Ending war, women in the military to invade other countries

They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason. ~Ernest Hemingway

War is a racket, wrote US Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler. Butler's essay describes all the parties who profit from war. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

General Butler failed to mention the media profits from war. Death and destruction sells more to television advertising dollars than does peace and tranquility. How does a television company talk about peace and harmony for 24 hours each day. The bang, boom of war sells advertising and brings in the revenue. It also builds careers for journalists. The media are enablers of war.

Despite the horrors of war and all the exhortations of its evil, we are still attracted to the ultimate sport of killing. When wild animals kill each other we call it instinct. When we humans kill each other we call it patriotism and duty.

The only way to stop this madness it to have a modification to the Geneva Convention.

The modification would state that if one country invades or bombs another country it can only use female military personnel to carry out the invasion, bombing, or occupation. However, countries could use both male and female military personnel on their own soil, for defense, but only female military personnel on another country's soil.

This would stop old men from invading other countries on a pretext. Imagine President Harry S Truman sending only American women to defend South Korea from North Korea in 1950? President Truman would not have considered for one minute intervening in the Korean civil war if it meant the death of only American females. He would have noted the Korean Peninsula had been a country for a thousand years and let it go at that. The Korean war was unnecessary. Who would tolerate sending 38,000 American women to their deaths in an unnecessary war?

The same would have happened in the Vietnam War. President Kennedy and President Johnson would never have thought about sending 58,000 American women to die in the jungles of Vietnam in what was a civil war.

Of course it is unlikely that North Korea or North Vietnam would have invaded their southern neighbors if they could only use females against a defending army of males and females. This means most wars would never be initiated. Tyrannical egoist leaders would have to settle for their current country size, or work out peaceful mergers.

Neither would any American president send only women into the middle east to die in civil wars.

If only women were used to invade and occupy other countries wars would decrease. The basic reason for war, not excuses, is for men to kill off other men so they will have more women to mate with. Even old men will send their own young men into war knowing some will be killed, making it easier for the old men to find a mate. This happens even in the court system where male judges send males to prison for longer sentences than females. The male judges are simply removing the competition for mates.

We need our women for our own pleasure and as baby factories to reproduce. We need new babies as workers and providers. Sending only women into battle would risk the loss of the baby factories. This risk would bring the value of the war into focus. Is it worth the life of our women? The answer in the past would have often been, 'NO', this war has no value.

Charles Tolleson, male