Main Cause Of Wars: Religion Or Good For Economy?

[DMark]

Do you think most wars can be defined as having a basis in religious differences, or are they based on economic needs?

[Nobody]

Wars are started for a variety of reasons. Some religious, some for political conquest, some for plunder, and lots of other reasons.
And yes, there probably are some wars waged for economic reasons.

[Larry Borgia]

yes

[Larry Borgia]

oops. sorry about the simulpost.

[Eli]

I think economy tended(and tends) to play a much bigger role than ideological and religious considerations.

Most leaders throughout history were more or less normal, sane people, not fanatics. And normal people tend to bend their principles when the situation really demands it.

But exceptions are plentiful of course.

[Blake]

Firstly you need to define a war. If you just mean an organised skirmish between armed men, then most wars were economic. Of course they were also founght with stone spears during the first 80, 000 years or so of our history. Primitive peoples tended to have very similar religions to their neighbours, and religious conflict would have been rare. However fighting over resources including food, water and women would have been common place. If we assume even 100 tribal skirmishes per year planetwide prior to 10, 000 BC that's 10 million wars fought for economic reasons. It would take a lot of religious wars after that date to compete.

[Zoe]

Neither.

Testosterone.

No cite.

[Rune]

Neither.

Fun.

Wars are here because we’re humans and killing our fellow man is great fun. I hate to lay it out like that, but that’s roughly how I see it, at least one of the main reasons of war. Of course once things start to heat up, it turns out things are not quite so fun afterall.

Also I was bored so I just saw a war movie on the telly with lots of jolly Germans being blown to smithereens. Nothing like a bit of killing to kill a bit of time. If we didn’t think it was so exhilarating explain all the war movies to me, the war books, music (incidentally I’m listening to Barry Lyndon: British Grenadiers as I type), military gear, etc. War saturates our culture because well because it’s just great fun.

I think religion very seldom plays a major role, except as a front. If it weren’t for religion we would have to think up some other pretext. Also I can’t see much of a religions element in any of the wonderful wars of the 20 century. And if examined closer the historical religious war (The Crusades etc.) were anything but religiously based.

Other reasons for war: plunder, tribal and national clashes, boredom, economical protection and expansion, plain misunderstandings, and oestrogen (no cite).

- Rune

[lucwarm]

I would propose that one big cause for wars is that leaders, who tend to be somewhat Machiavellian, are aware that going to war can help consolidate their power.

[London_Calling]

I think it's dangerous and naive to over-simplify and pigeonhole, especially when the cliché predates both the decline of old-style fervent religion and the rise of new religions, especially US-style capitalism.

[Nobody]

Originally posted by WinstonSmith
Neither.

Fun.

Wars are here because we’re humans and killing our fellow man is great fun. I hate to lay it out like that, but that’s roughly how I see it, at least one of the main reasons of war. Of course once things start to heat up, it turns out things are not quite so fun afterall.

Also I was bored so I just saw a war movie on the telly with lots of jolly Germans being blown to smithereens. Nothing like a bit of killing to kill a bit of time. If we didn’t think it was so exhilarating explain all the war movies to me, the war books, music (incidentally I’m listening to Barry Lyndon: British Grenadiers as I type), military gear, etc. War saturates our culture because well because it’s just great fun.- Rune
There's a difference between fiction and reality. Just because people like to read about fake wars, or watch them on TV or at the movies doesn't mean that they want to fight any real ones.

