Essentially, it said that all of their sophisticated games with millions of transactions boiled down to one simple game. When there were two players, whatever move was made by the first player, antagonistic and confrontational, or friendly and peaceful, then the second player had to "match or beat with a larger move" the same type of move that the first player made. Over multitudes of tactical all the way up to strategic moves, any scoring system always made the "matcher" always win, or tie the computer simulation. One would never lose.
This turns out to be similar to the game of tic tac toe. Interestingly, it also turns out to be useful in "diplomatic negotiations." It has been proposed that this was the diplomatic strategy that was used by President Reagan to bring down the Soviet Union, our last move being the announcement of SDI, a move the Soviets couldn't legitimately match.
President Bush's attacks on Al Quada are a direct "move" against the 9/11 attacks, a win or tie strategy. If Iraq is directly or indirectly involved in this continuing war of terrorism, then an attack on them is only another "move" in one small tactical battle in the overall "War on Terrorism" which was started on 9/11. This all is not really a "war" with Iraq. It is one small move in a much larger game. It is more of a "police action" (like Korea was) that is designed to take bad weapons out of play by international criminal terrorists.
OMNI magazine is out of print, and I have not been able to find the original article. But I believe that this shows why America has had to take agressive actions (to win or at least tie the game), and why the "pacifists" can legitimately be called losers, as their scheme can be shown to always lose any military or diplomatic game they might play. Hope this sheds some light on why our country is doing what it is doing. Regards to all