"We have been fighting on this planet for 5000 years and we should take advantage of their experience."
Lessons in better tactics ain't the most important learning to draw from that reading, General.
Lessons in better tactics ain't the most important learning to draw from that reading, General.
Yes, sometimes they turn to the military without exploring all avenues to peace. Whether or not those are good decisions can be long debated. But do not put the onus for peace on him. Rather, be thankful that he is capable to do his job. The responsibility for peace lays on the shoulders of political leaders and diplomats.
Quoting the only line that ever stuck with me from Alien vs. Predator:
"Why do you have a gun?"
"It's like a condom. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it but not have it."
I think all wars since WWI were probably unnecessary but they were fought for economic reasons. It was all about money.
What about all the military coups throughout history, where a general decided the politico commanding him wasn't a very good leader, and took his place?
Have you read any good books from 6,000 years ago lately?
> Do you not adapt because you cannot conceptualize faster than the enemy’s adaptation? (Darwin has a pretty good theory about the outcome for those who cannot adapt to changing circumstance — in the information age things can change rather abruptly and at warp speed, especially the moral high ground which our regimented thinkers cede far too quickly in our recent fights.)
Now you could argue this number, but before you do, ask yourself: do you actually have any experience in this area, or are you just being a pedantic douche? The answer to that question will determine if you should reply.
I also think the guy who asked about books written 5,000 years ago is pretty funny. Well, actually, there is writing dating back to 3,200 BC. If you're going to be a pedant, at least get it right.