war. defined as a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations; a period of such armed conflict; state of war: the art or science of warfare. the thing that's on almost everybody's lips, minds, in their prayers, and in some, in their fears. war is inevitable, considering human nature, our base desires, id ego super ego, our society, everything, points towards conflict, whether with our neighbors, our friends, total strangers, everything revolves around conflict. around fighting. some people believe we should fight iraq. some people do not. there's no way around it, you're fighting regardless of what side you're on. if you're pro-war, then you're willing and eager to go make war on a nation. if you're anti-war, then you're already fighting, fighting against fighting. wouldn't that be along the same lines as using a word to define itself?


the questions regarding war, whether we should go or not, aren't the most pressing i believe. we should be asking ourselves what kind of victory we'll achieve by waging war on iraq. i'm not saying we're automatically going to win. i'm saying we should think about how much of a victory could be obtained by going and fighting. it's a simple equation, if the victory is greater, then the likelihood of war is greater. it's in my opinion though that we'll fight iraq no matter what. maybe now, maybe not, but we will eventually fight iraq, again.


sun tzu's "the art of war" provides good rhetoric, good doctrine's on how to go about waging warfare on someone else. from my readings, we're not prepared, ready, willing enough to have an ultimate victory over iraq, nor north korea, nor any other country. yes, we're the biggest and the best, and that's not some super-patriotism speaking for me. the u.s. is many many years ahead of all the other nations in the world. it's almost ludicrous. however, we're still lacking many fundamental keys to an ultimate victory over any opponent. we cannot meet sun tzu's 'ultimate victory', we might be able to win some battles without fighting, but in those battles we haven't completely oppressed our opponent.


oppression isn't what sun tzu explained, but he made clear what ultimate victory is. "subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence." "the strategic configuration of power is visible in the onrush of pent-up water tumbling stones along. the effect of constraints is visible in the onrush of a bird of prey breaking the bones of its target. thus the strategic configuration of power of those that excel in warfare is sharply focused, their contraints are precise. their strategic configuration of power is like a fully drawn crossbow, their constraints like the release of the trigger." we cannot meet these. we cannot front saddam, not now, he won't buy into it, we can't achieve an ultimate victory over him. bush is mad crazy trying to find ways to pinpoint everything on saddam and al-queda terrorists. he isn't focused. whoever supplies him with his information isn't focused. it's like the latest elections here in texas for governor. perry vs. sanchez. is that what his name was? mud-slinging. it's stupid. bush has blamed the drugs here in the u.s. on al-queda, and since saddam is in bed with osama, he must be in on it too. what? one, do you know how many meth labs are in suburban america? run by high school and college kids? are they al-queda? they must support saddam. so does colombia and mexico. they're al-queda. weed comes from opium too, did you know that? yea, it does, but bush is full of surprises (he graduated from yale, and then harvard's business school) couldn't tell though from his crap-shit grammar. he's running blind into this, not fully prepared, not fully informed, rushing into things, no configuration, no constraints.


men and women will be sent to iraq, possibly iran and other surrounding nations and countries over there. men and women will die, and somewhere along the lines drawn in the desert sands people will forget, and just say "they died serving their nation, they died fighting a cause, they died for a reason" when they didn't. sure, we have many proud and courageous men and women in our military services, willing and ready to serve this country, but where's the reason? "possibly building weapons of mass destruction"? is that where the reason lies? or does it lie with "unfinished business, family business"? since when does "possibly" mean "yes, they are building weapons of mass destruction" but no one wants to take the time to find out. a 7 month job done in 7 weeks. the inspectors have no time. and bush is running out of time. it's almost election year, and by damn, he needs to go out with a bang, and "clean up the mess left behind for him" before he's possibly elected out. this is war? the lives of the brave hang in the balance of an agenda? the sheep follow the herder; bush's christian rhetoric spewing forth amongst his poor grammar. those men and women will follow him, those men and women will die for him, yet bush is no christ. he can't offer them anything remotely close to an ultimate victory. instead, millions, billions, will be spent like my money on dvds, like salaries to pro athletes (incidentally, bush owned a portion of the texas rangers a while ago, in recent years the rangers spent 252 million on a single player. must be a texas thing. i'm from arizona. i'm happy) we might as well just burn our reserves of money, increase our debt, all the while we rape and pillage the middle eastern countries for the millions upon millions of gallons of deisel fuel that will be consumed in war. or are they raping us? it's symbiotic. i guess.


what a world we live in, huh? it's easy to sit here and type this all out, and i won't try and deny it, but should i really have to? i'm not asking for a perfect world, that's impossible, and i don't deny the very necessity of war, i understand it's meaning for the most part just as i understand human nature, but needless war? is that what we really need? war on iraq, on al-queda, on the middle east, on north korean, on north dakota is all inevitable. but how can we win with sparing as many lives as possible? once we can answer that, then wage your war, because then, we might not even have to fight at all. but it's sad to say, i don't see that happening; people will die and a part of me feels sorry for them. pro-war, anti-war? i'm not sure yet, i'm pro-war, but not this war.

one of the major downfalls of society today is the lack of consideration. consideration for pretty much everything, anything. people just don't care, anymore, i don't know when they ever did. i've grown up with people not caring, it's been that way all my life, i've seen it get worse, but i know nothing from before. we all know this, it's common knowledge, really the only reason i'm saying anything here about it is because i have space to fill on here and i can't remember all the topics i had planned on discussing when i opened this up.
this lack of consideration seems to be derived mostly from the fact that everyone is self-centered. obviously. where else could it come from? people are only out to further themselves, whether that's walking incredibly slow and obnoxious with some stupid swagger, congregating in the middle of a high-traffic path with a group of friends, talking annoyingly loud, singing annoyingly loud, not holding the door open or at least trying to push the door open far enough so that someone behind you can get it, drinking all of someone else's beer, not once, but twice, or not telling the people who were drinking it to not drink it cause it was someone else's, generally going about your life as if you're the only one, thus suiting you and yourself, because, why would you want to give a damn about anyone else but yourself?
another reason is that people are just too lazy these days. i've seen a rapid increase in the amount of lazyness displayed by people. yes, i'm lazy. i'll be the first to admit it. but i'm lazy with regards to homework, school, work, restocking dr pepper in my fridge, things like that. i'm not too lazy to get out of other people's way, hold the door or at least push it open so that maybe the person way behind me will get it before it closes, i'm not too lazy to be considerate, at least more than most people. they're too lazy to get your fucking name right. too lazy to try and care.

too self-centered, self-fulfilling, too lazy



potentialism potentialism potentialism potentialism potentialism potentialism potentialism