Sun Tzu's moral ground and Leftist obstructionism

Let me explain the moral high ground to people.

When you're supporting fascistic dictators like Amanie in Iran or Saddam in Iraq or the Osama/Omar in Afghanistan, this means you will never believe Bush(who is against all these 3 regimes) will ever have the Moral Law.

The Moral Law applies to those who are ruled, those who follow, and those who are lead. It does not apply to the followers, initiates, or soldiers of the Enemy.

When the objectives of one person is to destroy Saddam and when the objective of another person is to destroy the person trying to destroy Saddam by trying to stop an illegal invasion. (which would be legal if only the UN had approved it, unfortunately they were kinda worried about their bribes not arriving afterwards) When you have these two people together, neither will recognize the Moral Law of the other, because the Moral Law requires that you have the same objectives. What is moral for the guy trying to liberate women and children is not the same thing as what is moral to the oppressors of said women and children.

Here's a few words on Sun Tzu's last section, Spies.

Sun Tzu said: Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and engaging them in war entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abr oad, and men will drop out exhausted.

If the troops don't drop in exhaustion, the people paying taxes back at the state will. Duh, come on.

"commotion at home"? What the heck is that? Could it be anti-war protests and sabotage? You tell me, you should know.

# When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

# Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

# Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

# Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

"Other chieftans" indeed.

This is the def of moral law as used by Sun.

The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success. Bush means what he says, and says what he means. When he says he is a compassionate conservative, that's what he means, as people can see concerning immigration.

The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler

Who exactly believes people who think Bush has no legitimacy think he is their ruler?

So... what? People in Britain feel the need to say Bush has no Moral Law because.... they think Bush is their ruler and is complaining? Come on.

I could write something to defend myself against conned, but I really don't want to get conned. So, instead of explaining why I don't defend myself against a person who believes the worst of his political opponents, I'll just provide this link as self-evidence.

Here is how I debate with honorable opponents