You said “Annexing the whole country as its 19th province” was wrong. It seems you are now saying it was not, unless it was for non-economically motivated reasons. I venture that acquiring Kuwait’s oil wells in order to increase the price of oil and thus become even richer and more powerful is still “economically motivated”, and therefore presumably not wrong in your book.
Please don’t think I’m trying to catch you out, I am merely interested in other people’s moral frameworks, particularly those to my right politically.
I admit I spoke loosely when I said annexing Kuwait was “wrong”. I meant that annexing the whole country was sufficiently detrimental to the interests of the United States and its allies that we were reasonably motivated to reverse this state of affairs.
But also understand that when we talk about a strategic resource like oil, it may be hard to separate “economic” factors with “strategic” ones. Although I view it as extremely unlikely, maybe all Saddam wanted was to make a few more millions of dollars a month through oil revenues, and seizing all of Kuwait was the most efficient way to do this. But what the US and its allies saw might have been more of a strategic threat, such that Saddam could make demands on the rest of the world on pain of shutting off the oil taps.
As far a moral frameworks go, I’m afraid that I don’t believe there is much of one in affairs between nations; enlightened self-interest may be the best substitute we have to go on. I do tend to think that the United States pursuing its self-interest is subjectively preferable to Saddam pursuing his–both for me, and for the people in Iraq.
There was never a time that mankind did not have money. Money is just a representation of value. Power is money. Land is money. Water is money. Safety is money. Hell, my cat fights over money. A cat’s money is territory. The only reasons to fight are to protect your money or get more money.
You’re incorrect, zwaldd. “Money” is a medium of exchange with no intrinsic value, as distinguished from commodities that can bartered and consumed for their own sake. If we’re going to debate a point, we have to keep the definitions clear (see my use of the word “wrong” above).
No intrinsic value. I agree with that if you are talking specifically about currency. You can’t eat currency or live in it, but you get it by trading your skills or valuables for it, and the only reason you do that is because you can trade it for other people’s skills and valuables. Money may not itself be a bartered commodity, but it represents the value of bartered commodoties. It’s a convenience so we don’t have to appraise each and every transaction. Money wouldn’t have any value if it didn’t represent something of actual value, i.e., one’s time and effort.
Main Entry: 1mon·ey
Pronunciation: 'm&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural moneys or mon·ies /'m&-nEz/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English moneye, from Middle French moneie, from Latin moneta mint, money – more at MINT
Date: 14th century
1 : something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as a : officially coined or stamped metal currency b : MONEY OF ACCOUNT c : PAPER MONEY
To make myself more clear, I don’t see the distinction between fighting over something that represents value - money, and fighting over something of actual value - land, peace, power, etc.
You can connect a monetary value to commodities, like water or land. That doesn’t mean that anyting can be translated into a money.
Power can bring you money, money can help you gain power but the power itself can not be expressed in money.
Same with safety. You can invest money in your safety, buy guns or guards or whatever but can you say my safety is worth $500?
No.
All you can say is that you have invested $500, not that you have bought $500 worth of safety.
I think it’s reasonable to say you have bought $500 worth of safety. You may want more, but besides being wary, you are only as safe as the safety measures you have purchased.
*To make myself more clear, I don’t see the distinction between fighting over something that represents value - money, and fighting over something of actual value - land, peace, power, etc.
~ Zwaldd** *
Hold it! Zwaldd right! His “money etc.” extends into infinity . He can’t lose.
But it does make me think. I wonder what the southeastern indians thought when we offered to buy the land they squatting on when they had no concept of private or tribal land ownership. But no matter, at times the indians had war just for the fun of it. But I digress…
War can be a cultural exchange that reflects progressively on the larger groupings of mankind. Certainly war keeps societies on their toes and wards off the ever buzzing tetse-fly of false reality that breeds effete decadence.
The egalitarian characteristics of western culture is the hotest thing going at this juncture of human existence.
The quaint ,romanic, nature of dictatorial governments likely won’t last out the 21st Century.
He can’t lose.