Why people go to war

[Athena]

I am asking why people go to war, because I am in training with the Beyond War organization, and this international organization has a very inadequate explanation of why people go to war. At least that is so at my local level. It is my intent to rewrite the chapter in a very large training book, explaining why nations war against nations. Keeping in mind this information could be dispersed national and even international, how do you explain why people war?

One of the most important things a government does is assure the people have the resources necessary to meeting the needs of people they govern. This was true of the most ancient governments as it is today. The primary way of assuring the people's needs are met are, rituals to appease the gods or please the one true god, and military might used for economic conquest. This is what people in government think about and what people are willing to be governed. When the fail, as Russia and France failed, the people revolt in hopes of replacing failing government with government that will not fail them. When they succeed they go down in history as great leaders, and this as close to being immortal as a human can get.

The people they govern are thinking about the things they want, like enough food for the whole year, or a new car, and possibly their families, and the education of their children. You know the mandane stuff that fills our paltry lives. They are not thinking about where the supply of gold for coins is coming from, nor their supply of wood for ships, or iron for weapons, or oil to maintain their industry that gives them their desirable standard of living. They are not thinking about their countries world markets, and how to hold a world market when France or Spain would gladly take it away. They trust their government to manage these things for them. So how is it that these people are lead to war?

What does the philosophy of Leo Strauss have to do government and war? How about Thucydides explanation of the Peloponnesian wars and what war does to people's thinking? Are there any other sources explaining the causes of war and what war does to human thinking and relationships? How about a good explanation of the evolution of civilizations and when they reach that point where military conquest become the driving force of their governments?

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Athena I am asking why people go to war.

Bitches and money.

Quote by: Athena One of the most important things a government does is assure the people have the resources necessary to meeting the needs of people they govern.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Anarchist]

Quote by: Athena One of the most important things a government does is assure the people have the resources necessary to meeting the needs of people they govern.

Quote by: Compugasm HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Heh. Definitely worth a chuckle or two.

[Fonceai]

@Athena

Many books I have read express the cause of war as population pressure. This is most evident in Starship Troopers but is alluded to in other books.

The U.S. goes to war over resources.

The oil companies offer the politicians big money to keep specific sources of oil secure, so the politicians go to war to secure those sources.

These days, it's not terribly complicated.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

In these modern times people don't ideology does imo

Perhaps Athena (good to see your words again by the way) we could consider how do people whom join the armed forces view war?

[namguy69]

Quote by: Athena I am asking why people go to war, because I am in training with the Beyond War organization, and this international organization has a very inadequate explanation of why people go to war. At least that is so at my local level. It is my intent to rewrite the chapter in a very large training book, explaining why nations war against nations. Keeping in mind this information could be dispersed national and even international, how do you explain why people war? One of the most important things a government does is assure the people have the resources necessary to meeting the needs of people they govern. This was true of the most ancient governments as it is today. The primary way of assuring the people's needs are met are, rituals to appease the gods or please the one true god, and military might used for economic conquest. This is what people in government think about and what people are willing to be governed. When the fail, as Russia and France failed, the people revolt in hopes of replacing failing government with government that will not fail them. When they succeed they go down in history as great leaders, and this as close to being immortal as a human can get. The people they govern are thinking about the things they want, like enough food for the whole year, or a new car, and possibly their families, and the education of their children. You know the mandane stuff that fills our paltry lives. They are not thinking about where the supply of gold for coins is coming from, nor their supply of wood for ships, or iron for weapons, or oil to maintain their industry that gives them their desirable standard of living. They are not thinking about their countries world markets, and how to hold a world market when France or Spain would gladly take it away. They trust their government to manage these things for them. So how is it that these people are lead to war? What does the philosophy of Leo Strauss have to do government and war? How about Thucydides explanation of the Peloponnesian wars and what war does to people's thinking? Are there any other sources explaining the causes of war and what war does to human thinking and relationships? How about a good explanation of the evolution of civilizations and when they reach that point where military conquest become the driving force of their governments?

For wealth & power...

[RVonse]

For plunder and treasure.

[The Architect]

There is a difference between revolution and war, ideology. In revolution the people are frustrated with there rulers and want to replace them. War is the effect of revolution, when the US declared independence the revolution was done now they had to fight the war. When war is started between two countrys usally its because of treasures or profites that could be made (land, power) but sometimes its because of hatred for the others belefies( ideological conflict), look at the crusades. War can also be revenge for past attack, the US and Japan.

[TehNinja]

It's different for every war, I don't think that one rule can apple to war in general. for WWII, we went to war to protect ourselves and keep Hitler from completely taking over the world.

