Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />there is no evidence that the Vilani would be reasonable.
There's no evidence that they would be unreasonable either. Or do you usually walk up to people in the street and punch them in the face because they might attack you at some point in the future?
</font>[/QUOTE]If the guy on the street is carrying a gun, has a history of violent crime, all I have is my bare hands or a knife and I feel threatened or feel that my daughter is threatened based on circumstances at the time, damn straight I might hit him first. But in that case I wouldn't just hit him in the face. I would take him down to the point that he is no longer a threat.
If, on the other hand he isn't a threat, if he doesn't appear to pose a threat to me or mine, and without knowledge of his history or background, as most people on the street fall into this category, then I probably won't act in a provocative manner.
Getting a bit topical, I think this discussion kinda highlights the massive differences between European and current American thinking. I mean, everyone's opinions on war in this discussion is guided to an extent by their cultures' view on the matter, and it seems clear to me that you think it's fine to strike pre-emptively out of paranoia and lack of knowledge at a perceived (not confirmed) threat before the other side can do anything. Which is a view that half of America at least believes at the moment (and I presume you're in that half).
I on the other hand think it's better to learn about the other culture, find out exactly what their motivations are, and go to war only as a last resort, if they are actively hostile towards you and all other avenues have been exhausted. That approach is wiser, and causes less problems in the long run. And despite what some people would have you believe, it's neither cowardly nor weak to do that.
And at the end of the day, realistically, the Terrans could never have won the IWs. For all your talk of showing strength, the Vilani could bring much more strength to bear on the upstarts and would crush them. The only reason they didn't was because the authors of the game didn't want them to. Using historical analogies can only go so far because in this case one side had "God" very much on their side - and that doesn't happen in the real world.
But I think any further discussion of this is going to veer into politics, and there's a board for that.
I didn't bring up current politics into this discussion. Nor do I intend to. However we don't have to go back all that far to find problems with your argument that the little guy always loses. Both World Wars, the little guy almost won. Especially in the second World War. Germany was a defeated country, they were economically ruined, had a small army and a smaller Navy. They weren't allowed to build Aircraft, or Battleships or Tanks. They did. In 1939 a bold offensive policy by the French and British after the invasion of Poland would have ended the threat, and crushed the German Army. Not giving in to the demands of Germany that they be allowed to have Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia would have stopped or at least delayed Germany. Instead Germany was allowed to pick the time and place of offensive operations. Take the forces it had used in Poland moved them back to the West and attack and roll right over Holland, Belgium and France. How did this happen? Because Europe let a force with superior tactics, if not superior weapon systems, and inferior numbers dictate the course of events. It took 4 years to kick the Germans back out of France and it was only accomplished in that time frame because, even though the Japanese attacked the US directly, the US put the primary emphasis on defeating Germany. Even though Germany did not directly threaten the US. Everything I have seen on the subject showed that the French actually had more and better tanks, in 1939. Yet they, even with the help of the British, fell, rather quickly.
Unlike WWII there is no large government that is isolated geographically from the Solomani that can come in and help/save the First Imperium. Superior tactics, getting and maintaining the initiative, attacking at points of your choosing instead of points where the enemy wants you to attack, can and historically has caused, cause an inferior force to beat a superior force.
Or as another example, the North Vietnamese, maintaining the initiative, attacking a vastly superior force, over a period of 20 years, defeating not one but two world powers.
The Afgans, backwards and seriously technologically inferior, defeated one of the worlds Super Powers. (Twice in their history.)
One more example from history, remember a little thing called the Spanish Armada?
Can you categorically state that only Deus Ex Machina caused the defeat of the Grand Empire of the Stars? Absolutely not. After all if that were the case we would all be speaking Latin, or Egyptian, possibly Sumerian or Farsi.
As far as the OTU is concerned it happened and there are adequate historic parallels to show that it could happen. THe political soapbox is not required here. And I am not going to pull it out.