'
"Unintended Consequences of...li, Algeria Crisis Tied to Libya War
"Unintended Consequences of Military Intervention": Roots of Mali, Algeria Crisis Tied to Libya War

SURPRISE!! SURPRISE!! · · ·

[emphases added]

It does make one wonder if ANYONE in this bloody government thinks at all!!!

'
Well, I know that I, in the early 1960's, after taking an introductory course on East Asian history, knew more about Vietnam than the Secretary of Defense, and I knew for certain that the stated war aims of the US government would end in failure.

And the level of intelligence in Washington has gone down precipitously ever since then.

I think what we have is a case that since the current policies are diametrically opposed to yours, you have concluded their intelligence is low.

I think the current state of the country is proof positive of their intelligence level.

The discussion in the original post is itself misguided, and informed more by political viewpoint than factual accuracy. While I generally agree that military intervention always has unintended consequences, almost always bad, there are some naive assumptions that inform the piece from the beginning. In the introduction Mr. Gonzales states, " Islamist militants opposed to the French air strikes in neighboring Mali had seized the gas facility near the Libyan border on Wednesday." As with many such pronouncements, the speaker uncritically accepts the post hoc justifications for an action by the perpetrators, when they are clearly belied by the circumstances. This is a criminal gang, pure and simple, using a figleaf of ideology to excuse their criminal enterprise. It's a money-making endeavor.

Almost all military intervention is almost always economically motivated. Ideology is always the "story" used to justify military intervention to the plebe. I see no difference between one perpetrator or the other.
I also don't think you'll find any piece of journalism that is not politically biased.

I do see differences between perpetrators, but in all other respects, I agree.

But not always.
That might be stretching the truth a little. Let's just say almost always.

It seems you know the meaning of the word "almost" so I don't understand why you said "But not always".

As for the the second one: please provide a counter-example.

Maybe more important would be to define "intervention." Did we "intervene" in Korea? WWII? Was that ideological? What is ideology? Principle?

Yes, we intervened in Korea. Yes we intervened in WW II but appropriately so. Nothing about war is ideological except the explanations to the public.

Principle? Well survival is a principle so at least WW II is primarily principle, but certainly not exclusively (no war is free of it's exploiters)

I would venture to say that anywhere where there are American troops and American planes/helicopters/ships/submarines/bombs killing people there is intervention. (See clarification below)
I would also say that wherever the CIA or other U.S. government bodies are involved in overthrowing governments/influencing the outcome of elections, etc. (even when the military force is domestic) there is also intervention (or meddling), whichever you prefer.
I think that all this nonsense about "they hate us for our freedoms" has been an ideological boondoggle since 1776. The superposition of one class over another is the underlying issue, no matter what name it is given. So whatever new "ism" they come up with, it will always be about economic hegemony.

You are correct.
I should clarify: there are wars that are fought to defend against aggression and there are wars initiated by aggressors.
Intervention, IMO is the latter and not the former.

'
Yeah, just like the criminal gang that led the Terrorist Uprising of 1776 !! · ·

[emphasis added]

Even in Canada, other than apparently a very localized gang of which you are a member, numan, the principles and ideologies of that "criminal gang" have been adopted and spread around the world. Your view of history is so warped that I wonder if you even have a grasp of basic human understanding. Do remember that there is a monarchy in Canada?

'
It might be worthwhile to withdraw your head from all that uncritically accepted jingoistic nonsense and look at the world.

What has spread around the world are the principles of the French Revolution and the European parliamentary tradition.

And lots of better countries than the USA have a powerless monarch as head of state. It saves money and provides a more continuous symbol of the nation.

The only thing comparable in the USA is that badly designed fetish rag that is plastered everywhere and which is so absurdly a symbol of idolatry and irrational hysteria.

Irrational hysteria? Pot and kettle.

You're right, Scout, that was pretty hysterical.

'
[b] Mali war not “linked to Al Queda.” Western Press lying[/b]

did you bother to read your own citation????

The press lying. I suspect it is hard to prove that the "press" intentionally lies about anything. The "press" is normally engaged in finding a story. In their pursuit they may throw spaghetti on the wall to be the first with the story.

The CIA invented AQ. Clearly this character has problems understanding the real world. He also cherry picked his point of attack disregarding every other possibility. Here is an example: the Mali government had been under attack, by however you want to describe them as insurgents, islamists, thugs, and those folks were approaching the capitol. So the question is, did the French intervene without a request from the Mali government?

Of course these are minor problems which can be addressed by a competent journalist but the major point is valid, that many wars/interventions are economic in nature and even the converse is also true that the refutation of those wars and interventions may be economic. Thus in this case, the Mali government has a vested interest whether it is economic or strictly political.

The real purpose of the article was a vehicle for bashing and not exposing the obvious.

Note when it is founded.

Now let's see who funded that war:

Emphases added.

So, if what the author meant was "creation" instead of "invention", which would be a minor error in usage, then, in point of fact, the CIA and U.S. government had a strong hand in spawning al-Qaeda.

Other than that, the main point IS that the cause of the intervention IS ECONOMIC in nature. Which should come as no surprise.
Whether the French government was "invited" to defend its own economic interests (and that of other Western nations) or not is very much beside the point.

please don't embarrass yourself by pleading the authors ignorance. It is the language of delusional folks. He meant invention because in his delusional world that is how the conspiracy works i.e. government = evil, CIA = evil, MSM = evil etc.


I think the author took a different approach. The author suggests from his delusional perch, that it was a unilateral intervention from the French aspect, thus abrogating the legitimate Mali government to make a point that the intervention is economic in nature and nothing more.

I suggested that the author because of his delusion neglected the real possibility that it was in fact the Mali government which requested the intervention even if based solely on political principles which may have economic overtones. I don;t know the answer to that as I suspect that if the intervention had been unilateral from the Mali viewpoint, there would have been a loud condemnation from not only the Mali government but from the UN.

the problem with that is the obvious i.e. economic interest was not the point. It was the vehicle to bash every icon of government i.e. CIA, MSM, Big Business, etc.

The events on Mali are a little more complex than characterized by the citation. If we take the events out of historical context, on the one hand we have the legitimate government which has been unable to contain an insurgency. I know of no government which self abdicated r dissolved itself, therefore it stands to reason that the de facto government would at least pretend to have the self interest to survive. Those reasons may range from personal self interest such as not having one's head on a platter literally to maintaining ones economic lifestyle. The insurgents on the other hand have publicly displayed motivations ranging from islamism to pure thuggery.

It is at this point which exposes the author to his true motivation. He bypasses all the possibilities in order to do what he intended i.e. bash those in his gunsights.

T Jefferson made it a part of American foreign policy to protect economic interests of business in foreign lands by making those interests the interest of the United States. Every country in the world has the same viewpoint. In some cases the reasons reveal themselves as the most reasonable interpretation of events and in other cases it becomes more complex. It is easy to say bananas in central america or oil in iraq, but is it so easy when one says vietnam or WWI? I much rather suspect Mali is an example of of the latter. It is the nexus of all manner of competing reasons, one of which is economic.

It is apparent that your interpretation, and that is exactly what it is, differs from mine.
You say delusional, and you are embarrassing yourself by reading into an author's intention your own bias.
From what I understood, most of his attacks go to the economic benefit reaped by the intervention.
You can certainly disagree with what he says, but your interpretation is not the final word. It is good that you understand that. I'm not saying that mine is either, BTW, but it is how I read it.

If you do not see that WWI and WWII and Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. all had economic motives then you need to brush up on your history.

Invading other countries or disrupting their governments because of economic interest is just plain WRONG, I don't care who does it or what ridiculous reason they use to justify it.
If the shoe were on the other foot and someone were doing it here I think one's interpretation might be very different.

Your attempt to justify intervention is one sided and very unconvincing.

This argument needs some fleshing out. It is suggesting that rporter has no historical education, and that if he does a bunch of unspecified homework he will see that you are right and he is wrong.

Please, give us a few examples to support your position, not this vague, broad-brush implication that rporter is unintelligent. It does not make for an interesting or enlightening exchange.

You may be right, Ezekial, but you have not given me any evidence to support your position on this claim. (For instance, I happen to know that WWII was almost completely a Milo Minderbinder Enterprises entrepreneurial adventure, having read the book and seen the movie.)