[Athena]

Quote by: TehNinja It's different for every war, I don't think that one rule can apple to war in general. for WWII, we went to war to protect ourselves and keep Hitler from completely taking over the world.

Of all the answers, I like this one the best, because it applies to others, but has the most interesting twist. Wow, I am having to chew on this idea of when we slipped from looting, to taking land and not leaving, to the Military and Industrial Complex of modern warfare. I noticed people laughed at the idea that governments provide for the needs of the people, but for wars to be fought, people must be willing to support them, and they are not too willing to support them when they don't see them in there best interest.

Since WWII we have agreed to sink our national efforts into national defense.
We replaced liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose, and changed our national values and character. That is a pretty investment in war. At any time, any place, the military is like a nation within a nation. Rome had a terrible time keeping control of the generals and their armies. Eisenhower didn't demobilize following WWII, but embedded the
military interest in our industrial structure, assuring future wars for the protection of our economic interest and world dominance. This is an imitation of Germany's New World Order organization, that was concieved of by a Prussian General.

Unlike past wars, modern wars are even more dependent on technology and industry. Bush and Cheney thought they could take control of Iraq with military technology, Shock and Awe, and not have to use many troops, and not face the resistance to the war that they are facing in Iraq and at home. They adjusted information and manipulated the media, to convince people Iraq had nuclear weapons and was a threat to the world, and even though the world opposed us, we gladly followed Bush into war. Now we are realizing the cost of this war, and we don't like it. We don't like dumping our tax dollars into a long dragged out war with questionable returns, and this last election reflected our dissatisfaction with the war. We exercised some control over our war president.

We attacked Iraq for revenge and out of fear. Both were misplaced, but the average citizen didn't agree to this war to loot or take land. The average citizen agreed to this war for emotional reasons, revenge and fear.

[Right of Center]

Quote by: Athena We attacked Iraq for revenge and out of fear. Both were misplaced, but the average citizen didn't agree to this war to loot or take land. The average citizen agreed to this war for emotional reasons, revenge and fear.

I would say that it was for security reasons and moral reasons as well. Many Americans might have supported the war due in part to the 9/11 attacks. But there is sufficient moral reasons and security reasons to remove Hussein from power. I'm not going to repeat the reasons, they have been uttered thousands of times before.

[Jack]

If humans didn't have such an overdeveloped sense of property and territory, and such greed in wanting what others posses, perhaps we wouldn't be able to come up with a rational for war.

[kubedawg]

Religion, greed, envy, drugs, sex. There are limitless reasons why people go to war.

[Vee]

Reasons for war are very simple.

1. Mine is bigger than yours eg. Religion (Islam vs. Christianity) = I'm right, your wrong mentality.
2. Resources. One party has something the other want. eg. Oil (Iraq vs. Kuwait)
3. Land (Germany vs. Europe, Japan vs the Pacific)

[Jack]

I went to war because the alternative was to go to prison. Army uniforms are cooler than prison jumpsuits, and I got to actually shoot at the people who were trying to harm me, which is frowned upon in prison.

(Don't misunderstand; I enlisted. It wasn't a "jail or the Army" enlistment. The prison I refer to is the one I'd be in for failing to carry out lawful orders.)

[Athena]

Quote by: Right of Center I would say that it was for security reasons and moral reasons as well. Many Americans might have supported the war due in part to the 9/11 attacks. But there is sufficient moral reasons and security reasons to remove Hussein from power. I'm not going to repeat the reasons, they have been uttered thousands of times before.

Given there were good moral reasons to remove Saddam power, do these also justify killing thousands of civilians? Say another country thought Bush and his associated who desire to rule the New World Order, are immoral enough to remover from power, and proceded to do by booming DC, would you hold the same opinion about this being the correct way to remove someone from power?

How do you feel about the present conditions is Iraq? These people are more aristocratic than democratic. That is there many tribe like organizations with leaders who fight to death and followers who will follow, and the structure that gave them order has been destroyed, unleashing them to fight for power, and this is devastating to Iraq as a whole, and to the US futilely trying to reestablish order in Iraq. Considering all the lives being destroyed in this process, do you think we had a right to do this to the people of Iraq? Baghdad is the gateway between east and west, and has been a major trading center for centuries. These people are very sophisicated and had the highest living standard in the mid east, and we destroyed this. Please, do justify what we have done.

[Athena]

Quote by: Vee Reasons for war are very simple. 1. Mine is bigger than yours eg. Religion (Islam vs. Christianity) = I'm right, your wrong mentality. 2. Resources. One party has something the other want. eg. Oil (Iraq vs. Kuwait) 3. Land (Germany vs. Europe, Japan vs the Pacific)

Does this explain our attack on Iraq? I think Center of Right provided the accepted reason for attacking Iraq, so you would say we attacked for reason #1?

