseas fighting at least two hot wars. The way you gain political support for such wars is by bribing congressmen with pork; hence Bush never vetoed a single bill in his first term.

I&#039;ll leave the final word to Sun Tzu, whose short book should be read by everyone. It&#039;s available free online. Here he is: &quot;To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy&#039;s resistance without fighting.&quot;

-- John Seiler]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Curious statement about asymmetrical war from DeVore, with whom I&#8217;ve long debated issues of war and peace, with him taking the pro-war side and me the pro-peace side. Like Chuck, I was in military intelligence in the U.S. Army, although in my case 10 years earlier (1978-82). He supports the Iraq and Afghan wars even though both are asymmetrical, with us being on the big, losing side, and the locals on the small, winning side.</p>
<p>One of Sun Tzu&#8217;s wisest sayings was: &#8220;There is no instance of a nation profiting from prolonged warfare.&#8221; After more than 8 years of war in Afghanistan and, on the 19th of March, 7 years in Iraq, America is bankrupt and deep in debt, a broken empire.</p>
<p>Another: &#8220;The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterward looks for victory.&#8221; That&#8217;s just what Bush did: He panicked after 9/11 and, instead of concentrating all his energies on getting Osama, took over two countries whose people didn&#8217;t like it and have been resisting ever since. Neither war has had an exit strategy, or definition of victory. We&#8217;re finding out &#8212; the hard, expensive way &#8212; why Afghanistan long has been called &#8220;the graveyard of empires.&#8221;</p>
<p>Curiously, if Chuck were to take the pro-peace side of Ron Paul, calling for bringing our troops home, he would have a lot better chance against Campbell and Carly. And he&#8217;s wrong to think that he can cut government while maintaining a large, imperial army overseas fighting at least two hot wars. The way you gain political support for such wars is by bribing congressmen with pork; hence Bush never vetoed a single bill in his first term.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll leave the final word to Sun Tzu, whose short book should be read by everyone. It&#8217;s available free online. Here he is: &#8220;To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy&#8217;s resistance without fighting.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8212; John Seiler</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/


Served from: calwatchdog.com @ 2026-04-14 14:57:13 by W3 Total Cache
-->