What if ...... no-one had conquered any nation

[Ragman]

Cos the woman told him to

I would listen to her.

 

[layoutshooter]

Cos the woman told him to

It was to escape the noise!

 

[cheri1122]

I am not buying into the premise that most women are peaceful.
Why not? Compare rates of any violent behavior, and men will beat women [sorry!] every time. It's part biological [women give birth to and nurture the offspring], part cultural [women are the 'weaker' or 'fairer' sex] and part physical: women lack the muscle mass of men. [Yes, that can be overcome, but it's not the norm.]

Could be they are just as aggressive, only more subtle.
It's not a matter of subtle, it's a matter of expressing aggression - women have had to develop methods to replace brute force. Primarily negotiation, supplemented with reason, and the occasional stoop to extortion. Which sounds like precisely what a successful business leader would do, you ask me.

How many men worldwide have lost their lives because of an argument with a woman

Not anywhere near as many as women who have lost their lives in exactly that scenario.

or an argument over a woman or an argument instigated by a woman?

So that's the woman's fault?! Really? Really?!!!

Little Bo Peep exists only in fairy tales.

But women exist in real life, and men ought to be wise enough to benefit from the strengths women can offer, just as women benefit from the strenghth of men. It should be a collabaration, not a contest, and that's pretty much the gist of the article: the nature of 'war' is changing, and the tactics that worked in the past [killing people & breaking things] are also changing. The war against terrorism requires winning the hearts and minds of the people. Not the terrorists, [they are lost causes to reason] but the noncombatant civilians who can do a great deal to help or hinder either side.
Women have become as adept as men at inflicting violence with weapons, now, if men would become as adept as women at solving confrontation without resorting to violence, war will be the last resort that it ought to be now.
It really is an incredibly stupid waste of resources and potential, in most cases.

 

[aristotle]

I am not buying into the premise that most women are peaceful.
Why not? Compare rates of any violent behavior, and men will beat women [sorry!] every time. It's part biological [women give birth to and nurture the offspring], part cultural [women are the 'weaker' or 'fairer' sex] and part physical: women lack the muscle mass of men. [Yes, that can be overcome, but it's not the norm.]

Could be they are just as aggressive, only more subtle.
It's not a matter of subtle, it's a matter of expressing aggression - women have had to develop methods to replace brute force. Primarily negotiation, supplemented with reason, and the occasional stoop to extortion. Which sounds like precisely what a successful business leader would do, you ask me.

How many men worldwide have lost their lives because of an argument with a woman

Not anywhere near as many as women who have lost their lives in exactly that scenario.

or an argument over a woman or an argument instigated by a woman?

So that's the woman's fault?! Really? Really?!!!

Little Bo Peep exists only in fairy tales.

But women exist in real life, and men ought to be wise enough to benefit from the strengths women can offer, just as women benefit from the strenghth of men. It should be a collabaration, not a contest, and that's pretty much the gist of the article: the nature of 'war' is changing, and the tactics that worked in the past [killing people & breaking things] are also changing. The war against terrorism requires winning the hearts and minds of the people. Not the terrorists, [they are lost causes to reason] but the noncombatant civilians who can do a great deal to help or hinder either side.
Women have become as adept as men at inflicting violence with weapons, now, if men would become as adept as women at solving confrontation without resorting to violence, war will be the last resort that it ought to be now.
It really is an incredibly stupid waste of resources and potential, in most cases.

Growing up with three older sisters, my brothers and I remain convinced females are more argumentative.

 

[layoutshooter]

And FAR more competitive.

 

[Rocketman]

I am not buying into the premise that most women are peaceful. Could be they are just as aggressive, only more subtle. How many men worldwide have lost their lives because of an argument with a woman or an argument over a woman or an argument instigated by a woman? Little Bo Peep exists only in fairy tales.

Reminds me of a story my brother told me. His involvement was after the fact. He went to repurchase or repo a farm tractor he had sold to a married couple...kinda close to where I live now...iirc. Anyway, the story he was told was that the husband had been missing for a couple months when the investigations began. They found him....in the field behind the house. She had run him through a wood chipper, scattered him out in the field, then plowed the field and replanted it! No guns involved!! Well, maybe for the initial killing?

Oh, btw...I think her new boyfriend was charged in the murder as well.

Sleep well tonight my married friends!

 

[cheri1122]

Growing up with three older sisters, my brothers and I remain convinced females are more argumentative.

That's debatable [hahahaha ] but not the point. The question is whether there would be less war, invasions, conquering forces, etc.