I think we attacked for #2, but that most of us would say this is morally wrong, so it would not be their reason for supporting the war.

How about our Civil war? What catagory would it fit in? I mean this question sincerely, and ask with a excited anticipation about what we might discover in this discussion.

Are wars fought on different levels? Can we look at this, as though war were a body on the surgery table and we are doing exploratory surgery? There is something that arouses the people and there are leaders who make things go one or another.

How did 9/11 justifying attacking any country? When a fellow blew up one of our federal buildings, we didn't boom the city he came from off the earth. We treated his actions as a crimimal matter. Wasn't what Bin Laden did a criminal matter, and might we have handled this differently with much better results?

[Jack]

Does this explain our attack on Iraq? I think Center of Right provided the accepted reason for attacking Iraq, so you would say we attacked for reason #1?

While I don't think that the people who planned the Iraq incursion considered religion as a reason to invade, Bush created the impression it might have been with his excessive religious posturing since then. Now it has the real possibility of becoming a christian vs. muslim war. That could push it closer to becoming a true world war.

How about our Civil war? What catagory would it fit in?

I'd say, in a general sense, #1. It was a war of ideology, differing ideas of how the country should be run. Some ideologies are religious, some political.

I agree with your opinion on OBL. But to go after him as an international criminal would have required us to work with the U.N., something this White House doesn't seem to want to do.

[Sandy]

Athena I would like to try to explain the New World Order and why America was brought into this concept starting after WW2. Let me explain that I am old enough to remember the constant fear of Communism after the war was over. It was the new terrorism of that decade and many people had bomb shelters in their neighborhoods and even in their own back yards.

It was a time when most Americans were confused about the future of America and although we won our war, something didn’t sit right. I was out of high school and in Business College to pursue a writing career and as soon as the bells and whistles of our victories in Japan and Europe we still carried a fear within our own minds. It was a time when science fiction became what we read and many television shows were watched.

My mother needed a driver for her many political meetings and I got suckered into attending the John Birch Society meetings where terrorism was discussed at every meeting and the threat of Communism was growing at an alarming rate. The Birchers decided to push Christian doctrines everywhere including the Pledge of Allegiance upsetting many people who refused to stand up and make the Pledge while “under God” was required.

This bothered me and didn’t feel right. After 911, nothing felt right and I began to cruise around many websites from other nations to see how they felt about America. I did not appreciate the neoconservatives and their desire to make the nations in the Middle East into democracies and take down the head of the Iraqi Nation because he was a bad tyrant and killed a lot of his own people. A look at the Sudan and in fact all of Africa, one could find many other tyrants, so why Iraq?

Somebody suggested I get a copy of the DVD “The Power of Nightmares” that had been a 3-hour documentary done for the BBC. I ordered it from Amazon and sat up one whole night trying to follow what this brilliant documentary had to say. It cleared up why it was necessary to form a One World Order to control the Middle East for the oil and they’re being the center of Islam. It clearly explained to me how a group of men had gathered to change the culture of America because their being Islamic Fundamentalists, America was the breeding pit for heresy and all things bad.

They somehow managed to bring in a lot of Americans under the guise of this neoconservative movement being Christian. They were behind Bush 41 and when he lost his race in 1992 the neoconservatives went after the Christian Coalition and watched them find a born-again Christian to lead the American Government into a war in the Middle East. It’s complicated and instead of my trying to describe this action, I can only hope many of you will watch it and join into a discussion.

The History Channel has aired this documentary all over the world but not in America. I have no idea why except it will blow the lid off of many of our Federal leaders and their plans for an American Empire to head up all the nations. It is based on the New World Order and takes it all the way to an American Empire 100%


"The Power of Nightmares" DVD
Available at Amazon and eBay

[Nono]

Y'all mixin individual with collective motivations. The discussion won't advance until you distinguish between the two.

Collectively, the US went to war in Iraq to retain control of a huge chunk of the oil supply in a world where others (especially China and India) were growing bigger and thirstier as new sources dwindled.

But then some of you (Isherwood, for example) are talking about why youngsters individually decide that they are going to join in the bloodshed. One interesting source is the American novelist Tim O'Brien, who explains (in "The Things They Carried" I believe) that despite his definite opposition to the Vietnam war and his pronounced fear of death, he decided to allow himself to be drafted because he was too embarrassed not to.

Or Michael Herr on our innate fascination with violence, like moths flying ever closer to a flame.

Humans are pretty crazy is all.