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

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.

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.

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.

DAMN good money to be made in war. MUCH moreso, than in peace… :o

Greed! plane and simple

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.

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.

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.

Sure they would have. They would have just found another show pony to lead the charge.

Principles before personalities, son.