People who say that fundamentally misunderstand war. War is a positive influence on human progress. War ensures the conflict and change that is so vital to life. Without wars civilization would have started and ended with the Sumerians, war demolishes aging and stagnant cultures with new, vigorous ones. Without war we would not have a fraction of the scientific and technological knowledge that we currently posses. War is a method for opposing tyranny and injustice as often as for imposing it. It is simply an extremely necessary and vital part of human life, it will never be eradicated.

You are right women start wars as well, female leaders have been every bit as willing to fight other nations as have their male counterparts. This conveniently gives the lie to the excuse ''but men start wars'' that women often use to explain away why men always have to go off to die. Its not like when its women starting the wars everyone says ''right fair enough, now its the girl's turn seeing as this one is on them''.

Oh and its very unlikely Helen actually started the Trojan war. If she was kidnapped at all then getting her back would have served only as a rallying cry to legitimize the war. The true reasons for it were, as ever, political, economic, and social.

Quote from TheOldOligarch

War is a positive influence on human progress.

Indeed, radar, nuclear technology (something to which many nations are now dependant on as a source of energy - France 60%), and V1/V2 rocket technology (along with captured German technicians) which was the catalyst of the US/Russian rocket/space programme. Just three byproducts of the second world war I can think of.

Blaming Peggy O'Neal for the Civil War makes about as much sense as blaming the butterfly for flapping its wings and causing a storm. If these high society people had not been acting like idiot school girls creating divisiveness over a woman's chastity, then Calhoun might have become president and he might have been able to influence the national politics so that the war might have been avoided. And the author of the article stretches it to "The Woman Who Started the Civil War." Absurd!

Completely off topic now, but the radar was an entirely British invention too. I had always assumed, as is the spin so often given, that it was America that invented it - but no, it was entirely devised, invented & created from scratch by we Brits

Marx you are correct sir. The first armor peircing sniper round for the 30.06 during WW1 was also a brit invention as I beleive was the tank. But back on topic Queen Boudica of Ireland fought a war against the romans. And war has it's uses I don't like war but it is a logical means to ensure that other hostile nations understand that you will brook no injury from them.

Quote from TheOldOligarch

Oh and its very unlikely Helen actually started the Trojan war. If she was kidnapped at all then getting her back would have served only as a rallying cry to legitimize the war. The true reasons for it were, as ever, political, economic, and social.

Yes, this has always been a contentious debate with classical historians, especially given what many would see as poetic license dispensed by many, such as the greek poet Homer (for example), who vigorously contended Helen was the cause of the trojan wars. Other writers attest her cooperation by her own self-serving conniving acquiescence in the proceedings.

She may not have been solely to blame, but without her, legitimizing the war would have been a far more ingenious, and difficult endeavour. And besides, it wouldn't have made for such a good story for hollywood to cash in on?

Such a story is a gargantuan extrapolation of the microcosmic experiences we individually witness, as to how men fight one another over the affections of women. Sadly, nothing much has changed.

Quote from Marx

Completely off topic now, but the radar was an entirely British invention too. I had always assumed, as is the spin so often given, that it was America that invented it - but no, it was entirely devised, invented & created from scratch by we Brits

Yes, the same sort of spin in a recent film which "wrongly" accredited our good cousins, the Americans, with the capture and deciphering of the Enigma machine in WW2 (key to curtailing the war, and possibly saving hundreds of thousands of lives).

I hate historical revisionism in all it's political, ideological and personal forms.

With hollywood, political correctness, and an ever pervasive feminist influence, kids are growing up with no idea of true history. Some of their parents aren't that much more informed either.

