View Full Version : Root Cause of War
I hear a lot of folks talk about how "Religion" is the cause of most of mankinds war. Or sometimes it's "Resources". But I believe those are all objectives, not the cause itself: Tyranny. Coercion.
If one nation sends its Army against another in order to convert them to ______, was it the religion that caused the war? Or was it the fact that one people desired to force it's will upon another people who were determined to resist? I believe that the struggle between freedom and coercion is the root cause of war. Religion or natural resources or wealth may be objectives, but not the root cause.
Thoughts?
There is usually a reason to coerce. Few people mobilize for war simply because they enjoy winning.
My un-muddled point being:
There's always an offending side and a defending side. The offending side is trying to force their desired outcome, and the defending side is trying to halt that force. The desired outcome isn't the reason for the war. The reason for the war is one side are being dicks and one side are rightfully defending themselves.
one side finally feels they can win ?
one side finally feels SCREW IT might as well its now or never
one side sees what the other has and hates it !
one side sees what the other has and wants it !
I dont know for sure usually something somebody did or said
Moose-Knuckle
12-02-12, 04:12
Here is a good jumping on point.
http://warisaracket.org/
War is mostly waged for economic reasons. Sometimes war is waged for cultural reasons. There is always a desired end state and often times multiple parties are aggressors. Thucydides wrote that fear was a primary cause of war and this remains the case.
But there is ALWAYS a desired end state on the part of an aggressor.
Here is a good jumping on point.
http://warisaracket.org/
Holy 1995 geocities page batman!
War is always a resource issue. I think that sometimes it is masked as a religious quest but in the end it comes down to “you have something I want or need”.
Take WW2 in Europe.
The nazis attacked and were inflicting tyranny upon occupied Europe. Most tried to defend themselves. There's your war.
The objective for the nazis was lebensraum (territory) and resources. But that's not why there was a war.
So the objectives are not the cause.
Take 9/11.
AQ attacked our cities. We defended ourselves. There's your war.
The objective for AQ was to get us to pull troops out of their holy land and denounce Israel.
Take a schoolyard fight.
Kid demands your lunch money. You tell him to pound sand. Kid hits you in the jaw. You lay him out cold.
The fight wasn't about lunch money. The fight was about defending yourself from attack by an asshole. The objectives are not the cause.
The fight was about money. The kid trying to take the money was trying to take it because it would provide him with something he wants or needs. He can take that money and buy something with it. The kid is defending himself not from an asshole, but from someone who is trying to take something from him, his lunch.
We have troops in the Middle East because of oil. Get rid of the oil and watch how fast people leave. Find a barren piece of land in the middle of nowhere and discover oil on it and watch how fast people will fight for it. No one fights for a barren piece of land, that’s why it’s barren.
HackerF15E
12-02-12, 05:51
There are only two ways to influence human being to do what you want: logic and reason, or force.
There are lots and lots of "wants" amongst humans, and resources is just one of many.
The_War_Wagon
12-02-12, 06:36
DAMN good money to be made in war. MUCH moreso, than in peace... :o
ICANHITHIMMAN
12-02-12, 07:06
Greed! plane and simple
montanadave
12-02-12, 08:23
I want. You got. It's on.
All the rest is just smoke and mirrors to justify taking somebody else's shit.
It is always about power and control. It maybe power and control over a resource or a religion or any number of other things, but it all comes down to the expansion of power and control.
Napoleon and Hitler are probably good examples.
While the Nazis wanted Lebensraum, that was more the excuse. It was really about Hitler's delusions and desire for control. Resources were the excuse.
Napoleon kind of fancied himself emperor.
--
montanadave
12-02-12, 11:34
And Napoleon and Hitler would have each been an army of one ... if they hadn't been promisin' folks some good shit would be comin' their way if they fell into line.
No doubt these guys had monster egos and were consumed with a lust for power. But somebody was footin' the bill for every one of their little adventures and those same folks were lookin' for a healthy return.
And Napoleon and Hitler would have each been an army of one ... if they hadn't been promisin' folks some good shit would be comin' their way if they fell into line.
