Why are ALL wars fought?

Great Debates
21

I agree with a lot of the replies that have gone on (great topic, by the way), but the OP, by focussing exclusively on the USA, gives a bit of a skewed reading of why other countries fight wars.

For example, from a US perspective, hatred doesn’t have much place, because of its multicultural and isolated nature (it applies to my country - Australia - as well). When a war “has” to be fought, the enemy has to be actively demonised, whether it’s the Viet-Cong or Saddam Hussein. I’m not saying these enemies were actually good people, just that the vast majority of Americans would have been completely neutral in their assessment of them if it weren’t for the media going over their crimes continually.

On the other hand, in countries where there are ‘natural’ enemies, which go back sometimes a number of centuries, there is no reason to contrive hatred - it’s already a part of the national character (and this is not a racial thing at all - it happens on both sides of any of these conflicts). A good, but tragic, example of this is in Yugoslavia, where historical hatred is so entrenched, war is almost inevitable, even if it’s not ongoing. That’s part of America’s problem when trying to settle these conflicts - they imagine that if they can get the people from each nation together around a table and shake hands, and maybe work out some economic issues, everything will be OK. The reality of national hatred is a sad but ongoing one.

Hatred can also sometimes override the other reasons for war in ways that we can think of as irrational. Hitler, for example, prioritised the murder of Jews over the deployment of troops to strategically important positions, and a number of historians suggest this was one of the factors which led to his defeat. This is an extreme example, but its fundamental elements are not unique.

War is not always ‘rational’, as it would be if it was always about a country wanting to gain land or money.

HenrySpencer.

22 
I agree that they had much to gain. I even agree that wealth was certainly a consideration. But consider for a moment that Washington and Jefferson both owned large tracts of land and their wealth and comfort was pretty much assured. So they put up for risk a life of luxury and peace and risk death. It was more then just money.

Marc

23

Which goes back to a previous statement I made. Maybe individuals fight for principals, but as a whole, wars are fought for some sort of economic gain.

24

And I’ll go back to mine. Principles and economic considerations aren’t always seperate issues.

Marc

25

Aren’t most wars fought over three basic things? Religion, economy, and territory? Kinda simplistic I know but it seems to me that is what makes war. Whether it be today or years gone by

26

I can not dispute this wisdom.
Funny how other considerations fall in line with the economic.

27

I say again: the Crusades, the Taiping Rebellion, the Jacobin Revolution, the war between Shah Muhammad of Kwarizm and the Mongols, the Battle of Allia and subsequent Celtic attack on Rome. Let me also add the Islamic expansion. Economic gain was not the primary motivation of any of the participants in these wars.

It is true that a victor in war generally receives an economic benefit. This is not the same as saying that wars are fought for economic benefit.

Listing one (or two or three) braod categories and declaring, “all wars are fought over this (these)” is a reduction to the absurd. It fails miserably to account shed light on the causes of human conflict and serves only to trivialize a complex and important subject.

28

Don’t forget the three G’s.
God
Glory
Gold

29

Despite what others have said you are 100% correct. There are many reasons people fight wars, but 90% of the reason is always about money or the things that money represents like oil, land, minerals, etc…

It is only after that war that the winning side rewrites history to make the the good guys. The civil war was not fought “to free the slaves”, the WW2 was not fought “to save the jews”, and Vietnam was not fought to “save/free the vietnamise from communist oppression.”

These things are very significant side or after effects but in no way are they close to the primary reasons for war.

30

labdude, you are a very intelligent guy :wink:

31

pepperlandgirl said:

As far as I know, the Lusitaniawas not a US ship–I think it was British. The decision to let it sail had nothing to do with the US government…and neither did the shipping of munitions that the Brits had purchased over here. (But, yes, the Germans had made it clear what was going to happen.)

Indeed. Lincoln, though personally against slavery, originally wanted nothing to do with abolition–it was originally war to preserve the Union only. The EP was a military manuever…and a foriegn policy weapon, too. The UK and France were both pro-Confederate, and there were still worries that they might recognize the Confederacy. But the people of France, and especially Britain, were anti-slavery–by issuing the EP and turning it into a war against slavery, Lincoln pretty much killed off any chance the governments of those countries could recognize the Confederacy. (As I recall, Shelby Foote for one claimed this was the most important reason of all for the EP.)

32

Did you know that the size of a man’s brain is directly proportional to the size of his … :slight_smile:

33

The sinking of the Lusitania wasn’t what got the United States into WWI, in case there’s some confusion. Lusitania was sunk in 1915, two years before American entry.

It was primarily the outrage over the Lusitania’s destruction in 1915 that prompted Germany to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare, which at the time (and still is today, albiet sort of ignored) was a violation of international law. Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917. On March 15, German submarines sank three American merchant ships, which is an outright act of war, and refused to suspend submarine operations. The United States accordingly declared war on April 6.

Ergo, it was not the (British) Lusitania’s sinking that got the USA into WWI; it was actually an attack on American ships.

34

>> labdude, you are a very intelligent guy

Well, I would just say he agrees with you.

I always find it interesting that the more a person believes in the sincerity of his own motivations, the more cynical he is about the motivations of the rest of humanity.

To say wars are only caused by greed is, to me, an oversimplification as well as an insult to those who fought for an ideal.

Wars happen when people have not been able to find any other way of resolving their differences of any nature (economic, ideological or whatever). Europe has had internal wars for centuries and what seems to change that is the creation of mechanisms to resolve their differences and the creation of common interests. That is what the EU is trying to do.

Wars often happen like fights between individuals. To say that all fights between individuals are caused by greed would be to misunderstand human nature entirely. Look at how people are getting upset and all worked up right here arguing over things of no importance!