Some of you may think I'm a crack-pot for even venturing into this tangent of sub-discussion, but I genuinely believe we are far from alone in the Universe.
We've all seen the Sci-Fi films where some supremo overlord of the dark entity comes to Earth threatening to kick our ass, and by some almight intervention, or stroke of good fortune, we get through it by the skin of our teeth.
There's no real way to suggest whether an Alien being would be friend or foe. All we could do - is wait and see. But, we would need to be cautious, if nothing else. Because if the day were to come whereby these Martians or other alien decided they wanted to suck our blood through our big toes while forcing us to listen to Beethoven, we'd be pretty screwed before we knew what was going on.
As exciting as they are, the concept of our own creation - robots and computers, becoming sentient beings is a little too far fetched, even for my imagination. So I strongly doubt we'll ever see the likes of Terminator - luckily for us. The concept of an Alien invasion though - is very real.
It is narrow minded of us to assume that within the great expanse of our Universe we could be the only intelligent beings. Damn - we're allegedly the only intelligent beings on Earth, and oftentimes I have to get a reality check on that claim.
Knock me if you will, but one day - the time will come when an entity born not of Earth shall be amongst us. And if these creatures decide we're lesser beings than them, and in their might choose to enslave - or worse, kill us in droves, who shall be there to protect us? God? Doctor Who? Luke Skywalker? Or men?
Thus, it is my belief that we need war to teach us how to survive.

Similarly, when we're young - death only happens in films. No one we know has ever died.
Then, one day - our pet Harold the hamster pops his clogs right there in front of us. We learn for the first time that death is a reality. A few years later, our favourite molly the moggy follows suite, and pops her clogs too. Not too longer later, Rover the rabbit-catching mutt's ticker gives in. Each time we see a pet pass away - it not only serves to reinforce the reality of death, but to prepare us for the worst... relatives.
We see a grandparent pass away... then an Aunt or Uncle, perhaps a cousin... but eventually we must face the music and say goodbye to our dearly beloved parents themselves. We all know that too long from then, we will be looking at our siblings and asking ourselves 'Who will go first? Who will be the last standing?"
So, death is inevitable - and we learn from watching 'small' deaths - to bigger, and bigger and bigger... eventually, the curtain falls on ourself and we too say our final goodbye.
I beleive the same is with war. We fight here on Earth, and any beings outside our known sights could be readying themselves for an invasion of Earth, perhaps for our precious water, or some other commodities. Who knows, an Alien may be from one of the considerably larger bodied planets with less atmospheric gravitation pull - and be ludicrously tall in comparison to the average guy. What weapons may the bring? What of their defenses? We need to know that a time will come when we may be in our greatest danger - on the brink of extinction. And again, I ask, who will be there to save the day?

Men create war, suffering, and rape.

Whenever rape is discussed, an egalitarian counterbalance must be introduced to ensure "perspective" is achieved, rather than feminist tried and tested emotional cluster bombing of the debate - to confuse the masses, and reverting it's recipients into a trembling psychological foetal position. Job done for the fem-tactics, right?

That is, for instance, here in the UK of the 7,000 plus accusations of rape made last year, only just over 5% were found guilty in a court of law (with a jury). Therefore, the more pressing "concern" could be argued for the 18x more men who have been falsely accused by women. That's about 350 rapes convicted in a year, within a population of about 57 million people?

I can't recall the number of times I've heard on tv or radio, how false accusations are extremely rare. No, rape is rare. And even more rarer when compared with the growing abundance of false accusations against men.

Again, let us aquire a logical perspective of reality, as opposed to media generated hysteria. Rape, like child abduction has been allowed to "awaken" a primordial survival gene in humans - and in turn, cunningly manipulated by politicians and ideology.

"But some men will have gotten away with it" I hear, just as worthy an argument could be proposed "some men will have been wrongly convicted." The point being for all those women, for whatever spiteful or vindictive reason, or confusion as to the ever-expanding definition of rape, why they told such a sickening lie -- life will go on.

In fact, for the average woman, the British goverment pays all alleged (not proven) rape victims £5,000 sterling, even those who have been proven to be liars have never been legally forced to return their blood money, and accelerated access to housing. Celebrities like Ulrika Johnson, get to sell books from their "disproved" allegations, and continue working within the media as some kind of heroine? John Leslie, the man who's life she destroyed, previously a tv celebrity, probably couldn't get a job as a road sweeper by comparison!

