What is it about Testosterone that makes men BLISS out in war? Does it remind them of winning at football? Or hunting? Are males hard-wired to stalk and kill meat, and failing to find any wooly mammoths, find third world natives equally fun to shoot? To understand why they might love it, it occurs to me that primitive male householders got nervous in their little straw huts. ANYTHING could come trotting in, rob, plunder, steal his women. A man could build a house with a door that locks or he could build himself a palace inside a fort but covetous enemies could still get in-- so every King or aristocrat needed a palace guard. Then there's the stress of having a palace, being a target of envy. Then every Chief has the fear of 'being toppled' . You'd think standing armies would take care of that, that an army would be valium to a king --until the thought occurs to him that his soldiers could turn on him and take his palace. So he needs audacious amounts of stuff to salary them, to buy their loyalty and spy on the soldiers. Then, with this lovely army, he can go out and steal another King's salt or grain. Why stop there? Steal his GOLD. One foray, he gets a treasure chest and some new wives, a lot of salt and grain. When he wins that war he has a hit of endorphins and starts to be a war addict. And from all that pirate booty come the perqs. King stands in his gold toga at the head of his army, those legions of goose-stepping flunkies passing before him! A guy can get addicted to that! How does a King move from Majesty to despotic dictator? Paranoia. Too much sending flunkies to kill anyone who looks disloyal.
So just being born male is the route to Hell. And men will remain men. It is an inbuilt nature of men to enter into egotistic war of dominance and create war-like killing machines. Women are more tolerant and "life nurturing," and if they have any 'say' in the society, may slow the macho murder down. But in a Syrian or Saudi Arabian type culture, women do not speak up. Excessive male dominance assures endless bravado.
We have that today in Syria. The British and American will think twice about humanity's safety before triggering a war-like situation because of a female dominated political structure. Too much male hormone creates war and too much female dominance creates a 'red-light street society' because generally women hate working hard like men even though they have to at times and making a living on one's back makes a gal rich but doesn't win her sons' respect so it engenders a lot of neurotic boys & tends to decay the entire society.
Today we have a KING running RUSSIA (Putin,) and an equally PSYCHO BASHER ASS**** JUNIOR in SYRIA. Those two Kings are close friends. Along comes AMERICA to fund rebels to TOPPLE Syria and you have provocation for a scrimmage. A bar fight. Two to one. Russia is squaring up for a fight with America over Syria. Is America going to get all macho and go in guns blazing? No. We were lucky enough (I mean that,) to get a gay president. Google obama + homosexual + gay... as search terms. Over a million stories on it. So, we are safe from HIS macho, he's gentle like a woman but the oligarchs who run him? That's where the danger lies. A yogi pal of mine said: "The film image of guys enjoying being in war IS NOT the way it really is. Sure, there're some who get their rocks off on it, but that's a tiny, sick minority. Most of the combatants are terrified and the PTSD statistics prove it out. The ones who're really battle happy are the poltiicians that send other people's young kids to war for their own glory."
* * *
*
A British researcher who considers Churchill a villain and Hitler an
okay guy wrote: " The info is somewhat skewed. Historically, i.e., the
last 600 years or so, Britain has been the aggressor. As for Russia and
Syria, the writer again has his wires crossed. Tsar Vlad took Russia out
of the hands of the Russian Mafia, the reptiles, and placed it on an even
keel to rebuild anew from the roots up. No other nation in the would could
have done the same. Syria was a fine peaceful country held together and
overseen by President Assad - until the thugs of Anglo-American-French-AsraHelli-Saudi
Arabia evil started sending terrorists to murder and slaughter"
I asked him to cite his sources.
ALSO FOUND ONLINE: "As we speak, Syrian government supporters (granted, not everybody) are welcoming Sergei Lavrov in Damascus. Confirmation that the U.S. and its allies are studying their military options for helping the anti-Assad rebels in Syria is a worrying development on a number of levels, not least of which is the prospect of the West becoming embroiled in a direct confrontation with the Russians.
The West – and that includes Britain – needs to proceed with great caution
before it gets too closely involved
in the Syrian crisis. (First, Obama has two wars going, China and Iran.
He can't start on a third!) As with the Libya situation last year, we still
have no clear idea who the rebels are in Syria, or what their ultimate
objective might be. As in Iraq, you take out the dictator, you get twenty
to replace him, each fighting the other.
The city of Homs, the centre of the anti-Assad rebellion, is a known
center for Islamist extremists, and if all Western intervention achieves
is the replacement of the Assad regime with an Iranian-style Islamist
dictatorship, then we will have scored a monumental own goal.
Of deeper concern, though, is the possibility that the U.S. could find
itself involved in a direct military confrontation with Russia over
the
future of Syria's destiny. We have been here before, of course, during
the 1980s when, at the height of the Cold War, Moscow and Washington
fought a proxy war over the fate of neighbouring Lebanon.
Even though U.S. President Ronald Reagan deployed thousands of U.S.
Marines to Beirut, the Americans were eventually sent packing. During
that conflict Russia backed the Syrians, who in turn used the
Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia to carry out a series of devastating
terrorist attacks against the Americans, ultimately forcing them to
withdraw their forces from Lebanon.
The Cold War might be consigned to the history books, but a similar
confrontation could easily arise if Washington decides to become engaged
militarily in Syria to protect anti-government rebels.
This week's visit by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Damascus
has highlighted Syria's importance to Moscow. The Syrian port of Tartus
is Russia's only military base outside the old Soviet Union and, at
a
time when the West is strengthening its ties throughout the Arab world,
the Russians regard Syria as a vital strategic asset. Consequently
any
attempt by the Western powers to meddle in Syria's internal affairs
is
likely to prompt a robust response from Moscow.
One of the reasons the Lebanese civil war dragged on for fifteen years
was that the conflict ended up being caught in a turf war between
Washington and Moscow. Fear that a similar fate could soon befall Syria.
<===BACK
TO A WORLD FULL OF WAR, DIPLOMACY THE REMEDY