Small problems escalate to points where none of the parties thought they would reach. (Saddam hussein never imagined the consequences of invading Kuwait). When tensions are high, often fear of being attacked cause one to attack first.

There is much fanaticism in the world and many wars are caused by just that. Individuals as well as nations will fight when they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I think money does not rule the world to that point. people will work for money but they will not give their lives for any amount of money. But for a worthy idea or a principle, people will do anything. The problem with this is that what I see as my morals and principles, you see as a threat to be destroyed.

I am not so cynical, I believe money rules only when there are no superior principles and when you get to that point you are in bad shape. I truly believe people are motivated by something better than money. What we have to try is to get along so that we can resolve our differences without resorting to war.

Today the USA has tensions with other nations which, to a great extent are caused by ideology, not by economic interest.

I have some Chinese friends who resent Western nations, particularly the US, telling them what to do. They say human rights in China are “internal affairs” and we should mind our own business. But this is not so. Western nations have a belief in human rights which is sincere and not motivated by greed. We have nothing to gain by preaching this in China. Indeed we would be better off buying the stuff they produce with slave labor and not caring about anything else.

well, those are my disjoined thoughts for the 4th of july

35

I never said a person couldn’t fight in a war for higher ideas. Only that states don’t fight wars over ideas. People and soldiers fight for ideas, states fight for money.

36

Hi everyone,

Spiritus Mundi has a point. Oversimplifying leads to misconceptions, the worse being that the concept is fully understood.

sailor,

I thoroughly enjoyed your “disjoined thoughts”.

And I would like your permision to add this quote to my sig line.

Civil War Commentators:

As I noted before, I am debating this very point in another thread. Come on over. Or start a new thread, if you DARE!
( Sorry, couldn’t resist the dare. )

37

It is rather interesting to read the responses to pepperlandgirl’s OP. Everyone is so close to the true reason behind all wars and the word has been mentioned several times without the connection being made. Economics and land is certainly a main component, but not necessarily the only one. Whether the conflicts are external or internal or what ever motivation is tagged to a conflict, be it religion, economic or land, it all comes down to one thing: Power.

Don’t believe me? Scroll back and read through each of the reasons given for the various conflicts in each of the posts and tell me if you can find just one where the expansion, defense or maintaining control of power was not the ultimate motive despite the label attached to the conflicts, be they external or internal, US or other.

38

Power? Power over what? Land, of course.

What good’s autonomy if you aren’t in possession of the land you’re living on. Ask the Palestinians. They have a limited form of self-government, but without an actual state of their own, their autonomy is meaningless. As would American statehood if there was no physical state to control or if the states had no jurisdiction over the land they governed.

The world’s most recent wars have been out about autonomy - the right to self-government in one’s own land.

Northern Ireland, East Timor, any number of conflicts in Yugoslavia, Chechnya, and even the current problems in the Solomon Islands, Fiji and Zimbabwe. All of these have everything to do with land. Either someone else has too much of it, or owns the land we’re living on.

39

Alow me to summerize:
Yes, most wars are started because of money (or power, or land, or whatever - in short, material, non-altruistic factors). Even those few idealists who survive to reach positions of actual power fight for something rather more concrete than mere principles.

But still - these are reasons why nations START wars. To fight a war you need two sides, remember. Often one side has no “reason” to fight at al; in fact, they’d rather stay home and mind their own business. Implying that all wars are fought for wrong, selfish reasons is only half-right. I’m sure, for instance, that the Russians and British had very little reason to fught in WWII, economically speaking. But does anyone think they shouldn’t have fought?

Often, the reason for the war isn’t that obvious. Hindsight may be 50-50, but for the people living at the time (even the people in power) most wars just seem to happen. Perhaps 10, 20, a hundred years before the fight started because of economics; now they fight because of the consequences of the last time they fought. Sometimes, both sides can sit down and settle their differences by admitting that fighting just isn’t worth it. Often, however, the situation is so complex and unsolvable that conflict is inevitable.

The best way to look at it is to think of the world as a huge, anarchic society. If there were no cops, no courts, and no civil authorities, how long would it take before you and your neighbour reached violence because of a dispute over a garden wall?

Please excuse my overlong post. I’m new around here.

40

Pepperlandgirl

You’re right. I think that it was labguy that said it ie wars are fought primarily for the economic gain, then the winner rewrites history afterwards. I’m from New Zealand, and I can say virtually every war that I can think of that NZ has been in was for economic reasons. Lets think:

Maori Land Wars - well, the name gives it away doesn’t it?

The Boer War - Damn those colonists for trying to get away with our money/taxes! Oh, and let’s save the empire too (sic)

WW1 - This one has been pretty well explained in this thread so I won’t go there. I’ll just say that NZ followed Britain cause it was expected, and Britain went there for the money.

WW11 - Same as above. Who here would have really given a crap about the jews until we won and hey, don’t that look better in the history books.

Korea - Well. God knows why we cared. Oh no wait, we needed a bit of that good old fashioned western trade money, and it’ll only cost a few of the boys.

Vietnam - Same as Korea.

The Gulf - Well, it was getting a bit expensive to fill the Holden, so what else could we do. And it looked good on our trade-cv: yeah, we defend democracy too guys!

Kosovo - Why did the western media ignore the oil supplies in Kosovo that was about to be offered by Serbia to Russia. Just give the Kosovars some guns, and stoke a few historical tensions. Therefore, the actual participants may not have been in it for money, but it sure as all hell started because of it.

I’m not saying that the participants were fighting for money, no doubt that there was patriotism etc etc involved, but the big bad masters at home weren’t really thinking that. Anyway, that’s my take.