[Rune]

Originally posted by Joel
There's a difference between fiction and reality. Just because people like to read about fake wars, or watch them on TV or at the movies doesn't mean that they want to fight any real ones. Not necessarily but highly likely. I have a hard time thinking of a reason something would be this massively popular in fiction if not because it’s something that’s also popular in reality. Besides sex (also quite popular in reality) there is nothing we find so intensely interesting as violence and in particular war, nothing that sells so good (love is further down the list). I think it’s a very big indication that it is a thing we just can’t live without, something we find very satisfying. Anyway it’s more that just fake wars. First off, the more realistic, brutal and in-your-face detailed the movie / game / etc is depicted the more we find it fulfilling (Saving Private Ryan (first five minutes)) – like the fake part is something we can live with but would rather do without. Second coffee table books with authentic pictures from WWII / Vietnam etc. as well as real footage from various wars are quite popular. War history books seem also to be very popular, judging on the Amazon top-20. I’ve gobbled up many a historic illustration on The Discovery Channel with lots interviews and authentic material. War-porn for the masses.

And then there’s the aspect of our natural aggression, which would more or less make war unavoidable. If not used for war our war like tendencies find other ways to express themselves. I’ve been told war time Berlin under Hitler’s caring hand was a remarkable peaceful place to live crime-wise. All aggression spend in the wars. And I think it goes deeper than mere cultural teaching. Which the frequency of childrens’ war games attest. Some child care institutions at one time experimented with banning play weapons, but the kids (the boys) would just pick up any old branch use it as sword or gun, recreating WWII or practicing WWIII on every occasion. The temptation too great even were it strictly vorboten. Also the popularity of war games for grown ups are fairly telling I think. The thrill is simply too exhilarating.

I remember reading a piece of Anthony Burgess on how life ought to be mostly boring and bland. Hitler Jugen had fun, staying up all night jumping over fires, singing songs, marching in the streets, running down Jews. The Wehrmact recruits had fund shooting guns, driving panzer, marching in the streets, running down the Polacks.

- Rune

[Zoe]

Joel: There's a difference between fiction and reality. Just because people like to read about fake wars, or watch them on TV or at the movies doesn't mean that they want to fight any real ones.

There is still another group (of young men, mostly) who think that they want to fight real wars. I saw this in many of my students. I didn't see it in anyone returning from Vietnam.

[Blue Dragon]

I think economics is usually the biggest factor, now much more so than religion. Relgion, I think in the past, was the main excuse for war but invariable it boils down to economics in one form or another.

[IEatFood!]

Hmmm. . .

My vote is for economic reasons. Sort of. Much in the same way that is more economic feasible to steal your neighbor's Siamese cat than to lay down the half-grand or so to purchase it.

War, for the most part, is nothing more than theivery writ large.

There are some exceptions, like civil war, or the prevention of certain elements from attaining or maintaining possesion of NBC weapons.

[clayton_e]

Wars have and will be started due to less than honorable or noble causes because those who decide to start the war will not be the ones dying in it.

[spogga]

"Cry Havoc" That is what a war is about, sheer unadulterated havoc.
Mankind by his very nature is an aggresive animal, he sees something, he wants it by fair means or foul, and if it means killing his fellow man to get it then by God he'll do just that.
Don't get me wrong, I am not an advocate of war but I do understand mankind and that includes myself who I understand obviously more than any other.
I am only human but I assure you that given open licence to take by force that which is not mine I would be very tempted to give in, I like to think that I could resist this temptation but I am none to sure I could and if you all ask yourselves I'm reasonably certain that you also would find it hard to resist.
Remember I said OPEN LICENCE before you batter me to bits with morality.

[mswas]

Economics define what we want.

Religion(Culture) defines the seperation between the two "teams" and who gets to have the economic prize.

Testosterone/Estrogen are hormones that both males and females have in differing quantities, so while it is impossible to eliminate them as a factor as they merely exist, I think it is difficult to tell the causality inherent in the chemicals. When I was a small child my mother locked me in the bedroom for hours on end and my step-mother dragged me around by the hair. My father did neither of these things, he did little but endorse this behavior in his two wives. So in my subjective experience, I've seen violence perpetrated more often by women in the initial stages than by men. Of course, I don't know exactly what violence was perpetrated upon my mothers by men prior to me. In short, if women were unilaterally against war, I doubt there would be war. Please do not confuse this as blaming women for war. I believe that if men were unilaterally against war, there probably wouldn't be war either. There is no fairer sex, there is no sex that is more or less predatory than another. You're going to have to delve deeper into conciousness to find the roots, than mere gender.