My takeaway on rporter's post is that there are many factors influencing the causes for military intervention, one of which is commonly economic interests. My takeaway on your last post is that economic interest is the motivating bug. That is my comprehension of what I read.

No, you are suggesting that. I am not. I merely stated that these wars were fought for economic reasons. And that it would be wise to look into them. I made no appraisal of the poster's ability to do so nor of his willingness to do so. You did. You have a habit of putting words in other people's mouths. You must dissuade yourself of this habit.

Economic Causes of WWI

Economic Causes of the Vietnam War

Economic Causes of the Iraq War

Economic Causes of the Afghan War

Another view on American Economic Hegemony

So, as I have already stated on this thread, IMO economic reasons are the motivating factors. The stories that are told to the public to justify wars and interventions are just that, fairy tales.

Not "words in your mouth", just expressing how your statements came across to me. Please reconsider your slur about my "habit" - I think it was unnecessary and inflammatory. Re-phrasing what another person wrote is a common technique in coming to understand what another person is trying to communicate.

Frankly, I don't know why you appear to be arguing with rporter, who said that the causes for war are multiple and complex, with economic drivers being one of the elements. rporter never said that economic factors were not causes, only that they aren't the only causes. Your statements seem to want to focus only on the economic causes, even though you acknowledged at least once that there are many causes.

Your first link supports rporter's position: Please clarify your position, particularly in how it conflicts with rporter's position.

When you inaccurately represent what I said I will not leave it: you distorted my words, as you often do, and that was my point.


Not arguing... just saying that his read on the article in question differs from mine. The question, in case you hadn't noticed, is the role of economic motives. I have already made my opinion clear.


Imperialism is an economic motive. Balance of power is an economic motive.

At the risk of repeating myself: I know that there are many stories, the causes I believe are mainly economic.

Let me put a few words in your mouth, as you see it, or rephrase what you said as it came across to me, as I see it... both imperialism and balance of power are economic motives. Period. I guess I didn't actually distort or rephrase what you said, but I think that imperialism and balance of power are also products of other influences, as stated in your linked article about WWI.

It would appear that your position is that all of the influences listed are merely other names for economic motivations? Perhaps the author of the article was just being wordy, maybe because of the economic motivation of being paid by the word?

Yes, they are ultimately economic motives, regardless of the stories told to the population. They serve the expansionist and accumulative purposes of the empires involved.


There you go again...

One more time, with gusto, for the hard of hearing:

I'm sure you know what the word "almost" means.

What difference does it make? I assume that in your mind economic motivations are less desirable than ideological motivations? I have no reason to believe that one is better than the other.

And why do you believe plebes are the ones targeted for hearing the story? (When I was a plebe, I was not told this story.)

Nope, never said one was better or worse, just said that IMO the real motivations were almost always economic. No judgement on which is better.

origin of plebe = plebeian

Definition of plebeian
noun
(in ancient Rome) a commoner.
a member of the lower social classes:

"Definition of ALMOST: very nearly but not exactly or entirely"

And so you insist that: Very nearly but not exactly or entirely all military intervention is very nearly but not exactly or entirely always economically motivated.


And yet ideology is always the "story" used to justify military intervention to the plebe.
I'm not certain who "the plebe" is but apparently he/she has insufficient knowledge, in your opinion, to grasp that his purse may be threatened by enemies (real or imagined) of the state, yet a threat to his/her, all important,(political?)"ideology" justifies military intervention or total war worth losing his/her life or the lives of his/her loved ones.

I almost agree with your opinion.
I'm sure you know what the word "opinion" means.

Please refer to definition of "plebe" above.

Ah, dear Greger, I have stated several times on this thread that this is what I think. I never made any other representation. It is my opinion and it is based on facts but, nonetheless, I never said my opinion is fact.
That should help with your understanding of opinion.

Then, what difference does it make? (This is starting to look like a math question...)
To rephrase (or distort, depending upon something or other), what is your point?

I think that every decision that we all make has unintended consequences. And I think that we all have rationalizations that make the motivations of our decisions seem like the only reasonable choice a person could make. and we all have layers of hidden agendas that lie behind our decisions... many of those agendas we hide from even ourselves.

It strains credulity to expect that a political decision involving lots of people will be free of the above dynamics which affect each of us individually.

Ah, c'mon Loggy, you don't think it makes a difference - especially if you are going to fight in a war,or pay for it, or both - what the reason behind it is?
I think a lot of soldiers and taxpayers might disagree with you.

Actually, Ardy, in my understanding of group dynamics they are quite different and much simpler than those of most individuals.
I've mentioned this elsewhere, but it bears repeating: (paraphrasing Le Bon):
The intelligence of large groups, when asked to decide, usually falls to the level of its lowest element. There is no aggregating effect, according to Mr. Le Bon.
And when you see the results of the actions of mobs, crowds and other human groupings, you might wonder if he had a point.

So, now it does make a difference? I'll leave the table open while you make up your mind, then you can support your position, if you like. You never described any particular ideology in lieu of economic motives, so we have been in the dark on what you meant by that. I am slowly learning not to make any assumptions about what you only imply, since you don't like words being put in your mouth (apparently a habit of mine).

You must stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. Really...
I ascribed a motive (economics) which I think is important.
I said I made no judgement about what is better or worse.
It is really a reading comprehension thingy with you.

Remember Spock and his 3D chess game? The complexity of human interactions is no less complicated. In world politics, every twitch seems to have one intended consequence and two or three unintended ones. Some of the interactions are more obvious, like the Party-formerly-known-as-TEA (PfkaT) stonewalling every attempt to improve the U.S. economy if Obama might get some credit for it, and still the most appropriate moves are unclear. In a world full of boneheads, where even the most intelligent appearing folks can't communicate a simple point, how can there not be a chaos of unintended consequences?

'

Ezekiel does very well in communicating his points; it is just that some boneheads (dither deliberately or unknowingly) refuse to (or cannot) assimilate his clearly expressed points.

There are individual human beings with some measure of intelligence, but when they come together into groups their collective level of intelligence declines -- the greater the number of people the less their intelligence. The human race, taken as a whole, is about as intelligent as a bug. Societies in upheaval resemble a disturbed beetle rushing to-and-fro in panic until it winds up on its back with its legs waving in all directions.

The major problem from which the beetle suffers is its inability to handle information adequately. The beetle's eyesight and other sensory equipment are too primitive for the beetle to perceive clearly the child touching its back with a twig. Its nervous system is likewise too primitive to interpret adequately the reports of its senses to the organization of its body. It is misleading to think of the beetle as an individual. It is more fruitful to think of it as a group of millions of essentially identical cells held together within a carapace. These cells are more or less interchangeable; transfer an eye cell to the leg and it becomes a leg cell, and vice versa. The beetle has little in the way of a brain, and its nervous system is too primitive and poorly organized to permit higher order thought. It must make its way through the world by means of a limited array of pre-programmed responses to stimuli; these responses have a very limited capacity to be modified by experience. When it is touched by the twig, it experiences a cascade of pre-programmed, nested reactions, extending all the way up from the cellular level to the macroscopic organs of its body. Its nervous system participates in this cascade and distributes the integrated product to the various organs of the body by means of electrical and chemical signals. When we see the beetle rush crazily about, flip on its back, and wave its feet in all directions, we are witnessing the nearly simultaneous and random release of a significant subset of its array of pre-programmed responses. [The evolutionary rationale for this is that amongst unknown dangers, if you try all the responses in your repertoire, there is a significant chance that at least one of them will increase your chances of survival]

Comparisons are obvious between the plight of the beetle and human responses to 911, Katrina, the mess in Iraq and, on a larger scale, the phenomena of World Wars One and Two. A city may be regarded as a mass of nearly identical living units, held together by certain material and functional structures. Each unit, in general, may take on the functions of any other unit -- an airport traffic controller may wind up as a taxi driver, and vice versa. Humans in the mass have little or nothing comparable to a brain : a system which registers experience, organizes it, and employs it to enhance the life of the organism and protect it from destruction. You have governments and economic structures, religious and educational institutions, and voluntary organizations. We see how well they work!
Humans in the mass have very little ability to learn from experience; the most modest advances in human organization are normally marked by unbelievable suffering. The continued development of the metaphor is, I think, obvious.