For those men, even found innocent, they will be forever tarnished, avoided, denied job opportunities, loss of friends, even a suttle dwindling of confidence from their nearest and dearest. Ostracized from life therein from practically all possibilities, even though ironically they are free men!

Such freedom?

What freedom?

Queen Victoria? Good grief. She was as much a titular monarch as today's Queen. She never declared war on anyone. Our Parliament did that.

Who is the nig-nog who told Chevalier that Boudicca was Irish? Friggin' Irish? Are you mad? Boudicca was a NORFOLK girl. The Iceni were a Briton tribe whose lands abutted the Wash. Nowt to do with the bog-trotters. The Iceni were farmers.

And she was Queen because her husband couldn't write his will properly so the Roman tax collectors went in, unauthorised, after the King's death and messed up what had been a pretty good relationship with the Romans. The tax men raped her two sub-teen daughters. Stupid, bad buggers.

She marshalled many Tribes under her banner and sacked Colchester in revenge - down the road a hundred miles, while the 14th Gemina Martia Victrix Legion, the resident heavyweights, were off in Wales. She had waited 18 months for the chance. She didn't plant crops for the year and had weapons made instead, thinking to capture Roman stocks of food. Unfortunately all the food stocks were looted or burned by her unruly rebels.

Then she sacked London which had been vacated largely by Roman merchants all buggering off. They took their food with them. Turning north she met a small Roman force of around 1000 sent from Wales to see what the fuck was happening, and wiped them out.

The Re-inforcement Legions in Exeter heard of the losses and pretended they hadn't recieved orders to join the 14th to counter Boudicca, leaving the magnificent 14th, 5000 soldiers and 50 Centurions (under-strength as they were well into their 16 year enlistment) + around another 5000 auxilliaries and several hundred cavalry (led by a couple of 18 y/o boys from the Equestrian Order) to face 230,000 Britons.

Boudicca lost. How the fuck an army of 230,000 facing 11000 can lose astonished everyone. The lesson was not to take all the women along to act as a cheer squad. The camp-followers hedged in the fighting men and cut off any manoevering ability. Seventy thousand Britons died in a few hours. 70 friggin' thousand. !! The rest starved.

By the way, Druid, I agree with you in the main. Of all the women leaders of countries since time immemorial, mabe less than 30 all up, pretty well all declared war. Think Elizabeth, Catherine, Mary, along with Mrs Bhutto, Indira Ghandi, Golda Maier, Margaret Thatcher. Many of their wars would also have been fought if men had been in charge.... but some may well have been avoided.

Most countries are led by men and throughout history there have been wars, many of them. But.... most of the time there were few if any wars going on and most of the Kings never declared war. Mankind's Countries, States and tribes and have usually enjoyed more peace than war.

First off there are many kinds of war. Effeminates prefer to wage conflict and war when the other's guard is down, with plausable deniabilty. They prefer to pull strings and have others risk and die. This is exactly what is happening now. MRAs talk of how they hate cops, when they come to their doors at the behest of effeminates pulling strings. If an army was to invade you country and take it, they won't dare take you children for you, take funds in the numbers the effeminates take funds from men now. Men commit suicide when you take the things they value away!

In my book I clearly show that Paris of Troy was an effeminate male. A fox or weasel type, which is a direct line to the effeminate. He was a boy toy of his time, spoiled by daddy and mommy, obessesed over romance and skills like homosexuals today in the arts. He didn't stay and fight for his love, but let everyone his 100% whole of his scoiety be destroyed for his endless lists of dishonors. The tradition of the Greeks was to treat strangers in your home nicely. Paris not only broke this honor civilizing code, but so did Helen for she quitely went away with him (how else could they get past everyone in the kingdom). Sure their were others issues that came into play that were geo-political, but they are came into play after all the men concerned with honor were enraged by this act of war. This was and is called pragmatism, and if this dishonor hadn't have happened Troy would have had a much longer life.

