Question about 9/11...

[tw]

The problem with extremists militants is that they assume we must stop all terrorism. Nonsense. That is the same rigid stance that Europe got into so that an entire continent was at war simply over the assasination of an Arch Duke by criminals.

Get an Atlantic chart outside NYC. The bottom is literlly littered with wrecks sunk by German U-boats. And still that was insufficient to justify war. Great nations suffer many blows without retaliation. It is the 'smoking gun' blow that brings great nations to war - that they win (militarily) handily because great nations are patient. Great nations do not use a penis and testosterone as a replacement for a brain.

In a previous post, I quoted directly from Sze Tzu (there are many spellings) in his book (Art of War). Described is why even a lesser nation wins the war. They first waited for a 'smoking gun' insult. Great nations never fight wars over, for exmaple, a silly spy plane - when they elect intelligent leaders. Citizens of great nations are therefore so empowered that things such as terrorism are exposed and prevented by those little people before terrorist can strike.

Great nations also have leaders who empower their greatest assets - the little people. Inferior nations, instead, have leaders who demand loyalty above all else. Therefore succum to dictatorship - complete with unjusitifed wiretapping, torture, loss of world prestige, perversion of laws, and a need to waste resources on hyped military campaigns 'for the greater glory of a king (dictator)'.

This demand for loyalty above all else is fundamental to two administrations - Nixon and George Jr.

[Badgerino]

Originally Posted by tw

This demand for loyalty above all else is fundamental to two administrations - Nixon and George Jr.

I think that a lot of King George's people cut their teeth in the Nixon administration and are even more secretive and prize absolute loyalty even above what occurred with Tricky Dick.