 

[layoutshooter]

That's debatable [hahahaha ] but not the point. The question is whether there would be less war, invasions, conquering forces, etc.

None what so ever. Women can be just as nasty, evil and aggressive as men. People are people. The article itself was just childish. Written by a twit.

 

[aristotle]

That's debatable [hahahaha ] but not the point. The question is whether there would be less war, invasions, conquering forces, etc.

Since much of the world's population still lives in a male-dominant society, we cannot fairly test these questions. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had no qualms sending her nation's military into battle as needed.

 

[layoutshooter]

Since much of the world's population still lives in a male-dominant society, we cannot fairly test these questions. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had no qualms sending her nation's military into battle as needed.

And dragged the U.S. in with them too. Darn near starting a much larger conflict.

 

[cheri1122]

Since much of the world's population still lives in a male-dominant society, we cannot fairly test these questions. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had no qualms sending her nation's military into battle as needed.

Of course we live in a male dominated society, and of course one can find all kinds of exceptions to the rule [ie: bloodthirsty women & meek men] but the world is changing, and so is the nature of the enemy.
Do you think force is always & only the appropriate method to fight terrorism? Or does that tend to backfire, engendering sympathy for the terrorists among those innocent civilians caught in the crossfire?

 

[aristotle]

And dragged the U.S. in with them too. Darn near starting a much larger conflict.

We have a mutual defense pact to be honored.

 

[layoutshooter]

We have a mutual defense pact to be honored.

Better read the documents that were just declassified. Things went beyond the treaty. Just sayin, just happened to be there at the time. Have a pretty darn good idea what happened. Many things were outside of the norm.

 

[aristotle]

Of course we live in a male dominated society, and of course one can find all kinds of exceptions to the rule [ie: bloodthirsty women & meek men] but the world is changing, and so is the nature of the enemy.
Do you think force is always & only the appropriate method to fight terrorism? Or does that tend to backfire, engendering sympathy for the terrorists among those innocent civilians caught in the crossfire?

I don't think anyone said force is always and only the appropriate method to fight terrorism. Military force is one tool available. We aren't going to win over the hearts and minds of Muslim radicals nor their sympathizers, for example.

 

[aristotle]

Better read the documents that were just declassified. Things went beyond the treaty. Just sayin, just happened to be there at the time. Have a pretty darn good idea what happened. Many things were outside of the norm.

When was the last time the "rules of war" were followed? It's window dressing designed to make us feel good about ourselves.

 

[layoutshooter]

When was the last time the "rules of war" were followed? It's window dressing designed to make us feel good about ourselves.

I was not speaking about the "rules of war". I was speaking about vital resources being pulled of targets that were FAR more dangerous to the United State, and England for that matter, to cover a minor problem that ONLY affected England. Those primary targets of interest were left un-monitored.

As far as the rules of war there is only really one, win or lose.

 

[cheri1122]

I don't think anyone said force is always and only the appropriate method to fight terrorism.

Force [military] has always been the deciding factor, whether it's used or just threatened. What I said is that terrorism is a different kind of war, so does it call for a different approach?

Military force is one tool available.
We aren't going to win over the hearts and minds of Muslim radicals nor their sympathizers, for example.

Of course we can't 'win' the terrorists [Muslim or otherwise], but don't you think the battles can recruit sympathy for them, rather than against? When the US bombs and occupies a foreign country, the civilians are killed, injured, and their lives are made a living hell - how likely are they to sympathize with us?
OTOH, if we could enlist their help instead of forcing our will upon them, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't get the kind of aid they enjoy from the civilians now.
Meanwhile, freezing assets seems to be a pretty useful policy that doesn't cause harm to noncombatants - the terrorists need a lot of money to pay for weapons...

 

[layoutshooter]

Freezing assets won't stop them for one second. Russia and China give them all they need. Most of the weapons being used came from there, including much of the munitions used to produce IED's.

 

[cheri1122]

And are Russia and China giving them weapons for free?
Don't forget that Russia was once our ally too - times change, enemies change, allies change. If we don't change, we will lose.

 

[layoutshooter]

And are Russia and China giving them weapons for free?
Don't forget that Russia was once our ally too - times change, enemies change, allies change. If we don't change, we will lose.

Yep, for now. They also are the primary trainers on IED production. Russia was never really an ally. We really should have let Germany take them out and THEN finished off Germany, 25 million or so would never had been murdered. Russia and China are also working on the nuke program in Iran and North Korea. No one else could be and neither Iran or NK have the expertise to do it on their own.

We change all the time, nothing is static. Never has been. Problem is we have no competent leadership on the civilian side of the house and they keep screwing up.