This code was an honor and civilizing force at a time, before there was any international law, when at this time Cybele a queen in Asia Minor (present day Turkey) demanded her followers treat her as a goddess forced her son (who she slept with) and her husband to castrated themselves in worship of her. Is this not violence? Are not posions, gossip that brings on death, suicide etc., like these acts of Paris, Helen and Cybele not war of a sort? You can't say you are for international laws for peace and say Paris and Helen are just romantic silly muffins and everything wasn't their fault and be taken seriously.

This argument by feminists is of the same indirect war. Even when they are indirectly killing men now, taking their children away now they have the gaul to say we are under the control of men! How many times in history have women done the same things as this, and said it was the men's fault!

War when properly declared is an acceptance of "be on your guard for I mean to destroy you." It is letting your enemy know that there are no rules, or few rules, and we shall see who wins. Women never do this, ever!

They cry victim and submit when you're angry and up for a fight, and just as the ink is dry on your let by-gones be by-gones they start pissing on your leg indirectly again, as effminates always do. Boys with no real man-like dads grow up copying effeminate conflict or war. This today in such a kind of conflict. Women have brought these boys up and now blame men for the mess! Corruption, spies, assasins, PC, stealing wealth, using children, lies emotions 24/7, jobs (based on looks and child like features) and so on.

Feminists want to point to hot war ( not cold war) lion war ( not weasel war) for they can't do Lion war and thus disarm us as we try and prove we will never do direct action and thus remain on their field of play! On their field of play they can get some of us to kill others of us, like when the cop is at your door asking you to honor ( terrible weasel use of the word) the court order giving a feminist judge the right to take your boys away to be programmed by a feminsit school and live in a feminst household and suffer in a feminst culture as it goes down in flames. What the hell is this? patty-cake? No invading army would try doing this to a father directly for he would kill 10 of the enemy before he would go down, while with indirect war it works smoothly almost like clock work. "Please let me take you children? Oh go ahead, watch your step." The man must say to himself as this happens, "I won't object for I'm a daddyfied gentleman, Iwon't object because." If every man went down fighting for every kid taken from him this would have ended long ago. But instead we say too often, "Would you like 70% of my wages as you take my kid now (through all forums of taxation) to go to the ex who isn't working by cheque or cash?" "No, later when I'm not angry, and so won't cause I scene, OK, mustn't cause a scene for what will everyone think of me."

Hey Percy I got my facts wrong I do remember the program I watched now and you are absolutly correct sir. I apologize for crossing up my facts. Thanks for the correction.

Percy, a great knowledge of Boudicca. I noticed the mistake also, but hadn't got around to phrasing it politely.

Boudicca lost. How the fuck an army of 230,000 facing 11000 can lose astonished everyone.

I admire her to a degree, but she never was a tactician in war.

The lesson was not to take all the women along to act as a cheer squad. The camp-followers hedged in the fighting men and cut off any manoevering ability.

Exactly, reading her story is always frustrating when such flagrant disregard as to the fundamentals of war were ignored, at the detriment of so many good Celtic men. Every time I watch a related documentary on Boudicca , I'd wish 'just' this time she leads the Britons/Celts to definitive victory. But alas it's not to be!

Seventy thousand Britons died in a few hours. 70 friggin' thousand. !! The rest starved.

She reminds me slightly of Florence Nightingale, who supposedly was the saviour of the casualties of the Crimean war, yet the truth is, every hospital she visited - the death rate of the injured and dying increased dramatically.


But the real heroine of the Crimea was a lady from Jamacia, Mary Seacole http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2879/Seacole-Mary.html. For any one who has a little time to learn about the "real lady of the lamp."

Seacole was awarded the Crimean Medal, the French Legion of Honor, and a Turkish Medal.

The point is, sometimes we apply a sprucing up of facts, especially when (male or female) our revered national icons are concerned. Even Winston Churchill fucked up royally, but by god, did he make amends when he was given another chance.

If Boudicca had even the basics of strategy on that day, things might have been so different. No leader frigging well blocks a tactical route with his/her own common people he's/she's ironically supposedly protecting. Liability. Suicide. Insanity!