One may compare the rudimentary nervous system of the beetle to modern methods of communication: radio, television, the internet. A notable difference between the two is that in the case of the beetle [and indeed in the case of the individual human organism] no advantage arises to the organism or any of its parts if the reports of the nervous system are inaccurate or false -- rather the opposite. In the case of humanity, many social elements may reap temporary benefits by the circulation of false or misleading reports, even at the cost of harming the viability of the human species as a whole. In this respect, the beetle and humanity are not identical; the beetle is superior.

Despite his clarity some of us boneheads simply do not agree with his points.

This is a gem of clarity.

I still don't know why Zeeky appeared to be arguing with rporter about economics being the sole driver of military interventions (Zeek denied that he was arguing, so I went back and looked, and it appeared to me that he was arguing something). Zeke took several positions, it appeared to me, including; an absolute declaration that economics is the only motivation, complete agreement with rporter that it is a blend of motivations, and finally settling on it's mostly economics. Then he said it made no difference. Then he said it made all the difference, apparently because using ideology (undefined what ideology) is deception. I might actually agree with him, but he seems to want to argue instead of clarifying his point. Then he wandered off talking about me smoking and not having good reading comprehension.

noomie apparently gets it, however. Want to make Ezekial's point for us, nice and clear-like, noomie?

'
[b]France launches Mali war for resources[/b]

A question, noomie - what do you think are the "unintended consequences" referred to in the article title? It seems to me that all of the consequences are, if not intended, at least generally predictable. "Unintended consequences" may not be the natural subject of the article, "economic motivations for military intervention" may have been more appropriate.

'
Here is a charming example of the incoherent, contradictory jibber-jabber which the advanced techniques of American brainwashing have conditioned so many Americans to take as sensible political comment.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Senate committee testimony on Benghazi (text)[/b]

Yeah, people in other countries might have a chance to run their own affairs and work for their own interests, rather than for the cliques who run the US government.
All due to the US meddling in Libya in the first place, and causing ripples of instability spreading out into the rest of north-west Africa.
[emphasis added]
Whose interests? The interests of the oil companies, gold mining and uranium mining concessions in Algeria, Mali and Niger ? Certainly not the interests of the Touareg inhabitants of the region !
· · ·
I will let that absurd and idiotic statement stand by itself.

And yet some wonder what I meant when I talked about fairy tales...

numan~If you agree with Ezekiel that almost all war is economically motivated, then you would have to agree that it has been so since the dawn of time. Animals do it(see lions and other animals protecting/grabbing new territory), insects do it, plants do it, even viruses and bacteria do it. It is part of nature and not strictly an American fault. The UK, which you think we Americans should go back to) did it in spades. You own country of Canada was part of that-just ask the First Peoples. The was even a war in heaven, which Lucifer lost. So don't go all High and Mighty. It is not only human nature, but all of nature.

In fact you do so yourself with your words. Your economic payoff is to impose your will here and hopefully(to you) through out the world. So you are no different. You are as base as the rest of us.

'

I will let that absurdity speak for itself as well.

And Mathematics created it all!!

Why Loggy, you have elevated mathematics to godhede... I am impressed!

Just repeating what I heard from the Laputaininnies. I personally don't subscribe to that absurd notion.

Proffered by the fella who barters in absurd notions. I am even more impressed.

Ezekial, as you know I am fond of clever banter and not averse to humorous and intelligent jibes. But juvenile insults that are neither fun, nor clever, are not only a violation of the guidelines - they effectively put a damper on exchanges. If you can't keep in the game without resorting to vacuous and unoriginal insults, perhaps you could learn to take a pass. I'd guess that's about twenty times now that you have resorted to an attempt at a lame personal insult to me as a "rebuttal".

To put another light on it, such comments as above leave no opportunity for response other than more of the same. Please give me something interesting to work with, or keep it to yourself. Thank you.

What was absurd about it, noomie?

You're welcome

SO now that is settled, let's move on...

I would like to hear from anyone who can find an example of a war or intervention that they believe did not have economic motivation.

Please clarify; do you mean as the only motivator, or do you mean as one of the motivators?

Had NO economic motivation.

I don't think anyone on this thread ever came close to claiming that there have been wars with no economic motivation. I don't claim it.

I agree with Scoutgal's post of absurdities, and Ardy's observations about complexity, and rporter's statement of assuming a mix of motivations, that it's not a stretch to assume that economic motivations are ubiquitous in all interactions.

That being the case, how would one define (from an unbiased historical perspective, IF such a thing is possible) what the MAIN motivation of a war or intervention was?

I really don't think we can. As I stated earlier, you can find that there is some kind of economic factor in every type of life on this planet. From humans all the way to one cell protozoa. I would say that it might be the survival instinct. And if you cannot adapt or overcome those who try to take over, you go extinct-like the Dodo bird or the dinosaur.

I dunno - how would you (seeing as it's your point, and all)?

Why do you think it matters?

I am asking a question.
I don't know the answer.

It matters for the reasons I previously stated.

I take it your answer is "I dunno"?

My answer is, "I don't care". Do you care?

I don't know what reasons you previously stated.

I'd give your question a YOTF rating of 0.5.

Yes I do.
Please refer to this thread when you asked the same question and I answered it.

Then why don't you make an effort to "solve" the problem? State a hypothesis, present some evidence, test the hypothesis. That might be interesting.

I am asking others if they have any thoughts on the matter. That is usually how it begins. Some may have read or thought about the subject and may have come up with a hypothesis or two. Based on that we can have a REAL discussion and not reduce the exchange to what one thinks as opposed to what another thinks.
I have already stated that I think economics IS the MAIN motivation for war.
The reasons are, as others have said, that there is always some economic component, which I think is the main component because power always seeks to entrench itself and guarantee, not just its own survival (as Scout aptly pointed out), but growth (as a form of "immortality"). Political power IS economic power and, in today's world, economic power IS political power. So, by extension, increasing economic power is increasing political power.

I don't want to assume anything about your hypothesis, because I often get accused of putting words in your mouth. But here is a bit of evidence that might be an example of a war that was not primarily motivated by economics.

Hatfields and McCoys

What is your current evidence? I find your definition of "economic motivation" to be either vague, or perhaps too all-encompassing, to work with.

Maybe you need to start with a hypothesis about economics being the motivation for everything. That appears to me to be what Scoutgal thought your hypothesis was.

Please lets only attack the issues and not each other.

Hard to say if it was or wasn't given that the "bad blood" seemed to exist out of nothing - according to the anecdotal evidence provided in your link.
My hypothesis is quite specific, to wit:
ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS.
In other words, even when there are other motives, the economic ones are the most important.

Why?

And what is your evidence and proposed methodology for proving your hypothesis?

Because it appears that you have included that conjecture in your definitions for the stated hypothesis about the cause of war. I don't think that supporting a hypothesis with conjecture is accepted scientific method.

No, I didn't. Scout did.
But in either event, conjectures are part of a hypothesis. And they are both part of the scientific method.

My evidence was presented with several links on this thread.
I don't know if it can or cannot be proved. Do you?

I don't think that it can be proved.

Zeke
For a moment, let us accept your conjecture.

Do you think that wars and interventions are effective means of gaining the economic benefits which are the primary motivation for these events?

how about this one?

Not the same at all.
I equated political and economic powers - that has nothing to do with "everything".
Besides, proving that "economics is the motivation for everything" would require defining what "everything" is... not an easy task.
Proving a more specific point: "economics is the main motivation for wars" is a more tractable starting point.

Whatever. I'm done with this circular quibble match.

Excellent question, Ardy!
Yes, I do. I think that territorial expansion (which includes economic subjugation of the conquered) has been, for millennia, a form of making the conquering empire richer.
History is rife with examples.
In today's world, the conquest is more subtle (sometimes) than it was during Roman times, for example, but its end benefit is the same: the so-called "sphere of influence" is achieved by economic subjugation through organs such as World Bank, IMF, etc. In order for that to be effective, one must implant "friendly governments".

