Yes. I watched a documentary about the Destruction wreaked on countries that fell to the Roman Empire. Once they won, the Romans set to destroying the cities, and buried the places under the rubble.

They then set to rebuilding to reinforce Roman power. Interestingly, often a coliseum was one of the first items.

War is incredibly wasteful of resources and people. But it isn't going to go away totally because it is part of our genetics.

Remind me again on how you use really poor deflection methods, and accomplish nothing?

Since you read the thread so far, that's the only thing.

I am not defending the action in Iran, or Ukraine, or wherever else humans are happily killing each other in 2026. My personal analysis is that it is a big mistake. I'll even spell it out the background and my simple question again:

Humanity has engaged in "Killing the Other", as long as we've had history, and even before, Notably at the site of Jebel Sahaba, committed against a population associated with the Qadan culture of far northern Sudan. The cemetery contains a large number of skeletons that are approximately 14,000 years old, around half of the skeletons with arrowheads embedded in them. This is the earliest scientifically determined instance of warfare.

We even engage in internecine warfare, where we kill those within our group, not "The Other". And we haven't stopped. This is not conjecture that we haven't stopped - these are verifiable facts.

Humans are not the only species to intrinsically engage in war against themselves, Pan Troglodytes (Chimpanzee) is quite violent as well.

Early History shows this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (that page has a lot of good stuff - and is the jump point for the series on War. And oh, goodness, the Roman Empire....

So my question, which is quite simple follows: Since humans simply will engage in warfare, some group will be in the lead position.

If not the USA, tell me who you want to be in the lead position?

I don't disagree. But the easy manipulation is because of the genetic propensity to violence. It may have helped humanity to survive in our earlier evolution, but especially now, threatens our existence.

Once again, I agree. And too far left or right becomes totalitarian as well. But my original question pretty much remains unanswered. There are too many armed conflicts around the world wo suggest that we don't like what we are doing.

War is a horrible waste of people, materials, and money. Of course we shouldn't ever make war.

My point is not about the USA, or Iran, or China, or the Great Orange shitgibbon. If it he or Putin disappeared tonight, war wouldn't go away. Because there are places where the US or Russians are not fighting. https://www.instagram.com/p/DE....

My point, and my only point is that as long as there are humans, there will be wars. Killing other humans is a core competency of humans, it has been proven over and over again.

So anyone who understands that needs to ask themselves, who do you want to be the war leaders? Because if the USA went away tomorrow, not much would change.

Blaming it on Donnie and the Epstein files is all well and good, but that's not the question I've been asking. That this present action is ill thought out is hard to deny as a major screwup there are still all the other "actions" going on, with our without him. With or without the USA.

You mom is quite happy with mine - She's a really nice lady.

Christ, this thread is degenerating..... ;^)

So what are you saying? OP says teh US is doing it an outdated way, You apparently are disagreeing with him.

Allow me to penetrate your narrative. What is the way to avoid your mortal enemy - the USA - from warring with anyone, that will not just have another nation take over? If all you have is antiTrump rhetoric, well - that's all you got. We are not talking about the demented orange shitgibbon, We're talking about the claim that technological superiority is an outdated paradigm for war fighting.

How to take many words to say you don't get it without saying you don't get it.

You would appear to hate the USA - no problem. Tell me who should replace us, to enter a new world of conflict free, eternal peace.

You do know that that would be the first time in the history of humanity, that situation would exist. The USA is not an angel, I don't agree with the present action at all - you apparently believe the conflict free model, where all are happy, and no predominant country is out there, all that needs to happen is to eliminate the USA

Your turn to pick what country that would be.

So you would not defend yourself?

You have an interesting approach. It is the warfare version of telling a depressed person "Don't be depressed, you idiot" And thinking you magically cured their depression.

The problem is, simply telling a person they are an idiot because they have an understanding of human nature isn't necessarily an intelligent statement.

