Is War Inevitable? - Human evolution has been defined by conflict, says E. O. Wilson, one of the 
world’s leading biologists. War is embedded in our very nature.

By E. O. Wilson|Tuesday, June 12, 2012

...

Our bloody nature, it can now be argued in the context of modern biology, is ingrained because group-versus-group competition was a principal driving force that made us what we are. In prehistory, group selection (that is, the competition between tribes instead of between individuals) lifted the hominids that became territorial carnivores to heights of solidarity, to genius, to enterprise—and to fear. Each tribe knew with justification that if it was not armed and ready, its very existence was imperiled. Throughout history, the escalation of a large part of technology has had combat as its central purpose. ...

Any excuse for a real war will do, so long as it is seen as necessary to protect the tribe.

So, if wars are to protect the tribe, what tribe are America's war protecting?

Wilson is pointing out the war is our genes, as a product of Evolution. The function of those genes are to product and secure the survival of a tribe, i.e. the genes of that tribe. This is undeniably a Law of Nature.

But in the case of America, what tribe's genes are being protected in the wars America chooses to fight? Obviously, America is no longer a tribe by any definition. So what is compelling America to fight wars? Why would anybody sacrifice their lives if their genes are not endangered?

If a biological entity, anything from simple organism to a tribe, is not acting in its own best interest and in the interest of its survival, when it behavior cannot be explained by a the Theory of Evolution, it must be assumed that something is wrong, the search for a pathogen or parasite causing the anti-Evolutary behavior must commence.

War, often accompanied by genocide, is not a cultural artifact of just a few societies. Nor has it been an aberration of history, a result of the growing pains of our species’ maturation. Wars and genocide have been universal and eternal, respecting no particular time or culture. Archaeological sites are strewn with the evidence of mass conflicts and burials of massacred people.

True, but we are told that there was one very special and unique time in history when there was an attempted genocide. And of course the one very special and unique attempt at genocide was the "holocaust". But here we have one of the leading scholar of Evolution, E.O. Wilson, saying genocide is not uncommon.

Whenever Buddhism dominated and became the official ideology, war was tolerated and even pressed as part of faith-based state policy. The rationale is simple, and has its mirror image in Christianity: Peace, nonviolence, and brotherly love are core values, but a threat to Buddhist law and civilization is an evil that must be defeated.

There you go phony McBuddist, not only are Buddhist expected to refrain from sensual (including sexual) misconduct and to refrain from intoxicants (drugs alcohol), history proves Buddhist become violent when the tribe it threatened. It this was not the case, there were be no Buddhism today.

A series of researchers, starting with Jane Goodall, have documented the murders within chimpanzee groups and lethal raids conducted between groups. It turns out that chimpanzees and human hunter-gatherers and primitive farmers have about the same rates of death due to violent attacks within and between groups. But nonlethal violence is far higher in the chimps, occurring between a hundred and possibly a thousand times more often than in humans.

Unlike the Utopian claim of fag chimp sodomy, the intergroup is well documented. So following "liberal" "logic" if chimp do it and and pre-modern human groups do it, it is good?

The patterns of collective violence in which young chimp males engage are remarkably similar to those of young human males. Aside from constantly vying for status, both for themselves and for their gangs, they tend to avoid open mass confrontations with rival troops, instead relying on surprise attacks. The purpose of raids made by the male gangs on neighboring communities is evidently to kill or drive out their members and acquire new territory. There is no certain way to decide on the basis of existing knowledge whether chimpanzees and humans inherited their pattern of territorial aggression from a common ancestor or whether they evolved it independently in response to parallel pressures of natural selection and opportunities encountered in the African homeland. From the remarkable similarity in behavioral detail between the two species, however, and if we use the fewest assumptions required to explain it, a common ancestry seems the more likely choice.

Interesting the chimps have set up the same cultural construct of gender in a manner very similar to patriarchal Western civilization.