So, let us consider a few events.....
Who benefited from wwI, or WWII, Or Korea, or vietnam, or kosovo, or Iraq, or the soviet invaision of Afghanistan, or the Us invaision of AFG?

WWI - U.S. and Japan (to a lesser degree)
WWII - U.S. and perhaps the Soviet Union
Korea - The U.S. as it maintained its ally - South Korea
Vietnam - The people of Vietnam
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan - The sellers of guns
U.S. invasion of Afghanistan - Please see link below for economic causes of this war. As there is no real end to the war it is no possible to say who benefited but Karzai and his crew come to mind.

Previous post.

Remember, however, my statement is that the CAUSE of war is economic - the result of the war is not necessarily in line with what the aggressor intended. (Vietnam for example).

'
Before you can answer that, you must drag most Americans, kicking and screaming, to look at the simple question --CUI BONO ? -- "Who Benefits," in plain dollars and cents !
As (a less important) addendum, one might add, "who thought they were going to benefit, but turned out to be mistaken ?"

Until an American looks clearly at the answer to this question, all his thoughts and words on the subject are worthless.

Zeke
As you recall, I asked you if war and intervention is a successful way of achieving economic goals.
you answered that

Now, I would be happy if you said that people who start wars intend one thing, but usually do not get the planned economic benefit. Then we could agree that wars are irrational.

But, you did not say that wars are irrational. You said that wars are an effective means of pursuing economic goals, And so I proposed some example to test the theory. In order for your theory to work as you said... the people who started these wars must have had, and achieved clear economic goals as a result of their actions. So lets review your responses... OK?



How do you figure that the US or Japan started WWI?
That was the question, right....
how is it that the people who started the war derived the planned economic benefit?



It seems far fetched to assert that the US started WWII?
And the losses in the soviet union were beyond horrific.
WHat ever territory they gained has now all been lost.
It does not seem like a good example of a country starting a war and deriving great benefit.




Once again, it is hard to see why you say the US started that war. ANd you have not specified an economic advantage that we gained from maintaining an ally.

it is not clear how you are saying that the people of vietnam started this war and had economic motivations to do so....


it is not clear how the people you mention started the war

it is not clear how karzai started the war


Zeke
I hope that you do not think I am bein picky here
I am trying to follow your logic
and to see how the facts match up
and by doing so
Strengthen the point that you are making
Thx
Ardy

Numan
you raise some brilliant points

But before we delve into the mysteries of the american political system.... I was hoping that we could discuss the more general point that Zeke was making... IE that all wars are motivated by economics, and that they are an effective way to achieve those goals.

Once we have discussed the more general case, then we can move on to specifics of the american global hegemony. I hope that is ok with you?

Thx Ardy

Not okay

We are at cross purposes.

1) You asked who derived the benefits from those wars and not who started them. It is obvious that my answers don't match a question that I didn't see there.

2) No, in order for my hypothesis to be correct the war must be started with an economic gain as its intent, I did not say, nor would I say, that the aggressors are always successful. How could anyone possibly know that beforehand?
Actually, in my reply I said this quite clearly.


3) My argument is that wars are waged with economic motivation, whether they are a rational way to achieve that goal is not the issue. My response was they DO sometimes achieve that goal.

'
Sometimes, getting people to see the obvious is like pulling teeth, isn't it, Ezekiel ?

---pulling hen's teeth !! · ·

Indeed

***bump***

Good
So as I now understand what you are saying is that wars are mosyly started for economic reasons... but the people who start the war have no reasonable assurance that the war will achieve it's intended economic goal.... and, in fact, a review of recent history would suggest that war seldom aCHIEVES ANY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC OBJECTIVE THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE COST.

Now do I have it?

Well, I know that all nations are ruled by stupid people this war buisiness seems like a heads you lose, tails you lose sort of deal.... from an economic achievement persective.

Yes, but my immediately preceding post asked if war was a reliable means to achieve the economic benefits that are the main motivation for war. It seemed clear to me that I was following along the same thread of discussion.

So let me be perfectly clear.
You say that economics are the main drivers for war
I ask if war reliably achieves the main objective for starting the war?

If you say yes, then we will talk case study illustrations

If you say no, I will observe that it is very stupid for people to set out to achieve economic benefit though a means that has repeatedly failed to deliver the promised results.

So, a bunch of decision makers sit around a big table and debate whether or not to have a war. The people in favor propose that they could throw massive amounts of money and lives at a project and and there is a possiblility that maybe it could work out to be economically beneficial.

The leader asks what is the probablility of success.

Proponents say... well, sometimes these thing work out well... but we really don't know.

Is that how it works?

No, you still do not have it, Ardy.

Why are you fixated on the view that wars are designed to achieve national goals?
That is certainly possible, but definitely not necessary.
All the modern wars of the United States are fomented and sustained by very private interests for personal profit -- the war contractors, war profiteers, etc.
They have no interest in helping their country -- they just want to feather their own nests.
The country can go down in flames and hellfire, as long as they are all right, Jack !

Numan
I continue to admire the perpicacity of your postings

That said, I was trying to stick to a single thread of discussion about the generalized motivation for war accross all countries

When that discussion is fully elucidated, I am sure there will be great enthusiam to move on to your dead on critiques of the american politcal system

Thx
Ardy

Ardy, numan's post pretty much summarizes what I've been saying.

Wars are started with economic motivation. There are profiteers, as numan pointed out, and there are motives of economic hegemony on the part of the aggressors.

Whether or not the goal of economic hegemony is reached depends on the outcome of the war. Those who initiate it do not know the outcome beforehand.

So, given those two aspects, there always seems to be some economic benefit, whether it be to the profiteers or whether it be through economic hegemony, or both.

I don't know how else to explain it.

For the Just, War is Noble and Good. Only War reveals the best and the worst of Man.

Zeke
Of course you are correct that it is impossible to predict the outcome of wars.... and there are lots of reasons for this.

I observe that people can go through years of psychological therapy to try to untangle the complicated web that results in a particular problem. And I can say for my self that I seldom have a clearly defined and unitary motivation for my decisions.

SO given that the decision process of any individual is very complex, and given that the decision process of multiple people must also be very complex... and to a large degree opaque. And certainly, one must allow for the fact that other cutures will have motivation structures that are totally unfamiliar to us... and necessarily even further obscured.

SO, what puzzles me is how you can see uncertainty in one set of complexity... and yet with laser like precision see through even greater complexity and arrive at certainty as to the single unifying motivation.



Again you are correct, but there does seem to be a hole in your logic. Let me illustrate.

Many people get married. the choice of partner will likely have an economic impact on their future. But it does not seem a fair conclusion to say that the choice of marriage partner is almost entirely driven by economic factors.

I am thinking that the hypothesis presented to us that wars are primarily motivated by economics has the logical flaw of having been, in fact, a conclusion. Which could explain why it performed so erratically in logical analysis.

I am still at a loss to see the underlying economic motivation in the two war examples to which I provided links. One was the Hatfields and McCoys - that one seems to be motivated by hatred.

The second hasn't actually evolved into a war yet, but I thought that if we made some significant progress here, we might use what we discover to deter that war from ever starting. That issue is the threat of Kim Jong-un re: attacking the U.S. What form does the economic motivator take that provokes North Korea's saber rattling?

I do enjoy discussing topics, but sometimes it is like pulling snail's teeth to get folks to materially participate! Quibbling seems to be more popular with some.

Both my posts and those of numan present a reason why collective decisions tend to be less complex than those of individuals. There is no hard and fast way to determine the process that leads to complexity.

I don't think that it is with "laser like precision" but I do think that there is sufficient evidence to say that the hypothesis of economic motivation has more than a fair chance at being correct.


The hole in your logic is that, again, you equate the individual to the collective decision. And, what is more, your example is perhaps not the best one, given that there are many examples where economic gain IS a main reason for marriage.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. As such, it is a conclusion. I believe the logical flaw lies in your comment.

As I mentioned before, even hatred does not spring out of "nothing". There is usually some reason for it.

Oh, perhaps, economic sanctions imposed on North Korea. And why would the U.S. impose those sanctions? Well, perhaps because the end of North Korea's regime would solidify American economic allies in the region.


