I still love the poster from the 60's that said "What if We Had a War an Nobody Came."
War is not inevitable. We are a pacifist family. From the time our children were young, we have taught them to look for non-violent solutions to problems and conflicts. Now, they are grown men spreading this thinking in the world.
People often point to Hitler and say that his actions made war necessary. This is very limited thinking. We could have employed other solutions. If Hitler emerged today, what would we do? We would initiate economic sanctions, create total isolation, cut off natural resources like oil and minerals.
Even a madman like Hitler could be stopped without resorting to war.
No, but humans are not yet willing to do what it takes to end war, i.e. educate all, end poverty, become sustainable, etc.
Who are these people who say that war is "inevitable" because Chimps do it?
Chimps also eat bananas and bananas aren't inevitable!
War is clearly NOT inevitable, as Paul Chappell explains in his three books. Wars benefit the few at the expense of the many; wars can be avoided by mutual understanding and a willingness to address each others' needs; wars reflect a win-lose mindset, whereas the obvious intedependence of modern life demonstrates that there is no US/THEM; we're all in it together, so we need a win/win approach. Moreover, modern wars always end with negotiated settlements. If we don't have an us vs. them mentality, we can skip the bloodshed and begin with negotiation. Since the majority of people don't benefit from war, we can become the force that advocates negotiation and rejects war.
Speaking of gender and war -- It's testosterone! Plain and simple. It's not the way men are raised as the caller said. And look at how men rape during war, totally opposite to how women (largely the innocent victims) are.
I'm wondering if your guest is familiar with the work of Marshall Rosenburg and his Non-Viloent Communication framework of dealing with violence and aggression on an interpersonal and societal level?
Mr Rosenburg has created a method of communication that is based on awareness of needs and is used by therapists and diplomats around the world to negotiate conflicts.
Is this the type of thing that you're considering when you talk about a societal change regarding war?
In the long run, war is inevitable. But strangely, at any given moment, for any group of people at any specific point in history, war is perfectly avoidable.
I believe that until the human race stops wanting what the neighbors have (be it land, money, religion) there will be conflict. Not necessarily violence but confrontation. However, without the humanurge for what others have or even what we fantisize others have, progress would lessen.
I believe we have to continualy strive in order to move forward and sometimes thinking others have more than we do, causes that progress.
Fr. Robert Herrell
No, war is not inevitable. Peace is, though. We can know peace soon if that becomes our focus as a country and world. It can be done. Or, if we wait, there will be the peace of a dead planet moving around a star, like Venus or Mars. The choice is ours. Do we put away our swords, or do we teach strength and justice with a drone and a bomb? Some times I weep and I pray.
I believe that war is not inevitable. I have always thought war to be ludicrous and it appalling that the majority have been conditioned to believe that war is necessary and servicing it is noble. Looking at it from the potential of human evolution, through a separation from our individual egos we can reach a different level of consciousness. It is difficult to know if we will make it as a human race ultimately, but we are seeing signs of a greater awareness. Perhaps over a long time we will be able to discover that which we are ultimately meant to as humans, I believe, which is an inner peace which is available to anyone in sickness and in health, in poverty and wealth. A love and a joy for the mystery of the world, for something bigger than even who we are collectively...a trust that everything is ok as it is and is as it should be and that we do not have to take control. It is such a great challenge for us today because we are not yet there, but we are showing each other the way. We just need to take each day and decide to choose kindness to witness the power of love instead of hate. Take a small step and try to be calm in the face of conflict and you will discover the power to diffuse it. It is truly amazing.
Since war is very costly, the powerful often use other means in impose their will but the nevertheless the result are the same: death (no health-care), destruction (global warming), economic sanctions (500k+ Iraqi children deaths) etc. If we expand the definition of war to include these options the powerful employ, war is not only inevitable, it is ubiquitous!
RE: Discussion on women in peace-building roles with Michelle Bachelet . The fact that the vast majority of women lack access to education and are not free to vote etc, is the major issue. Poor health care, poor education, constant risk of violence prevents women from being in a position where they can contribute to peace-making, peace-building and peace-keeping. No one can say whether women would be more effective in peace-building, conflict resolution roles because of how few women have been granted access to these processes. Until we have equal representation on a global scale, where women have equal quality of living as men, we can't really start the discussion of how women in power would react, respond and act in conflict resolution. Personally, I think it's counter-productive to try and prove women would be better at such roles because it opens up a "are women-better-than-men" debate. What needs to be said is, can women, without gender-profiling, have equitable representation and be part of the processes that affect them.
No, because there won't be any war once the human race is extinct. If we limit the range to the existence of the human race, then the answer is yes.
I was listening to the show earlier today and there was discussion that women in more powerful positions would reduce war, but this is exposed as incorrect when you study the female leaders of the past. Gandhi, Meir, Thatcher, Merkel, and Gillard have all been involved in wars during their terms.