Erek

[rjung]

Assuming this is a poll, I'll vote for economic/political reasons, with religion being most often used as a convenient excuse. It's easier to tell your troops they're risking their lives for a sacred cause than to tell them they're risking their lives for cheap oil.

[rklewis2]

Depends on where you are.

For the most part, it always boils down to money in the end.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Zoe
Neither.

Testosterone.

No cite. [/B]


Yeah sure. As if women never start fights for no reason.

France: "Hello!? This is France! Why are you bombing us?!!"

Mrs President: "I think you KNOW why!"

-Collin Quinn (I think..or some other comedian)



Originally posted by Zoe
There is still another group (of young men, mostly) who think that they want to fight real wars. I saw this in many of my students. I didn't see it in anyone returning from Vietnam.
[/B]

When I was in high school, we used to play paintball a lot on the weekends. It was a lot of fun running around in camos shooting each other. One day, a buddy of mine and I reflected that this game would suck if these were actual guns, not even considering mines and bombs and artillery and other stuff you can't do anything about.

Young men like the idea of blowin' shit up and maybe even shooting up their enimies. It's the getting shot back at that people aren't too keen on.

[Svt4Him]

selfishness and pride.

[MMI]

I think a better dichotomy would be:

Internal political reasons vs. external political reasons

Wars have historically rarely helped the economies or government finances of the participants. How many countries (other than the US in WWII) with other than empty treasuries and deep debt? Religion in recent years may help define the sides or rally support but as a cassus belli just isn't really there.

[Lemur866]

Most wars are started when somebody gets the idea that if only we went over to the other guys place and killed them, we could take their stuff and have sex with their women. Or contrariwise, if we went over to the other guys place and killed them, they'd stop coming over here and taking our stuff and having sex with our women.

But often people overestimate how easy it will be to do that, especially in totalitarian societies where the decision is made by one isolated dictator. If both sides agree about how easy it would be, either the aggressor will abandon the war plans, or the victim will give up and hand over their stuff to avoid being killed. So war cannot start without at least one side making a major mistake about how easy the war will be.

[John Mace]

Originally posted by rjung
Assuming this is a poll, I'll vote for economic/political reasons, with religion being most often used as a convenient excuse. It's easier to tell your troops they're risking their lives for a sacred cause than to tell them they're risking their lives for cheap oil.

I agree. Economics is the reason, religion is the rallying cry. And I'd count something like NAZIism as basically a religion.

Even N. Ireland is really about the economic inequality between the Catholics and the (historically land owning) Protestants.

[ruadh]

At this point even if economic equality is achieved in N. Ireland the conflict will go on. It's about territory more than anything else now.

[John Mace]

Ruadh:

I'm not sure I fully understand how you're using the term "territory", but I'd still call that an economic issue in my understanding of the term. Did you mean to imply that it wasn't an economic issue?

[Alessan]

It is my experience that the most likely cause of any war is the previous war.

[Largo62]

Ego.

[Isabelle]

Depends on the region…poor areas fight over economic needs…rich areas over religious/philosophical differences (refer to Maslow's Heiarchy of Needs)

[ruadh]

Originally posted by John Mace
Ruadh:

I'm not sure I fully understand how you're using the term "territory", but I'd still call that an economic issue in my understanding of the term. Did you mean to imply that it wasn't an economic issue?

The conflict is over the fact that one group sees the land and the people as British and wants them to remain part of the U.K., while the other group sees the land and the people as Irish and wants them to unify with Ireland. I wouldn't call that an economic issue, but YMMV.

[Duke]

Well, if you're a Marxist historian, everything is an economic issue! :D