ated a stronger enemy since the leader has no opposing force from the inside to conquer him. So without taking out the main leadership in fact we have not helped democracy we have crushed it possibility. It is most important to cause chaos in any enemies system. I often do this in business when faced with an enemy who plays the Machiavellian way. Inner strife kills an enemy much faster than the advancing armies do, once you have crushed their will to fight it is all over for them anyway. As long as your opponent has the will to fight he is still a worthy adversary and a potential threat. In the case of Saddam, it is far better to leave him Societies have always had a problem of what to do with their young males with high testosterone. In many countries it is important for them to kill off many of them. In times of war it is advantageous to kill off those who may eventually challenge the dictator. Kings of tribes in Africa realized that they too could get rid of their strong males in order to stay in power by selling them as slaves. Yet in doing so the tribes become weak and have issues with the genes of strength and then are easily beaten by other tribes contriving a war against them to help eliminate some of their strongest or reward them with the spoils of war. Such elimination of all the strong can cause a premature collapse of the civilization from a competing nation and too many can cause civil unrest and destroy the empire from within.

This is not a new concept, it has been known throughout the written history of mankind. It is discussed in the Prince and is still practiced in many areas. When we fight wars, many times we are fighting an enemy whose leadership actually wants to inflict massive casualties on us, but wants us to eventually kill their military leaders who might eventually take power from the current leadership. It is for this reason sometimes world leaders plan wars against one another to protect their power base, spend money with their industrial military complexes and borrow money from the worlds money sources.

If those underlings who have ambition to be the next dictator ever get the chance they may try to over through the current regime, having them go on an impossible journey or impossible battle, allows the soldier to go out with a bang and all the rewards and respect of the nation in death, while still allowing the leadership to remain and tell of their heroism. In our society we often do similar things; in Corporations we step on them climbing the ladder of success, In politics we character assassinate them (although be careful because a man who has nothing to lose is the same as a cat backed into a corner), in sports we place blame on a lost game or trade that player to another team. In our military they may become the scapegoats or promoted into a position of nothingness but give them rank and medals.

These techniques work for mans desire to achieve, yet we often fight ourselves to no avail. This is a problem in our country and we lose traction and innovation and send mixed messages to those who can do the most good. In these other countries we fight we may think we have scored a victory in defeating a certain general, but really we have only created a stronger enemy since the leader has no opposing force from the inside to conquer him. So without taking out the main leadership in fact we have not helped democracy we have crushed it possibility. It is most important to cause chaos in any enemies system. I often do this in business when faced with an enemy who plays the Machiavellian way. Inner strife kills an enemy much faster than the advancing armies do, once you have crushed their will to fight it is all over for them anyway. As long as your opponent has the will to fight he is still a worthy adversary and a potential threat. In the case of Saddam, it is far better to leave him i

on of all the strong can cause a premature collapse of the civilization from a competing nation and too many can cause civil unrest and destroy the empire from within.

This is not a new concept, it has been known throughout the written history of mankind. It is discussed in the Prince and is still practiced in many areas. When we fight wars, many times we are fighting an enemy whose leadership actually wants to inflict massive casualties on us, but wants us to eventually kill their military leaders who might eventually take power from the current leadership. It is for this reason sometimes world leaders plan wars against one another to protect their power base, spend money with their industrial military complexes and borrow money from the worlds money sources.

If those underlings who have ambition to be the next dictator ever get the chance they may try to over through the current regime, having them go on an impossible journey or impossible battle, allows the soldier to go out with a bang and all the rewards and respect of the nation in death, while still allowing the leadership to remain and tell of their heroism. In our society we often do similar things; in Corporations we step on them climbing the ladder of success, In politics we character assassinate them (although be careful because a man who has nothing to lose is the same as a cat backed into a corner), in sports we place blame on a lost game or trade that player to another team. In our military they may become the scapegoats or promoted into a position of nothingness but give them rank and medals.