Indeed, you should check your own comments. You may just find a clue therein.

I have long noted that, due to the intensity of the brainwashing to which they are subjected, many or most Americans are astonishingly incapable of making even the most simple distinctions between individual and collective behavior.

Must it constantly be pointed out that if someone at a high level of decision making in the War and Murder Industries of the United States did not make sufficiently profitable decisions, they would soon be replaced by those who were more efficient at exploiting the populace and finding markets for their murder products ?

The subjective motivations of these sociopathic wretches are of little or no significance to their objective activities promoting murder and mayhem.

When does it become a hypothesis? Perhaps when one, or more, examples are presented (with supporting facts)?This example does not include collective decisions. I suspect that Hitler and Saddam Hussein did not indulge in the collective decision-making process, either.

What we have so far is:
- A conclusion/hypothesis that ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS.
- No examples have been looked at to support the conclusion/hypothesis.
- Several examples have been presented that seem to indicate that economics is not always the main motivation for wars and interventions.
- A second incomplete hypothesis that collective decision-making causes economic motivatiors (?).
- Several examples of nation-level dictatorial decision-making, suggesting that not all large-scale decisions are made collectively.

This discussion isn't really about proving a hypothesis, is it. It seems to be more of a hit-and-miss defense of a conclusion against contrary facts.

***bump***

Supporting facts were supplied.

My response to your issue about Korea had no mention of collective decision making. I pointed out the economic motivations you requested.

There have been several examples posted on this thread. Please refer to them.

I have seen no example where non economic issues were motivators. Please provide.

There is no hypothesis that says collective decision making causes economic motivators. Not sure what that even means.

Dictatorial decisions, such as those made by Hitler and Sadaam seem to have been the result of collective thinking, as well. Hitler had many advisors as did Sadaam. Their actions and decisions were not taken/made alone.

I believe the lack of factual support lies entirely with those who say that economics is not a main motivation for war.
I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

Critical thinking

It's your hypothesis, Ezekial. Go for it.

It has been presented with factual evidence. I have seen no alternative explanation.

Alrighty, then. You won't mind if I submit your hypothesis and proof to Wikipedia then, so the whole world can benefit?

I wonder if this thing here has any relevance to the discussion?

confrimation bias

Be my guest

Just one thing: don't confuse hypothesis with proof. Why on this very thread I said to someone (you, maybe) that I wasn't presenting a proof. Factual evidence is not a proof in mathematical terms.

Nah. Nothing do with anything in this discussion. However, I commend you on your extensive use of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:

I infer that you mean the use of Wikipedia is a sign of what - low intelligence? (I checked and "critical thinking" does not generally include the use of gratuitous insults).

Look, I am trying to engage in the testing of your hypothesis. It appears to me that your hypothesis may be too absolute.You could say, ECONOMICS IS often THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS; or you could say, ECONOMICS IS one of THE MAIN MOTIVATIONS FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS. I doubt that anyone would challenge that.

But shouting ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS (all caps is commonly acknowledged to be shouting in written communications) invites scrutiny.

My two examples of wars where economics does not appear to be the main motivation were offered as test subjects. I arrived at no conclusions from them. The extent of analysis they received relevant to your hypothesis was a vague opinion that they probably had some economic motivation involved, not ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR the examples, followed by unilateral dismissal. It seems to be a case of confirmation bias that you rejected them without any substantive analysis.

I still maintain that you have not presented a case study for discussion that supports your hypothesis. Overviews, quotes from speeches, etc., are valuable sources when one is formulating a hypothesis, but they do not test the hypothesis.

'
"For the corporation executives, the military metaphysic often coincides with their interest in a stable and planned flow of profit; it enables them to have their risk underwritten by public money; it enables them reasonably to expect that they can exploit for private profit now and later, the risky research developments paid for by public money. It is, in brief, a mask of the subsidized capitalism from which they extract profit and upon which their power is based."
-– C. Wright Mills, Causes of World War 3, 1960

Your inference about using Wikipedia is wrong. I used it myself right after.


Nothing absolute about it. That was my original post.

My intention was not to shout. That convention I am unaware of. I meant it simply as a way to emphasize the point.

Both of your suggestions were questioned. You supplied nothing after that. Just the old - throw the spaghetti and see if it sticks.

I have enough evidence - much of it has been presented - to believe that the hypothesis holds water.
It is your job to show me where it may be wrong, after all, you are contesting it.
You have not done so as of yet.

Please regard your own post: this is business, not personal

'
"Charles Wright Mills was an American sociologist, and a professor of sociology at Columbia University from 1946 until his death in 1962. Mills was published widely in popular and intellectual journals, and is remembered for several books. Among them The Power Elite, which introduced that term and describes the relationships and class alliances among the U.S. political, military, and economic elites...."

OK
here is an article on causes of wwI.... economic reasons are among a whole network of other causes.

The causes of World War I, which began in central Europe in late July 1914, included intertwined factors, such as the conflicts and hostility of the four decades leading up to the war. Militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism played major roles in the conflict as well. The immediate origins of the war, however, lay in the decisions taken by statesmen and generals during the Crisis of 1914, casus belli for which was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife by Gavrilo Princip, an irredentist Serb.[1] wiki

In her history of this period called "Guns of August". Barbara Tuchman goes into exquisite detail aboput how miscalculations, false assumption, historical suspicions, national pride and rivalries, etc all intertwined to suck nations into a war that no one really wanted.

link once again economic issues were but a part of a complex fabric of causes.

link in other words the Korean war was primarily a dispute over who should run Korea

link There would be no war except for North Vie Nam's willingness to fight on against what they saw as an invalid government in the south... it was for them a nationalist struggle.

As it turns out, there are wealthy people all over the world. And in most cases, the wealth is not a product of encouraging their governments to go to war.

And in the USA, the wealthiest people... Bill Gates, Larry Ellision, Warren buffet, Walmart founders, Aple stock holders.... google stock holders, facebook stock holders..... none of these people have any economic interest in having more wars.

Definitely a classic case of confirmation bias. Interesting how it manifests persistently, even to the point of changing accepted forms of engagement and shifting the hypothesis from first;
- a conditioned statement (Almost all military intervention is almost always economically motivated);
- to an absolute statement, shouted for emphasis (ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS);
- and back again to the more moderate position (Almost all military intervention is almost always economically motivated).
And saying that a quibbling insult is not an insult. Very strange...

Francis Bacon, Novum Organum

As I have asked before, please do not distort my words.

Ardy,

Your posts prove only that there are differing opinions on the causes of war, albeit, all of those you presented do have some degree of economics in them.
I never said or thought that there would not be differing views.

Since our friend Iss has abstained from this debate I find myself presenting what might be his input into this discussion. I never thought it would happen but, here goes:


Link

Now on the diametrically opposed angle of the political spectrum we have:


Link

So, as you can see, there are many who argue that the economic cause IS a main cause of war.
What is more, they hail from opposite poles of political ideology.

Again, I don't think there is proof positive of this or any other claim - at least I have not read one. But, I do think that the economic cause is the main cause.

'
Well, although one would scarcely know it in the USA, there are other ways to make money than by waging war.

However, in such a hyper-militaristic barbarism as the United States, there can be few rich people who do not make significant profits from abetting the murdering rampages of their government all over the world.

Here is a list of the 100 top defense contractors.
Note the size of the companies involved.
Note how many - the overwhelming majority - are U.S. companies.
Revenues in 2011, according to PWC, were a measly 677 billion dollars.