No doubt these guys had monster egos and were consumed with a lust for power. But somebody was footin' the bill for every one of their little adventures and those same folks were lookin' for a healthy return.
And those "somebodies" looking' for a healthy return would have never gone to war without Hitler (and Napoleon).
You totally missed the point, as usual.
Resources etc were great excuse (and maybe motivators for some in their army). But they were not the causes.
--
TacMedic556
12-02-12, 11:44
Here is a good jumping on point.
http://warisaracket.org/
Moose nailed it. 99.9% of the time it is economics, trade, resources and power. Eisenhower explained it well in his farewell address as well.
montanadave
12-02-12, 11:47
And those "somebodies" looking' for a healthy return would have never gone to war without Hitler (and Napoleon).
You totally missed the point, as usual.
Resources etc were great excuse (and maybe motivators for some in their army). But they were not the causes.
--
Sure they would have. They would have just found another show pony to lead the charge.
Principles before personalities, son.
The fight was about money. The kid trying to take the money was trying to take it because it would provide him with something he wants or needs. He can take that money and buy something with it. The kid is defending himself not from an asshole, but from someone who is trying to take something from him, his lunch.
We have troops in the Middle East because of oil. Get rid of the oil and watch how fast people leave. Find a barren piece of land in the middle of nowhere and discover oil on it and watch how fast people will fight for it. No one fights for a barren piece of land, that’s why it’s barren.
sort of the way China and Japan are fighting over those 3 little Islands discovered Oil and now after the first time since WW2 it is back in the headlines :rolleyes:
My un-muddled point being:
There's always an offending side and a defending side. The offending side is trying to force their desired outcome, and the defending side is trying to halt that force. The desired outcome isn't the reason for the war. The reason for the war is one side are being dicks and one side are rightfully defending themselves.
It's a lot more complicated than that. While sometimes it's just one conquering force trying to take over the world (Alexander, Hitler, Genghis Khan, the Romans, etc), sometimes people are forced into initiating war because no other course of action will work.
As in WWI, tensions were high across all of Europe and it wasn't so much of an aggressor vs defender... everyone was ready for a fight, they were basically waiting for something to set them off. The same could have happened in the Cold War, two sides, neither necessarily wrong, both pushing their ideal government and society on the world and both had huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Something could have quite easily set the US or USSR off and wiped out the planet, and you can't say either side is solely responsible - both are equally.
Basically war is one of the most complex actions one society can undertake against another and you're trying to distill the reasons down to good vs evil.
I don't think it could ever be boiled down to good vs Evil because what one sees as evil others see as Good .the Fighters will always think their side is in the right for the better of their people
I would just simplify and say that human nature is the root cause of war.
I would just simplify and say that human nature is the root cause of war.
Yeah pretty much. There isn't a lot that humans are better at than killing each other.
montanadave
12-02-12, 16:56
Yeah pretty much. There isn't a lot that humans are better at than killing each other.
Other than making more humans for the next go-around. :laugh:
Other than making more humans for the next go-around. :laugh:
It's all about sex and violence. Isn't that what TV shows have anyway?
I would just simplify and say that human nature is the root cause of war.
Yes. There will never be peace in earth. There will never exist a time when all 7 Billion of us destroy our weapons and live in peace forever and ever, amen. Because someone will seize the opportunity to attack while everyone else is disarmed.
Here is a good jumping on point.
http://warisaracket.org/
LOL!
And thus endeth the thread!
I agree wholeheartedly.
GREED IS THE CAUSE OF IT ALL.
Tyranny. Coercion.
I was gonna go with "assholes" but those two work as well. And actually "coercion" is simply an act of "tyranny" so I would simplify it down to just that.
I was gonna go with "assholes" but those two work as well. And actually "coercion" is simply an act of "tyranny" so I would simplify it down to just that.
Not all coercion is tyranny. Unless you're calling all people in a leadership role a tyrant... If so, you're very much cheapening the word "tyrant" like many people cheapen the word "war."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.