What is war for?

Great Debates
21

Doubtless some could be found.
I don’t think everything revolves around money. Power, religion, security or Ideals have and still do play pretty important roles.

How about the English civil war?..Cromwell was fighting for a vision.
The wars of the French revolution?..Monarchies against the idea of democracy.
The German invasion of Poland/Russia?.. Living space.

Doubtless some more could be found

I like that one.
But, of course , war can also come to you.

I don’t believe in Good and Bad, at least not to the extent a lot of Americans tend to view the world. It is too relative a concept.

22

War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means.

–Carl Phillip Gottfried von Clausewitz (1780-1831)

One should never allow chaos to develop in order to avoid going to war, because one does not avoid a war but instead puts it off to his disadvantage.

– Machiavelli, The Prince, 3

23

“Will someone please point out a war that didn’t revolve around money in some way, shape or form?” ~ Reeder

Well there’s all those wars that mankind had before he had money?

And when you are fighting off aggressors, you are at war fighting off aggressors, you are too busy to make a real keen profit.

24

Columnist Gwynne Dyer answered the question in his multipart series on PBS about War several years ago. Most of his answers have been given above – war is needed by revolutionaries and freedom fighters, or for the resolution of major disagreements between countries.

25

Rather than “money”, I think a viable argument could be made that all wars have their roots in economic–though not necessarily monetary–factors. I remember reading something by Isaac Asimov in which he theorized that the ostensibly cultural/religious underpinnings of the Crusades were actually overshadowed by prosaic economic contributors like primogeniture and the invention of a new kind of plow.

26

BTW, why do many people regard economic motivations as somehow bad? For example, what if our actions in Iraq were motivated by a desire to secure stable oil supplies for our economy–so what? It seems that some folks falsely equate “economic security” with “profiteering”.

27

Because it’s hypocritical to claim the moral high-ground if you’re just another bullying looter.

Because it legitimises “might makes right” and therefore legitimizes terrorism.

Because it’s not your damn oil.

28

There you go perpetuating the false analogy. Defending economic self interest != looting.

Impressive leap of logic there. Care to elaborate?

Going back to the 1970s, we can recognize the right of OPEC countries to sell their own oil without acknowledging the legitimacy of their attempts to hold our foreign policy hostage by artificially jacking up oil prices. Domestically and internationally, states frequently, and legitimately, intervene in economic matters. Why ensuring access to oil be any different than (say) ensuring access to a trading partner’s domestic market, or enforcing eminent domain?

29

It’s their damn oil, they can charge what they want for it, regardless of what effect it has on your economy. Those who live by the free market can die by it too.

30

Tagos,
You forget that Doghouse has strong imperialist leanings.
He believes that nobody in this world has any rights exept the American people. Because, obviously, they are the bestest people on this globe (and probably the universe as well).

Dog, taking something that does not belong to you is theft, plain and simple.

31

I guess this is how the “debate” goes for tagos and Latro:

Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad
Four legs good, two legs bad

How can one argue with such logic?

32

If I may ask, Doghouse: What was wrong with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait?

33

Annexing the whole country as its 19th province, for starters.

34

And why is this wrong, if it was in the national interest of Iraq?

35

In what way are you positing that it was in Iraq’s national interest to annex the whole country? Putting a stop to sideways drilling (perhaps a justifiable complaint) is a far cry from subjugating an entire people.

36

In order to fulfil an economically motivated desire for more oil, for example.

37

I’m not clear whether you’re submitting a hypothetical situation or a real one. If real–could you demonstrate that this was in fact Iraq’s motivation?

But in any case, to use a market analogy: there’s a big difference between buying and selling a commodity on the one hand, and attempting to corner the market in that commodity on the other. If I’m a trader and make a serious effort at the latter, the power of the State will indeed intervene to thwart my machinations (see the case of the Hunt brothers in the silver market).

If Saddam invaded in order to grab Kuwaits (and later possibly Saudi Arabia’s) oil fields, he probably did so with an eye to cornering the oil market, not just making more money. This being the case, I’d say that the United States was justified in thwarting these efforts just as it would be in intervening in a domestic commodity market.

38

The above being of course a greatly simplified analogy in line with SentientMeat’s question.

39

I am asking you, if it were the case, whether it would be wrong. I cannot think of many non-economic reasons why Iraq would invade Kuwait.

He would find this rather diffcult unless he invaded Russia and built a world-beating navy. If he had just kept Kuwait, would it have been wrong?

40

Like I said, I doubt that grabbing oil fields was Saddam’s primary motivation–it was your hypothetical situation, after all. But if this was his motivation, I’d say it would be most easily explained as a strategic move to try to use oil as an economic weapon, not just a means to make more money.

Now, whether he would have succeeded in that attempt: (1) again, hey, it’s your scenario, and (2) it’s well established that Saddam is a megalomaniacal nut case whose reach exceeds his grasp.

As far as whether it would have been “wrong” for Saddam to keep Kuwait, whatever the motivation: clearly, it would have gone against the standard conduct of nations and would have been very detrimental to the interests of the Western world. Beyond that, I’m not sure what you mean by “wrong” in this context.