Switzerland/United States Acutronic
Republic of Ireland Accenture Ltd.
United States Action Target
United States Advatech Pacific, Inc
United States Aerojet
United States Aerospace Corporation
United States Aerovironment
United States Advanced Armament Corporation (AAC)
United States Advanced Integrated Systems
United States AECOM
United Kingdom Aegis Defense Services
Sweden Aimpoint
United States AirScan
United States Airtronic USA
United States Aivea Corporation
United States Allen Vanguard
United States Alliant Techsystems
United States/Canada Allied Container Systems
United States AM General Corporation
United States American Dynamics Flight Systems
United States American Ordnance LLC
United States American Petroleum Institute
United States Analysis, Computing & Engineering Solutions, Inc. (ACES, Inc.)
Ukraine Antonov Airlines
United States Applied Research Associates Inc.
United States Arcturus-UAV
United States ARINC
United States Argon ST
United States ArmorSource
United States ArmorWorks
United States Artis LLC
United States ASSETT, Inc.
United States Astronautics Corporation of America
United States Aurora Flight Sciences
United States AV-Optimal Defense Consultancy Service
United States AVX Aircraft Company
United Kingdom BAE Systems plc
United States BAE Systems Inc.
United States BAE Systems Land and Armaments
United States BAE Systems Electronics, Intelligence & Support
South Africa Land Systems OMC
United States Ball Corporation
United States Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
United States Barrett Firearms Manufacturing
United States Battelle Memorial Institute
United States Bechtel Corporation
Italy Benelli USA
United States Berico Technologies
Saudi Arabia/United Kingdom BDM Corporation
United States Blazeware Inc.
United States Black Knight Technology Inc.
United States Boecore
United States Boeing Company
United States Boeing Sikorsky Comanche Team
United States Boeing SVS
United States McDonnell Douglas
United States Insitu
United States Booz Allen Hamilton
United States Boston Dynamics
United Kingdom British Nuclear Fuels Limited
United States Brogden Enterprises, Inc.
United States CACI International Inc.
United States Carlyle Group
United States Carnegie Mellon University
United States Ceradyne
United States Charles Stark Draper Laboratory
United States Chenega Federal Systems
United States CNA Corporation
United States Colt Defense
United States Concurrent Technologies Corporation
United States Critical Solutions International
United States Crye Associates
United States CSA Engineering
United States CSI Combined Systems
United States Computer Sciences Corporation
United States Cubic Corporation
United States Omega Training Group
United States Decibel Research Inc.
United States Defense Technologies Inc.
United Kingdom Delta Intelligence & Security
United States DEW Engineering
United States Digital System Resources Inc.
United States Dillon Aero
United States DRS Technologies
United States DynCorp
United States Dynetics, Inc.
Netherlands EADS
United States EADS North America
United States Exnovo Solutions, Inc.*
France Eurocopter
United States American Eurocopter
France Airbus
United States Earth Class Mail
United States East/West Industries, Inc.
United States Ensign-Bickford Aerospace and Defense
United States Edison Welding Institute
Israel Elbit Systems
United States M7 Aerospace
United States ENSCO, Inc.
United States/Turkey/Poland Environmental Tectonics Corporation
United States Ernst & Young
United States Evergreen International Aviation
United States Exxon Corporation
Italy Fabbrica d'Armi Pietro Beretta
Belgium Fabrique Nationale de Herstal
United States FLIR Systems
United States Fluor Corp.
United States FGM Inc
United States F M C Technologies
United States Force Protection Inc
United States Foster-Miller, Inc.
United States Foster Wheeler Ltd.
United States Foundation Health Systems Inc.
United Kingdom G4S plc
United Kingdom Armour Group Inc
United States GB Industrial Battery
United States Gemini Industries Inc.
United States General Atomics
United States General Dynamics
United States Gulfstream
Switzerland MOWAG
United States General Dynamics Electric Boat
United States Bath Iron Works
United States General Electric Military Jet Engines Division
United States Geo-Centers Inc.
Austria Glock Ges.m.b.H.
United States Goodrich Corporation
United States Gordon and Castille Industries
United States Georgia Tech Research Institute
United States Harris Corporation
United States/United Arab Emirates Halliburton Corporation
United States Health Net, Inc.
Germany Heckler & Koch USA
United States HESCO USA
United States Hewlett-Packard
United States Honeywell
Croatia HS Produkt
United States Humana Inc.
United States Hybricon Corporation
United States IBM
United States Industrial Machining & Design Services, Inc.
Puerto Rico Infotech Aerospace Services (a Pratt & Whitney joint venture)
United States Insight Technology
United States Institute for Defense Analyses
United States Intelsat
United States International Resources Group
United States iRobot
Israel Israeli Aerospace Industries
Israel Israeli Military Industries
United States ITT Exelis
United States ITT Research Institute
United States Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
United States JGB Enterprises, Inc.
United States Johns Hopkins University
United States Kaman Aircraft
United States Kearfott Corporation
United States Kellogg, Brown and Root
United States Knight's Armament Company
Norway Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace
United States L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.
United States SYColeman
United States Brashear
United States EOTech
United States Lockheed Martin
United States Gyrocam Systems
United States Longbow Limited Liability Inc.
United States LRAD Corporation
United States M9 Defense Systems
Sweden MacGregor Group (part of Cargotec corporation)
Denmark A.P. Moller-Maersk Group
United States ManTech International
United States Massachusetts Institute of Technology
United States Maytag Aircraft Corporation
France/United Kingdom/United States MBDA
United States McQ Inc
Turkey Menatek Spare Parts
Australia Metal Storm
South Africa Milkor USA
United States Mission Essential Personnel
United States MITRE Corporation; also see ANSER Institute for Homeland Security
Japan Mitsubishi
United States Motorola Inc.
United States Mustang Tech Group
United States Natel Electronic Manufacturing Services
United States Navistar Defense
United States Nextel
United States NexGen Data Systems, inc.
United States Nichols Research Corporation
Japan NITTOH KENSETSU CO., LTD.
United States Northrop Grumman Corporation
United States Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems
United States Northrop Grumman Information Technologies
United States Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems
United States Northrop Grumman Mission Systems
United States Northrop Grumman Newport News (formerly Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company)
United States Northrop Grumman Ship Systems
United States Northrop Grumman Space Technology
United States Northrop Grumman Technical Services
United States Ocean Shipholdings Inc.
United States Oceaneering International
United States Olin Corporation; also see John M. Olin and John M. Olin Foundation
United States Orbital Sciences Corporation
United States Oshkosh Corporation
United States Osterhout Design Group; see also Ralph Osterhout
United States OT Training Solutions
Canada Para-Ordnance
United States Perot Systems
United States Picatinny Arsenal
United States Pinnacle Armor
United States Point Blank Solutions, Inc.
United States Precision Castparts Corporation
United States Quantum3D
United States QinetiQ North America
United States Raytheon
United States BBN Technologies
United States JPS Communications
Canada ELCAN Sighting Systems
United States Remington Arms
United States Revision Eyewear
United States Rock Island Arsenal
United States Rockwell Collins
United Kingdom Rolls-Royce plc
United States RONCO (de-mining operations Horn of Africa)
Sweden Saab AB
United States SBG Technology Solutions
United States Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
United States Sensis Corporation
United States Shell Oil Company
Germany Siemens AG
United States/Canada SimplexGrinnell, LP
United States SFA, Inc.
United States SGIS
United States Smartronix, Inc.
United States SmartRounds
United States Smith & Wesson
United States Sobran, inc
United States SPARTA, Inc.
United States SpotterRF
United States Springfield Armory
United States SRC Inc
United States SRI International
Singapore ST Engineering
Singapore ST Kinetics
United States Sumaria Systems
United States Vision Technologies Systems
United States Stanley, Inc.
United States Standard Missile Company LLC
United States Stevedoring Services of America
United States Stewart and Stevenson
United States Strum, Ruger & Company Incorporated
United States Subsystem Technologies Incorporated
United States Sverdrup Corporation
Switzerland Swiss Arms
United States SIG Sauer
United States Talla-Tech
United States Tangent Networks LLC
Brazil Forjas Taurus S/A
United States TCom
United States Teledyne
United Kingdom Telent
United States Texas Instruments
United States Textron Inc.
United States Bell Helicopter Textron
United States United Industrial Corporation
United States AAI Corporation
United States The Columbia Group
United States Trijicon
United States Tri-Star Engineering, Inc.
United States TriWest Healthcare Alliance
United States Tyco International Ltd.
United States ADT Security Services
United States University of Texas System
United States Unisys Corporation
United States United Technologies
United States Sikorsky
United States Pratt & Whitney
United States URS Corporation
United States Washington Group International
United States USmax Corporation
United States US Falcon
United States US Ordnance
United States Vangent
United States Velocity Systems
United States Verizon Communications
United States Vinnell Corporation
United States Vinnell-Brown & Root
United States Westinghouse Electric Corporation
United States Wiley X
United States Worldcorp Inc.
United States Wyvern Technologies, Aerospace & Defense Contractors
United States Academi LLC (formerly Blackwater and Xe Services)
United States York Executive Operations

Here, Ardy, I think you make the best possible case for causes other than economic for war.

