Modern "battles" are two groups of maybe a dozen people standing miles away from each other spraying bullets at tiny...

The Arabians have proved that technology is secondary to strategy, tactics, and discipline. Western civilization would still remain victorious due to these factors.

>people should risk their lives when they don't have to
>muh honor muh tradition
Arbitrary

It's funny how the murrifat infantry doctrine is designed to provide maximum amount of bomb orders to military-industrial complex.

t. numale bugman

The only people who die in war are those whom God decides is no better than a murderer

Why risk human lives when you can use drones and unmanned vehicles instead?

t.brainlet

Why risk two groups when you can have a champion battle?

the french revolutionary state was not a republic in the sense that its leaders were chosen by force rather than contract or vote. In this sense it became an oligarchy, rather than the modern constitutional republics which employ rule of many, which includes democracies

Because the fanbase still hate eachother after the fight, and will often fight over the outcome of the match anyway.

Even if I don't disagree with you on that point, there's still the fact that Athens did better militarily as a democracy than as an oligarchy, because it encourages the commoners to go further for the city which they were joint stakeholders in.
The idea that democracies and republics are somehow "bad" at war compared to oligarchies (do I have to bring up the Punic Wars?) and dictatorship has no basis in historical fact.
Now that I say that, Sparta has been called an oligarchy by many, but it still won the Peloponnesian War against the Athenian democracy. I guess there's no state that's perfect for waging war. Even the Spartans eventually lost to the Thebans, who followed a laxer form of oligarchy, while the arch-oligarchical Nazis lost to the American democracy and the USSR, which is in your definition another oligarchy.

Kingdoms and their evolution -Empires- are best for fighting wars. Not like the british of today, but like a Roman Emperor or the British Kings during Pax Britannica

How so? While the Roman Republic was able to topple Carthage, the rival its people considered their equal in strength, the Empire was unable to defeat their long time enemies in Persia.
When the Empires of Europe fought each other in the First World War, the result was a long, inefficient slaughter where the side with the most republican sentiment (not to say that Germany had its own democratic traditions) eventually came out on top. As I said, there is no perfect system that makes a country or people better at war, there's only economic, social, technological and personal factors that let certain nations have the advantage at certain times.

This sounds like a quote, is it?

Then the losing side gets asshurt and kills the otherside with guns and conquers their land anyways

Genuinly curious do you have any sources for that. I know the M.I.C. would mess around politics to start conflicts but actually affecting doctrine is something I haven't heard before.

Isn't it obvious? Murrifat infantry shoots at the general direction of the enemy to pin them and then calls in an airstrike done by F-35 with 10million USD price tag bomb

"Isn't it obvious" is not a source dude.

>get shot from a mile away, pulled away from front line, get patched up and quite possibly fully recover
or
>get head caved in, stabbed through the chest, run over by a charging horse, trampled by hundreds of men, or impaled on a spear
gee op i can't choose

Every time a western/eastern country has fought against an Arabian military they have won.

Guerrilas aren't armies

And die in slow and shitty wars? No fucking way.

this

even going back to late 19th century warfare would be terrible

It turns out bombing the living shit out of people when they're pinned down is really, really effective, but these are the Americans we're talking about, so they can't do anything right. They're not allowed to

>Every time a western/eastern country has fought against an Arabian military they have won.

That's complete and utter bullshit. If it had any semblance of truth to it, Arabians would still live in Arabia and not across all of North Africa, Middle East and a bit of Southern Asia.

They are where they are because they won a boatload of wars against Romans, Persians, Egyptians, Turks and whatnot. Your hate boner for them can't change history.

this lol

>ywn have some poet autistically describe your acts of valor and violence in gory hunting metaphors
Why live?

What are you even saying?

You cited examples were the technology was in equal ground if not above western countries

Every time when a western country with higher technology fought an eastern society they utterly destroyed them.

Strategies can´t beat a nuke
The opium war?

Arabians only live in Arabia today because west does not actually want the land, beside Israel it does not have anything the west want it.

The Oil was secured, they tried to create stability but the desert niggers continue on killing everything and mostly themselves

It would actually cost too much to western countries to colonization there, and today it is not something acceptable anymore

So accept, middle east will be forever a shit hole, Unless Israel of course