Whether its religion, territory, natural resources, culture, or just eccentric rulers, war will always be inevitable. There might be an extended period of peace if one day we form a joint world economic system, but ultimately there will be a shortage of food, water, natural resources, or simple hatred that will beget more war.
No. War is not inevitable. We saw that when the US and Soviet leaders stood eye to eye but nobody pulled the trigger. Why? Because the wealthy on both sides would have been destroyed, too. If the wealthy leaders' and those they love's lives were threatened personally by any war, they'd be clamoring in the streets to end it.
I do think that war's inevitable. I just returned from Sarajevo,BH.
I believe like your guest said that there are maybe 2% who are sociopaths, but the problem is that some sociopaths are charismatic enough and power driven to achieve positions of power and influence.Then what happensas some Sociologists have stated "64% of people will listen and not question those in power AND go along, 34% will listen, QUESTION, BUT go along; only 2% will question AND not go along.
There have been studies that research what separates the 3 groups of neighbors who become involved in a war of genocide. One group descends into joining in the persecution of their neighbors/friends, a second group doesn't join in the persecution but does nothing to aid the persecuted i.e. of the Jews in Germany; the Muslims in Bosnia; the third group that actually helped their persecuted neighbors were a minority and when studied were found to be people who "think outside the box" in other words (in my opinion) that 2% who are the "free thinkers"
There will always be the sociopaths and with the breakdown of the family unit maybe there'll be a lot more than 2% of the population becoming Sociopaths.
Yes, so long as a powerful few can exert dominion over bewildered, enchanted and compliant populations while reaping monstrous profits, war is not just inevitable it's eternal.
No! War is a symptom of human history, not human nature. Man has been able to produce enough for everyone for some decades so the economic causes can be solved. The worldwide peace movement is at an all time high and growing. Conflict resolution is a growing field of action. The belief in war's inevitability is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and as people stop believing it, it will no longer manifest.
Is War a male phenomenon? by Joseph Racioppi
Any student of history is forced to study war. It appears war is part of the human condition. It must be, since mankind partakes in it so often. I say mankind because I always thought it was obvious that war was a male phenomenon.
Of course, there were exceptions to the rule; just look at this website titled: Woman as Warriors in History. And I am aware there are several examples of woman leaders who sent troops into battle. Queen Boadicea led the Iceni against the Romans and inflicted serious damage before she was defeated; Catherine the Great is another example, as is Margaret Thatcher in more modern times.
Still, most of the combatants in the wars throughout history were men. I think there is a good argument to make that testosterone is the cause of much of the conflict in the world. Boys are more aggressive and competitive and physically stronger than woman. Please don't give me examples of how some women can do the same things as men. (Forget football, women can't even play professional baseball.) But that's not the issue here.
Freud said civilization is controlling man's aggressiveness. I agree, but are we really civilized? Look at the 20th century. Over nine million (mostly men) were killed in World War I, also known as the "Great War" (now there's an oxymoron). Nine million is just the number of dead. Millions more were wounded and maimed.
And what did WWI accomplish? Does any serious historian really believe the US entered WWI to: "make the world safe for democracy"? Considering that England, France and Belgium were colonial powers, this was an absurd claim. World War I certainly wasn't the "War to end all wars" since they did it all over again twenty one years later. Only this time, the death toll was about fifty million.
Bertrand Russell, the great British mathematician/philosopher, wrote about the subject of war in his "Principles of Social Reconstruction" (1916). He said: "The ultimate fact from which war results is the fact that a large proportion of mankind have an impulse to conflict rather than harmony". He also admitted that perhaps there was no adequate solution the problem. Russell was vilified and briefly jailed for his anti-war views.
Can war be summarized as boys playing with toys, i.e. guns, tanks, ships and airplanes? Niall Ferguson, in his book "The Pity of War" theorizes that the soldiers rather enjoyed the experience (he was writing about WWI). Would there be less war if the heads of state were mostly women? Gerry Spence, the great trial lawyer, said in his book "From Freedom to Slavery":
..."the world, suffering through its tragic history of war, genocide, starvation, ignorance, and misery, has been under the nearly exclusive domination of men from the onset of civilization. It would be a risk-free experiment were women to take over the sole leadership of the world for the next ten thousand years, considering the miserable record men have established as leaders throughout our dismal history."
The Iraq war claimed another two New Jerseyans this week. Here is a list of New Jersey war dead with pictures. Ironically, right near the top is a photo of a woman killed in action.
After September 11th, most of the country wanted to kick some ass. It didn't even matter whose ass (as evidenced by the near unanimous support of the Iraq invasion). We had to do something, right?
I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark
And whistled early with the lark
In winter trenches, cowed and glum
With crumps and lice and lack of rum
He put a bullet through his brain
No one spoke of him again
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go
Suicide in the Trenches, by S. Sassoon