Coming Soon š At the beginning of April, youāll be
introduced to a brand-new GoComics! See more information here. Subscribers, check your
email for more details.
The problem is that it takes only one army to start a war. In the Art of War, Sun Tzu says, āTo win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the epitome of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the epitome of skill.ā
In 1776 the British occupied Boston. Washington moved cannon recently captured at Ft. Ticonderoga to the hills surrounding the city. The British made a deal: if Washington promised not to hinder their withdrawal, they would no trash the city when they left. The Battle of Boston never happened. Boston was conquered without a shot being fired.
In 1948, Stalin blocked all access to the city of Berlin. The United States and its allies responded in strength with a massive airlift and the crisis ended without violence.
In 1962 the Soviet Union put offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. The Unites States responded in strength with a Naval āquarantineā and the crisis ended without violence. History later revealed that we made a back-door deal with the Soviets to remove our missiles from Turkey, but that still counts as subduing the enemy without fighting.
And then there was the Cold War. We never need more missiles, tanks and guns than the Soviet Union. We just had to get them to believe that we had more and they would go broke trying to keep up. This is precisely what happened and one more instance of violence averted through strength.
In the 1930ās Roosevelt cashed in his āPeace Dividedā to fund his New Deal. Therefore, by 1941, the United States had the 17th largest army in the world on par with Romania. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Having a strong military can be a good thing. However, the problem is that leaders then have the temptation to use it and make it their āgo toā solution.
I like JFKās statement: āWe should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.ā Negotiating from a position of strength is a lot easier.
ā¦ask Ukraine how that worked out. They got rid of their nuclear arsenal, and Britain and the US pledged to protect them if they needed it. Protecting Ukraine (Crimea) from Russia ended up being Britain and the US pointing at the Russians and loudly yelling. So, donāt blame a lot of countries for not demilitarizing even if their āalliesā say they will back them if they doā¦ā¦not so easy, is it?ā¦
finkd over 4 years ago
It makes sense, Your Holiness, and thatās why the worldās leaders will never go for it.
kaffekup over 4 years ago
āNo, thatās not it. But keep trying, Holiness.ā
Dani Rice over 4 years ago
As usual, Brother Leo has already solved the problem.
Thorby over 4 years ago
Brother Leo is following Francis of Assisiās example..
dflak over 4 years ago
Bother Leo is not socially distancing and where are the masks?
dflak over 4 years ago
The problem is that it takes only one army to start a war. In the Art of War, Sun Tzu says, āTo win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the epitome of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the epitome of skill.ā
In 1776 the British occupied Boston. Washington moved cannon recently captured at Ft. Ticonderoga to the hills surrounding the city. The British made a deal: if Washington promised not to hinder their withdrawal, they would no trash the city when they left. The Battle of Boston never happened. Boston was conquered without a shot being fired.
In 1948, Stalin blocked all access to the city of Berlin. The United States and its allies responded in strength with a massive airlift and the crisis ended without violence.
In 1962 the Soviet Union put offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. The Unites States responded in strength with a Naval āquarantineā and the crisis ended without violence. History later revealed that we made a back-door deal with the Soviets to remove our missiles from Turkey, but that still counts as subduing the enemy without fighting.
And then there was the Cold War. We never need more missiles, tanks and guns than the Soviet Union. We just had to get them to believe that we had more and they would go broke trying to keep up. This is precisely what happened and one more instance of violence averted through strength.
In the 1930ās Roosevelt cashed in his āPeace Dividedā to fund his New Deal. Therefore, by 1941, the United States had the 17th largest army in the world on par with Romania. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Having a strong military can be a good thing. However, the problem is that leaders then have the temptation to use it and make it their āgo toā solution.
I like JFKās statement: āWe should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.ā Negotiating from a position of strength is a lot easier.
bookworm0812 over 4 years ago
Shouldnāt they all be wearing masks?
oakie817 over 4 years ago
amen
GaryCooper over 4 years ago
Itās not that we donāt know what to do; itās just that the people in control donāt want to do it.
tung cha cha cha over 4 years ago
Amen
craigwestlake over 4 years ago
Sadly, āIn your dreamsāā¦
MCProfessor over 4 years ago
Unfortunately the history of mankind has been the history of conflict. Our warriors are celebrated more than our peacemakers.
actowers over 4 years ago
ā¦ask Ukraine how that worked out. They got rid of their nuclear arsenal, and Britain and the US pledged to protect them if they needed it. Protecting Ukraine (Crimea) from Russia ended up being Britain and the US pointing at the Russians and loudly yelling. So, donāt blame a lot of countries for not demilitarizing even if their āalliesā say they will back them if they doā¦ā¦not so easy, is it?ā¦