These techniques work for mans desire to achieve, yet we often fight ourselves to no avail. This is a problem in our country and we lose traction and innovation and send mixed messages to those who can do the most good. In these other countries we fight we may think we have scored a victory in defeating a certain general, but really we have only created a stronger enemy since the leader has no opposing force from the inside to conquer him. So without taking out the main leadership in fact we have not helped democracy we have crushed it possibility. It is most important to cause chaos in any enemies system. I often do this in business when faced with an enemy who plays the Machiavellian way. Inner strife kills an enemy much faster than the advancing armies do, once you have crushed their will to fight it is all over for them anyway. As long as your opponent has the will to fight he is still a worthy adversary and a potential threat. In the case of Saddam, it is far better to leave him

rotect their power base, spend money with their industrial military complexes and borrow money from the worlds money sources.

If those underlings who have ambition to be the next dictator ever get the chance they may try to over through the current regime, having them go on an impossible journey or impossible battle, allows the soldier to go out with a bang and all the rewards and respect of the nation in death, while still allowing the leadership to remain and tell of their heroism. In our society we often do similar things; in Corporations we step on them climbing the ladder of success, In politics we character assassinate them (although be careful because a man who has nothing to lose is the same as a cat backed into a corner), in sports we place blame on a lost game or trade that player to another team. In our military they may become the scapegoats or promoted into a position of nothingness but give them rank and medals.

These techniques work for mans desire to achieve, yet we often fight ourselves to no avail. This is a problem in our country and we lose traction and innovation and send mixed messages to those who can do the most good. In these other countries we fight we may think we have scored a victory in defeating a certain general, but really we have only created a stronger enemy since the leader has no opposing force from the inside to conquer him. So without taking out the main leadership in fact we have not helped democracy we have crushed it possibility. It is most important to cause chaos in any enemies system. I often do this in business when faced with an enemy who plays the Machiavellian way. Inner strife kills an enemy much faster than the advancing armies do, once you have crushed their will to fight it is all over for them anyway. As long as your opponent has the will to fight he is still a worthy adversary and a potential threat. In the case of Saddam, it is far better to leave him

be careful because a man who has nothing to lose is the same as a cat backed into a corner), in sports we place blame on a lost game or trade that player to another team. In our military they may become the scapegoats or promoted into a position of nothingness but give them rank and medals.

These techniques work for mans desire to achieve, yet we often fight ourselves to no avail. This is a problem in our country and we lose traction and innovation and send mixed messages to those who can do the most good. In these other countries we fight we may think we have scored a victory in defeating a certain general, but really we have only created a stronger enemy since the leader has no opposing force from the inside to conquer him. So without taking out the main leadership in fact we have not helped democracy we have crushed it possibility. It is most important to cause chaos in any enemies system. I often do this in business when faced with an enemy who plays the Machiavellian way. Inner strife kills an enemy much faster than the advancing armies do, once you have crushed their will to fight it is all over for them anyway. As long as your opponent has the will to fight he is still a worthy adversary and a potential threat. In the case of Saddam, it is far better to leave him

ated a stronger enemy since the leader has no opposing force from the inside to conquer him. So without taking out the main leadership in fact we have not helped democracy we have crushed it possibility. It is most important to cause chaos in any enemies system. I often do this in business when faced with an enemy who plays the Machiavellian way. Inner strife kills an enemy much faster than the advancing armies do, once you have crushed their will to fight it is all over for them anyway. As long as your opponent has the will to fight he is still a worthy adversary and a potential threat. In the case of Saddam, it is far better to leave him in a bad position just before killing him or helping his own former people kill him. We in that case were fighting a typical Machiavellian warrior who we had trained, he is a known quantity, and however the next leader of that country is not yet known. Saddam is now a known quantity and that quantity is now zero. Zero is a good quantity for an enemy; zero strength, zero life expectancy, zero money, zero power, zero control; zero is good.