It is quite true that the immediate causes of World War I were ghastly, idiotic mistakes by aristocratic twits in high places, mainly in Foreign and War Ministries. Moreover, these incompetent twits were unable to correct their mistakes due to the inflexible avalanche of military timetables.
National rivalries were certainly involved, but I think any sensible assessment would admit that these rivalries were at such a high pitch due, primarily, to the struggle for resources and markets.

However, World War I was a century ago, in another world and in a vanished social order. The aristocratic ruling orders were securely seated in power, with little to gain and much to lose by a major war [and, essentially, WWI wiped them out].

In stable societies with secure ruling classes, there is little incentive to engage in serious warfare -- what the Nazis were pleased to call "Total War." It is the moderately wealthy and sociopaths on the make who are most attracted to getting big bucks and quick bucks through war.

Needless to say, World War I precipitated the collapse of civilization all over the world, and brought to birth the violent, savage world which it is our lot to endure. Nowhere are there stable societies and secure ruling classes, and a kaleidoscopic parade of criminal gangs rule in every country, all out for their share of the loot. In such a nasty, brutish world, war and the profits of war reign supreme.

"To know only one thing well is to have a barbaric mind: civilization implies the graceful relation of all varieties of experience to a central humane system of thought. The present age is peculiarly barbaric: introduce, say, a Hebrew scholar to an ichthyologist or to an authority on Danish place names and the pair of them would have no single topic in common but the weather or the war [if there happened to be a war in progress, which is usual in this barbaric age]."
---Robert Graves

And then, of course, there is J.P. Morgan:

Numan
no one has ever argued that economics is not to a greater or lesser degree involved among very many causes for war. What I and maybe others are saying is that it is only a part of the picture.

As per my example of two people deciding to get married... one can almost always find an economic component as a part of every decision. The question that we are raising (by analogy) is whether one can say that economic issues are mostly central to the choice of marriage partner. Certainly it is true in some cases, but likely not the majority of cases.

I think you are quite correct in implying that economic impact may be a result of, but is rarely if ever a motivation for, war.
Yours,
Issodhos

So, Iss, what do you think is the main motivation for war?

Are there bonus points for the longest meaningless list?

Figures - meaningless questions...

Hey, isn't that the Fart-headed Laffer smilie?

'There are bonus points for realizing that anyone who calls this particular list meaningless is a fool.

Oh, noomie! You know I'se yo' Fool!

Didja fergit what the hypothesis was? It was "ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR MILITARY INTERVENTIONS" (yeah, all caps so's we wouldn't misunderstand), not "economics is the main motivation for some military interventions". That right there sets a bar purty dang high, doncha think?

A little ol' list a military contractors don't mean twit. Onless yer havin' some confirmation bias, then it's probly God's own word!

Seems like someone took a wrong turn off carnival road - never found their way back. Poor fool... can't wipe the grin from his face, can't clear the fog from his head, can't smell the roses or breathe life, can only hear the cackle of decay dripping from his mouth.

There you go again, staring in the mirror. Old habits die hard.

nope ... I see the truth in it

as an aside but perhaps pertinent: i can see the argument that the accumulation of human experience from the perspectives of the collective tribe as well as the ancestral and individual can be reduced to the simple expression, economics did it, thusly
if A then economics
if B then economics
if C then economics
.
.
.

I have been reduced to a simple urchin devoid of free will or any attributes which make me more than mere animal ... yippeee

Log T ... carryon

It is not economics, but words that cause war. Has no one noticed the vast number of words that are written before every conflict? Indeed, there is nearly a perfect correlation between the number of words used and the initiation of hostilities. We are the victims of a vast Publishing-related Industrial Complex that controls nearly all the world's exposure to, and promotion of, the expression of words. Here is a list of the 100 top online publishers in the world. Top 100 Online Publishers Do you notice how many are American-based?

You may have a point there...

Are you advancing a hypothesis that if we were more economical with words, war could be prevented?

I feel for ya, rporter, but I believe the pharmaceutical industry has a pill for this malady. It will soon be available in your local drugstore. But you do have to pay for it...

Wal, now, ain't that right there the conjecture that purports to support the hypothesis? (I tried to git the hypothecary to switch hypoths, but he warn't interested)

Okay, I will change my hypothesis:
The main causes of war are online forums... what do ya think, all??

You're trying to steal NWP's hypothesis!!! This means WAR!

I loved that portmanteau, "hypothecary." Gonna steal that.

Yes, I think if we were more judicious in our use of words, many conflicts could be avoided. I learned this as a small-framed child walking to and from school who was always faster with his mouth than effective with his fists. Biting words are so much less useful in self-defense. Never use a bark when a bite is called for, and running is great exercise, if you wish to be alone.

"Obliterating face and hands
The dumb-bell guns of violence
Show up our godhead for a sham.
Against the armour of the storm
I'll hold my human barrier,
Maintain my fragile irony.

I've walked this brazen, clanging path
In flesh's brittle arrogance
To chance the simple hazard, death.
Regretting only this, my rash
Ambitious wish in verse to write
A true and valued testament.

Let my words knit what now we lack
The demon and the heritage
And fancy strapped to logic's rock.
A chastened wantonness, a bit
That sets on song a discipline,
A sensuous austerity."

Hamish Henderson
Elegies for the Dead in Cyrenaica

I don't reckon why noomie dodging this question... it's serious and directly relevant to his topic.

"There are many dead in the brutish desert,
who lie uneasy
among the scrub in this landscape of half-wit
stunted ill-will. For the dead land is insatiate
and necrophilous. The sand is blowing about still."

Hamish Henderson
Elegies for the Dead in Cyrenaica

I don't reckon why noomie dodging this question... it's serious and directly relevant to his topic. He's been complaining that others always do the sidetracking and he does the bringin' back...

I'm startin' to think I can't trust what noomie sez?

"But still, in utter silence, from bas-relief and painted tomb
this civilization asserts
its stylised timeless effrontery.
Synthesis is implicit
in Rilke's single column, (die eine)
denying fate, the stone mask of Vollendung.
(Deaf to tarbushed dragoman
who deep-throatedly extols it.)"

Hamish Henderson
Elegies for the Dead in Cyrenaica

noomie, I'm here for ya! Let's bring your thread back onto the topic!

(mebbe you can have a pm with your BFF, he's off on a weird poetry jag...)

=hmmm ... if i take perhaps the fundamentalist position, then we have the consequences would be the result of precisely what God intended ... ergo there are no UNintended consequences and all is well

whew ... the obviousness of that is overwhelming

case closed

"Do not regret
that we have still in history to suffer
or comrade that we are the agents
of a dialectic that can destroy us..."

Hamish Henderson
Elegies for the Dead in Cyrenaica

It's an interesting thing, having a fundamentalist belief in God, where the natural effect should be somewhat like a dope-smoker's acceptance of things as they is -so why are so many religious fundamentalists fixated on trying to change the way things is, often resorting to force? (Perhaps there is an underlying religio/economic motivator?)

One might speculate that war is an unintended consequence of the existence of a fundamentalist's God.

I wonder what Hamish Henderson has to teach us about that?

Control?

"There were our own, there were the others.
Their deaths were like their lives, human and animal.
There were no gods and precious few heroes.
What they regretted when they died had nothing to do with
race and leader, realm indivisible,
laboured Augustan speeches or vague imperial heritage."

Hamish Henderson
Elegies for the Dead in Cyrenaica

Exactly- Give the man a prize!

'
All through history, intolerance has been a marked characteristic of monotheism, and the monotheistic West.
Since the monotheistic God is the Only Truth, all that "opposes" the Truth (including heretics) must be converted to the Truth, or destroyed.

"Jihadism" has been miniscule in the history of, say, Buddhism or Daoism, compared to the rampages of destruction characteristic of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I'm happy to see that my article, "Mali War Not Linked to Al Queda--Western Press Lying" has sparked interest and discussion in this Capital Hill Blue Forum. You can read the rest of the piece by clicking on the title at the beginning of the discussion or by "googling" Truman Green's Science Rumours and scrolling down to the article.

