Chinese military strategist Sun Tsu said in his "Art of Warfare" that to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence - supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

　　George W. Bush has chosen to wage a war, maybe in a matter of just a few hours. But like his lack of understanding of international affairs, Bush may not be so confident about what he can achieve from the war.

　　Will there be fewer terrorists in the world after he has "liberated" Iraq or will "terrorists" multiply after the war?

　　Numerous examples tell us that wars do not solve conflicts, but rather sow seeds of hatred among people.

　　The current conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis has shown that military supremacy will not bring peace. It has only resulted in endless tit-for-tat suicide bombing and revenge against civilians.

　　For decades, the US has wielded its power to impose economic sanctions against dozens of countries in the world, believing the leaders of those countries would surrender under pressure.

　　But I can confidently assert that the economic sanctions and threats of economic sanctions the US imposed on China in previous decades only united the Chinese people even more closely.

　　The failure of such simple-minded thinking has also been proven by its total failure for Cuba, which has survived under American sanctions for more than four decades.

　　American leaders have never understood why sanctions made those leaders more popular and powerful. They never realized that it's the innocent people, not the leaders, who actually suffered and died from their economic sanctions.

　　So the US should actually be held responsible for the tens of thousands of people who have suffered from US sanctions, whether those in Cuba in the past 40 years or those in Iraq for the past 10 years.

　　There is no doubt that tens of thousands of children and innocent people are going to die this time during the war in Iraq. Can George W. Bush justify why these people deserve to die as "collateral damage"? Should they or their families love Bush for "liberating" Iraq or should they join the "terrorists" to revenge themselves on American targets?

　　We always see the US Government making a huge fuss when an American citizen or soldier dies. But when dozens of children and women were mistakenly killed by American bombing in Afghanistan last year a simple "Sorry" seemed to be more than enough.

　　I didn't believe Bush so much in the very beginning when he said that military action would be the last resort. White House officials' attitude at the United Nations seeking a diplomatic solution never even seemed sincere this time over the Iraq issue. Bush had never planned to achieve supreme excellence in the first place.