Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JRoberts

  • Birthday 12/13/1986

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Austin, TX
  • Interests
    Philosophy, Ancient History

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    Gay / Lesbian
  • Real Name
    Jason Roberts
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    Texas Tech University
  • Occupation
    Student/Teacher's Assistant/Research Assistant

JRoberts's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. This is really neat! Thank you for posting this . The power of the human mind is indeed amazing.
  2. Al Kufr, I have been working a double shift (from 5am-11pm) for awhile, and so I haven't had time to post! I just wanted to let you know that I will respond this weekend as I am only working a regular shift . Best regards to you and your patience.
  3. I would, with 100% backing, suggest Victor Davis Hanson. He is amazing! Check out his website at www.victorhanson.com for more information about his ideas.
  4. Both examples you gave me deal with tactics. One was manly (Western), and one is effeminate (Eastern). But they both deal with tactics, not "strategy" as you claim. Give me one single example prior to the 19th century of a policy of attrition. I am not Victor Davis Hanson. But annihilate means to "destroy" via impact, as opposed to attrition, which means to "wear down". During WW1 (the first major war of Attrition in the Western World), battles were fought not to 'win', but to 'wear the opponent down'. So you agree with all of the examples I have given, who are all the pillars of Western Military Theory, and yet say "that doesn't matter" because the West disregards the people it studies in favor of a type of warfare not common until the 1800's? Besides being disgusted at effeminate warfare (diplomacy, compromising, trying to stop the battle before it happened, etc.), the West preferred a more manly, confrontational style (300 Spartans at Thermopylae). Is this the distinction that you are making?
  5. The question to ask yourself is this: If the movie had bombed instead of doing very well, would this article exist? Probably not.
  6. Nope, he's not really able to speak on it . He died in 1990. His family had a large part in the movie though.
  7. Depp was, once again, the Star of the Film. And I don't just mean that he had the largest role. I continue to be amazed, from movie after movie, at the pure acting ability of Depp. What is most interesting about Willy Wonka (Like Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean), is that Depp devised everything from the costume to the makeup to the character, all on his own. This is him acting, not a director ordering him to be a certain way.
  8. Would you call the actions of Scipio Africanus in Spain attrition? Do you think the Greeks had the ability to fight a war of attrition against Persia? Did Alexander use attrition to conquer the east? Or let us look at modern times. Would you call Patton a General who used attrition? Victor Davis Hanson says that it seems to be a "proclivity of the West to...use massive amounts of firepower to shock, defeat, and destroy the enemy, ideally through annihilation rather than attrition." Don't make the error of equating the West with the Barbarians. If you read the history of the West, you will see "avoiding strength and striking weakness" everywhere. From Hannibal to Scipio, from Fabius to Miltiades and Themistocles, the West has known these fundamentals of warfare and used them in ways to defeat the enemy with overwhelming victory. I suggest you study the battles of Salamis and Plataea before passing such rash judgement on the West. I don't remember reading it either. That is why I didn't mention mysticism at all in my post. What is your basis for claiming such ignorance on the part of the West? Or do you just believe that the total domination of the world (rightly so) by the West was because of 'luck' and an ignorance of strategy?
  9. Just because something is old does not place an automatic value on it. No. Except for studying specific battles (such as Marathon), the authors I mentioned did the same as Sun Tzu. Take for example Vegetius, who stated: That seems like a strategy to me that can be applied to business, or life in general. Are you trying to tell me that Alexander conquered Persia, Scipio all of Spain and Africa, Caesar all of Gaul, etc. based purely on tactics and no strategy? No, there is some value in him. However, his value I find miniscule compared to what the West has to offer. The greatest military men, business men, and moral men all come from the West. There is a reason for that. I always follow the truth. The truth is in the West; in the institutions that the Greeks and Romans devised; that America re-actualized. I still don't see any value that the East has to offer. Or rather, I don't see what the "big deal" is. Our culture today is drowning itself in "Sun Tzu", "Lao Tsu", "Confucius", "Feng Shui", "Buddha", and all the other instruments of the East. Though there are a few good quotes here or there, the East has been nothing but a backwards, barbaric culture.
  10. And this is my entire point. The West, which is the only consistent Scientific Culture, was also much more successful prior to Sun Tzu. While this does not mean that Sun Tzu is "worthless" in his own right, it does mean that I see no reason why the West should "embrace" it as a revolutionary document. Many. How about Vegetius? His book has been one of the foundations for Western Warfare for centuries. Or Caesar? He too has been emulated in the West. The campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Scipio, Caesar, etc. have been the foundation of Western military thought; a foundation that has proven us much more effective than anything that comes from the East. So once again, what is so special about Sun Tzu?
  11. Did the 19th century American Capitalist rely on Sun Tzu? Do you think they performed just as well (if not better) than most companies today? What did the Military of the West do before Sun Tzu? Was everything hopeless until he came along? And the biggest question of all: what change in our society, for better, has this "revolution" from Sun Tzu brought? Can you show me some practical examples of how: -Companies are more successful -Armies are more successful etc. in today's world, thanks to Sun Tzu?
  12. I have indeed checked the book out. And after doing so, I still don't see a reason why it is 'considered' the "most important" military text.
  13. What is your grounds for calling it "The Most Important"? How is it any better than any other strategy book written? And how is it the most influential; especially in the context of history?
  14. I'm just amazed that only one person has mentioned Scipio Africanus. Undefeated in warfare; brilliant in strategy and tactics; could siege a city with ease and defeat an army on the field with the same brilliance. Scipio Africanus even defeated Hannibal! Having never lost a battle, and defeating one of the greatest military generals of all time, Scipio Africanus really does deserve some attention. Spartan, did you post that at TWC forums too? It is an interesting list.
  • Create New...