Humans have been violent creatures since the start. And humans apparently gain something out of killing other humans, or we wouldn't have done it continuously as we evolved.

It is in our genetics. Intrinsically linked with your survival instincts.

And at this point, we need to accept it, and work to throttle it back, because we are at a point where our tendency to kill other humans can end up ending all of humanity

But it takes recognition of that first part that we are working against our nature. The best way IMO is working to end seeing different groups, countries, and so called "races" as the other is the first step.

We should all be completely peaceful and non-violent toward all others.

Problem is, until our genetics are all altered to remove all of the violent tendencies, yet none of the survival instincts, humans won't do that.

Humans by and large, are not all that nice. We should be nice, but we aren't.

Yeah, I mean we here in teh US are hardly angels, and at present one might not be off base to question the competence of the present crew, but for me, history shows the world could do a whole lot worse.

Because I would fix the problems. Because I was capable of fixing the problems. There was no question that women were given preferential treatment in hiring. The goal was at least 50/50 mix. At one point in my department, I was the only male.

Problem was that sex/gender was now the most important qualification. Meritocracy was considered bad. And yes, I'm damn good at what I do. Technical problems are solved by ability, not sex. And they do need solved.

So we had a bifurcated system with a bifurcated problem. I was by far, the most competent person. I was by far the most socially adept, and I became what you might call an adjunct directorate member. It was a situation that developed over time.

And the others? They knew they were not likely to be terminated because they were checkbox people, so the things they didn't want to do got shifted to me. I would travel, do dirty work, work with the directorate, come in early, stay late, and not for nothing, I had the social skills, enough to be blunt without making a mess. Also not for nothing, I'm a pattern weaver.

They took lots of smoke breaks, hour and a half lunches, and left at 4:30, and shifted anything too hard to me. So there is part of why I'd get troubleshooting calls while on vacation.

And when the downturns happened, and they always do, I survived.

So yes, there was a systemic problem where I worked. Gender politics shaped my department (and others) Meritocracy was devalued.

But I take it that you do know that was/is the gestalt of the university environment, don't you?

It isn't that there are not highly competent women out there. Two of the most competent workers I ever worked with are women, I've worked with many top notch woman scientists and engineers. Two of my favorite people to work under were women.

They are top notch because of their minds, not their genitals. And when you hire based on genitals, you don't often get top notch.

Out of curiosity, What exactly is the proper modern approach to warfare?

We have a couple main approaches, The superiority model and the cannon fodder model.

An example of the cannon fodder model, look at the Soviet defense of Stalingrad in WW2, or to present day Ukraine.

Some times a superiority model can morph into cannon fodder, as in say Japan's Zero warplane in WW2. In 1940, it was the big kahuna, by 1945, it was used for suicide missions. Pretty much the ultimate cannon fodder action.

Is the actual desire to purposely weaken the US Military, to make certain it cannot overwhelm anyone?

And here is where the problem arises. Humans are not peaceful. We have a long, dark history of killing each other. There are winners and losers. There is churn.

Which is all to say - who do you want to be worldcop?

At present, you have the US, China, less likely but in the mix are the EU, Russian Federation. And less likely than that is most other countries.

I'm certain a lot of people might pick the EU - but if you think the USA is the epicenter of evil, let us not forget that Europe had a genocide in teh 1990's, and before that, well, there is that whole WW2 debacle. Who do you want, disregarding leadership, but a country's general direction? Pick one.

That's because only men are supposed to put the toilet seat down....

I had the same thing happen to me once, Saw a sign for Psychotherapist, and my mind read it as "Psycho the rapist". Thought to myself, "would have to be a psycho to do that."

Even when they are functioning for a bit, that fold is a real distraction. I looked at one once, and it was a big nope. You can't unsee the fold. I can't be the only person who wants to look at a nice, flat screen.

Conjecture - as the Millennials are reaching the age of presbyopia, I wonder if that is driving some of this foldable technology?