Most people in the world do not want war.

The world is not all men, fighting and wanting to fight, all the time. I know from my experience in the US military that men do love to fight. But there are many others who do not. The problem is that those men do not seem to be the ones running the world. <br><br>The Romans did. Their generals and politicians were not blood thirsty. They did not want war. They wanted to conquer and then end the fighting so they could govern. The Romans did not have a lot of war after they had conquered a region. They wanted peace, and they could keep the peace. <br><br>The Mongols did not want war, either. They were conquering, yes, but they did not seem to enjoy it as much as the Romans did. They were barbaric, and they certainly did not want to be bothered by their conquered peoples. They wanted peace and quiet. <br><br>I do not think the Roman and Mongol leaders were just more "civilized". I think that there is something else going on, and it has something to do with gender roles. <br><br>Women, for example, are much more likely to be anti-war. Women are social, they want to help people, they want to be friends, they want to help others. This is not to say that there are no aggressive women. But women are not as interested in war. The men in the US military are not. The women are. <br><br>There are exceptions to this, of course, but it seems that generally speaking, the world does not want war. Women are the majority of the world, so they are probably right.<br><br>It's worth noting that in the past, women were not allowed to make any decisions. They were the minority, so they were ignored. But today they make up half of the population, and they have half the right to vote. Maybe this is part of the reason that the world wants peace. <br><br>Women have had the right to vote for less than 100 years. It's not enough time for them to become equal to men, but it's enough time for us to see what they are like. And they are not as interested in war as men are. <br><br>In the US military, women are more likely to choose to be medical assistants, nurses, and other jobs that have nothing to do with violence and killing. The men, of course, choose to be infantry and fighter pilots and so on. <br><br>The men who are in high command positions, like generals, tend to have jobs that are less violent. They are more likely to be in administration. <br><br>In contrast, the Roman generals were very violent. They wanted war and they wanted to kill people. They were willing to do whatever it took to get their way. They were very good at war, and they won most of the time. <br><br>This is the opposite of what I have seen. The men who are violent and interested in war are not good at anything else, and they do not make good generals. They are bad leaders. They are not good to be around. They are very annoying. <br><br>They remind me of my high school bully. He was a big deal because he was "tough" but he was not smart, he was not funny, he was not nice, and he did not make us feel good. He was just a bully. <br><br>The Roman generals were not bullies, though. They were smart, they were funny, they were good looking, and they were kind to their people. They did not seem to be interested in war for its own sake. They were interested in war so that they could have peace. <br><br>And peace is what they got.<br><br>I think this is what we should aim for. Women are more interested in peace, and they are better leaders. I think if women ran the world, we would have more peace. <br><br>&#x200B;