War is just so...stupid.

[SundayAnon]

I'd love to say I'm being light-hearted, but I'm not really.

Isn't war just about the stupidest thing? I just don't get why leaders have to be so ridiculous. Don't they realise that if they stopped fighting they could have nice things?

Things like...maybe a Selfridges, a farmer's market, tapas restaurants, art exhibitions, and picnics.

Religious zealots aren't born zealots, and dictators are born dictators, what the fuck went wrong with those guys (always guys) to make them think they ruining everyone else's days/lives was more important than just rubbing along nicely together and having a decent time?

User5646382910 posted the answer to that on page 1. The full article is paywalled but there is a key bit of detail in the summary at the top;

They studied how often European rulers went to war between 1480 and 1913. Over 193 reigns, they found that states ruled by queens were 27% more likely to wage war than those ruled by kings

The troubles had started before Thatcher so you can't blame her for that either!

@TheaBrandt that thing about leaders being people who don't want to be, I'm pretty sure that idea is lifted out of Plato's philosophical text/book republic

@user1478172746 It's a common but idealistic misconception that hunter gatherer societies are/were more peaceful and egalitarian than settled or farming societies. There are plenty of tribes in e.g. Papúa New Guinea and the Amazonian rainforest who live predominantly by hunting and gathering but who experience high levels of inter- and intra-tribal violence. There's a mass grave dating from about 10,000 years ago in Kenya which seems to provide proof of interpersonal violence too.

Farming and the growth of settled 'states' absolutely enabled larger-scale conflict as capitalism meant resources (including people to serve as soldiers) were concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, but violence is very much an innate part of humanity.

@onlytea interesting statistic! I suspect that many female rulers throughout history have had to work hard to establish their power within a patriarchal system, which can mean deliberately presenting oneself as more aggressive or masculine in order to stave off opposition (cf Elizabeth I with her 'I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a man'). I imagine a lot of wars started by queens were started partly to prove that they weren't pushovers!

I think violence is also observable in primates. I vaguely remember a documentary years ago which concluded female Bonobos averted violence in the group by having sex with the males. Not sure if anyone else remembers it? It suggested the males were naturally more aggressive and that the females tried to prevent it, though I suspect there are other ways one could interpret their findings.

Exactly. And the people who are oppressed for generations and generations develop a deep seated hatred the likes of which anyone from a free nation cannot begin to comprehend. They try and fail for a peaceful agreement and sadly, a few generations on this turns into extremism, violence, terrorism and total lack of respect for human life, especially of the dominant nation. Meanwhile the innocent people of the oppressor's country / race are bewildered as to why this happens and why these people are so evil and angry. Its textbook, IRA, Hamas and a thousand other examples. Almost all wars could be avoided by peaceful means if the ones in power wanted it to be so. We can't comprehend it now because we don't get it. For some war, however brutal is better than the alternative (I mean from their narrow perspective).

The problem is if somebody had just slaughtered your family you wouldn’t give a shit about selfridges. You would remember it, want revenge and it would impact your family for generations to come.

Similarly if you oppress people for long enough they’re going to fight back hard in whatever way they can.

Absolutely nothing!! 😁

I believe with every fibre of my being that if there were more women in positions of power there would be less war.

(I don't just mean as heads of state)

I didn't say that she started it. Although she did wage the Falklands war.

I think that the "women 27% more likely to start a war" stat is misleading, because it omits the reasons why a woman is in charge to begin with, and how those reasons play into the likelihood of war.

@sekift I think you could be right. The female body is built to nurture life and I expect there will be a crossover with how women approach situations - whether they are mothers or not. While men have the capacity to create life via sperm they are not wired to grow, feed and keep alive incredibly fragile beings. So I think there's something in what you say, though there will be enormous variety amongst women as to how these traits manifest.

Yes, after the Argies started it!

Do you really think female leaders should just roll over and give in when their countries/territories are attacked?

Presumably you'd like a new leader in the Ukraine who'd just hand over whatever land/resources that Putin wanted?

What? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying the opposite - that the whole "ooooooooh everything would be better if women ruled the world and there was never ever any war" comments are misguided.

Reread the thread now to get a better idea of how humans start disagreements that on a bigger scale end up as wars.

Human psychology at its best.

Yes wars are extremely stupid because like a lot of arguments everyone loses in one way or another

That's the Garden of Eden myth of the left.

Would Russia have attacked Ukraine if a woman was in charge though?

Ukraine had to defend itself, but the cause was Russia.

Elizabeth I managed to keep two warring factions broadly peacefully coexisting for her reign. Margaret thatcher didn’t start the Falkland’s

The Putin / Hitler model of invading neighbours to me represents the ultimate in toxic masculinity

Of course to live on a world without war certain impossible changes would need to be made.

We (and moreover our governments) would have to stop hankering for power and money.

We (and moreover our governments) would need to decide to agree to share, or otherwise peacefully coexist, our land and resources.

And of course those things are unrealistic, idealistic, and counter to what we understand as human nature.

But the vast majority of people do want these things, a generally "easy life" (and for me, that's poking around the shops, buying a fancy loaf of bread, looking at some art, reading a book, watching a film).

I'm not saying that any of the existing conflicts could just be stopped and everything would be okay. If I was Israeli and my family had been abducted by Hamas, or if I was Palestinian and my home was under seige by Israel, of course I'd fight back.

But the whole thing, from the incendiary actions, to the responses, to the generational trauma and breaking of fragile peace with underlying tensions. It's just shit - I wish there was a humane way to reset (not in a Thanos way) and just go... "OK, we're in a pretty good spot, let's try this a different way now".

Interestingly enough ex Hamas leaders jihad Friday speech suggests they think they know how to end all wars. Most of us would no longer be alive or have to convert to Islam. However apparently Hamas is the answer to a war free world....He doesn't take into account that most conflicts in the Muslim world has been against other Muslim groups. Plus Muslim have killed more Muslims in the last 100 years than there enemy Israel ever have.

He said:

"When we speak about the army of Jerusalem and the Battle of the Promise of the Hereafter, we are not talking about liberating our land alone,'

'We believe in what our Prophet Muhammad said: 'Allah drew the ends of the world near one another for my sake, and I have seen its eastern and western ends. The dominion of my nation would reach those ends that have been drawn near me.'

Al-Zahar said he believes ultimately the whole world will fall into line with their views.

'The entire 510 million square kilometers of Planet Earth will come under [a system] where there is no injustice, no oppression, no Zionism, no treacherous Christianity and no killings and crimes like those being committed against the Palestinians, and against the Arabs in all the Arab countries, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and other countries,' he said.

I was reading a book once about the first and Second World War and there was a timeline and it was basically battle of blah blah- 1000 men dead, next day battle of such and such- 509 men dead. It was just so pointless

It's because they can op.

Big money in arms sales.

It's taken centuries to break free from absolute monarchy and religious zealots in Europe.
Unfortunately we are dealing with some civilization who are still in a medieval mentality.

"no injustice and no oppression" 🤔.... Really, sick fuck.