Truman Green
Surrey BC Canada.

Welcome to Reader Rant, Truman Green. We hope you will stick around and participate in our forums.

Phil Hoskins, Administrator

I'm still wondering what the "unintended consequences" are that the topic is about.

I guess that would require you to read the article
--- or at least the quote from it at the beginning of this thread.

Geez, noomie, I did but it wasn't very interesting. I guess that's why the thread went off-topic and stayed there. I just thought that you had more interest in it since you were the OP and you like for threads to stay on-topic.

I guess a summary of attitudes is that nobody who posted thinks war is generally a very good idea, so there's that. Okey-dokey.

let me take a stab at this

the author states as a thesis that recent events in Mali and Algeria are part and parcel of Libyan revolutionary activities and as a result of US support the "unintended consequences" would be the recent attacks on a consulate in Benghazi, and an attack on an Algerian oil pipeline facility, and the insurgency in Mali. Pretty straightforward and not very interesting from a historical perspective, as everyone should know it is the nature of human activities that they can not be predetermined but simply limited to best available probability.

My original premise was the author spent more time bashing everyone he doesn't like rather than providing meaningful analysis worth consideration, and it is still valid. I think I have a lot more to say but to quote logT, "it wasn't very interesting"

'
I think a summary of my attitude would be that the United States is ruled (and largely populated) by war-mongers who do a lot of damage in the world, and that some fraction of that damage is unintended.

The destruction of a relatively stable state in Libya so that oil companies could increase their profits, apart from creating chaos in Libya, released large amounts of Libyan arms and the movement of Libyan trained and armed Touareg rebels [freedom-fighters?] into Algeria, Niger and Mali. More instability and destruction have ensued and will ensue from these machinations of the Pashas of Petroeum, though (so far!) probably not enough destruction to make them regret their actions to increase their profits.

these two statements are the basis of your criticism ... did you follow the logic or simply bypass the facts and go for the bash

your second statement implies that the populist uprising was in fact a CIA black op disguised for the benefit of the oil companies ... is that about right?

Don't drink the BC koolaid

as much as US interventions are distasteful to you do not allow that to taint an objective analysis of the facts but if you believe you have a legitimate argument that the CIA is in fact the leaders in the Libyan uprising please continue (I'll let you figure out why I say CIA)

o as an aside you did know that BP has been in Libya forever so perhaps you can explain how their profits will increase in a power change etc

Here is a link that details the companies with major interests in Lybian Oil
link

Aside from the fact that the involvement of US comp[anies is minimal... exceeded by russiAN GAZPROM...
THe simple fact is that we have extensively discussed that the outcome of war is unpredictable... where as the outcome of instability is predictable.... supply disruptions

I really do not see a logic beyond knee jerk anti americanism

But of course, I will happily be corrected if someone can produce facts as I have

I wonder why the U.S. spent 1 billion dollars to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi?
Why was the CIA involved with the Libyan rebels?

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Just askin'

Hmmmmm, could it be that since the war in Iraq has ended and the one in Afghanistan is winding down, that the DOD is looking for another cash cow for their defense contractor buddies?

Now there's a thought!

Not being privy to the inner circles of govenment, I have no real idea. My only point was to examine the basis for your previous allegations.

As I now understand your point, since I cannot say why the US did what it did, therefore it is certain that the US was motivated by oil and commercial interests.

All that said, It is pretty clear that Quadaffi and the USA had a strained relationship for a very long time... with each side tweaking the other.

I thnk that many people in the US government never forgot nor forgave Quadaffi for the Lockerbie bombing



Wiki


Also, Since we are asking questions, I have to wonder why Nato countries (including Norway) acted as active front men for the USA in this circumstance...

Actually, a lot of those NATO countries had more to lose from a disruption in Libya's oil flow than the U.S.
The U.S. really is not a major importer from Libya, but



So you see, the E.U. did have a lot at stake.
How much of the U.S. interest in preserving its Geopolitical alliances in Europe was behind the massive investment? Who knows! But if I had to bet...

Zeke, it seems that argument you present shifts rather easily.... with the single unifying theme of nefarious and conspiritorial US foreign policy.

I am not denying there are innumerable illustrative instances. But I do think that this point loses credibility when it is carelessly applied with essentially no evidence other than ... ...what else could it be?

And Zeke, for what it is worth, I have found that people are much more willing to make bets when there is no chance they will have to pay off. Like, I bet this stock is going to go up, or I bet the whole world economy is going to crash into ashes.

'
[b]Gadhafi’s Crime: Making Libya’s Economy Work for Libyans[/b]

It is apparent that you don't bet

Shift from what to what? I never said I was privy to any special information. I am making the case for U.S. involvement. Period. I was not part of the decision process
Since you don't think it is correct I suggest you make the contrary case and I'll be happy to acknowledge whatever information you have. Actually, I'd make a bet

'
You're going for a reductio ad absurdum, eh, Ezekiel ? · ·

Good, we have found something that you are sure about, and you are in betting frame of mind.

We can work out the details of the wager via PM. Perhaps the loser will donate to the winner's charity of choice.

You're on

So
Just to review
Zeke said that it is "apparent that I do not bet"

I suggested a bet on this issue

Zeke said "Your On"

I have proposed reasonable terms for the bet
the bet would be adjudicated by a neutral third party
and said that I would provide sufficient proof

I have tried to handle this by PM

Zeke now prefers not to bet....
because, like I said in the beginning
people love to "bet" on things
as long as they cannot lose any money

Zeke figured out that he could lose money
and decided that is must be a ridiculous bet
... of course he did not think it was so ridiculous
when no money was riding on what he said.

BTW,
I did try via PM to get zeke to retract his initial stament about me. Since he has refused, I have made this public positn of the affair.

Would that be the "unintended consequences of shooting one's mouth off", as they say out in the territories?

Ardy, you have raised stupidity to an art form!
I congratulate you
It must have been very hard to do.

No Loggy, that I leave to you.

I'm wondering, Mr. Ezekiel, what your personal attack on a fellow Ranter has added to the conversation.

I wonder, Mr. Ted, what you're talking about?

I seriously doubt, Ezekiel, that you have any doubt whatsoever about what Ted was referring to; indeed, I'd even lay a bet on it.

Would you now? Okay - I'll make you the same bet... $1000 says I didn't know and if you can prove that I did you win.

Sorry, Ezekiel, but I wouldn't want to take your money. It would cost more for the adjudication than the wager.

You cannot prove it. That is the point.

Oh, I could prove it, and easily (after all, Ted quoted his reference), that is not my point. My point is that the juice is not worth the squeeze. Can we, perhaps, get back to the subject, rather than adjudicating the dancing of angels?

I would be glad to.

I think one of thhe central difficulties of the premises in this threada is that of causation. While there is an inherent sensibility that makes some conclusions "seem" logical, there is not suficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion. For example, there is oil in Libya, yes, but that doesn't explain the Lockerbie bombing. Both of those circumstances are clearly relevant to the discussion, but neither adequately explains the complicated chain of events that led to the revolt and intervention. The more complicated the system, the less likely that a simple causality explanation is viable. War is always complicated, so almost always immune to simplistic explanation, and its consequences are almost incalculable. We are still debating the causation and consequences of the civil war more than 150 years hence, and that seems relatively simple on its face. Ditto WWII.

As far as consequences go, I agree.
Causation, as I have said many times on this very thread, is not easily provable. However, it is not far fetched to think that those that would benefit most from a war or intervention would be the first place to look for either of their causes.

Zeke
There is a fundamental problem with what you are saying.

This thread exhaustively considered whether the outcome of a war can be well predicted. And we all decided that the vagaries of war make it impossible to predict the outcome and consequences.

If you cannot predict the outcome, then you also cannot predict who will ulitmately benefit.

And if no special interest really knows whether they will benefit from the outcome of a war, then it is hard to link up a causual connection that these special interests manipulated politians to start the war. The pattern of "causuality" which you assert is really only clear in restrospect when the outcome and who actually did benifit is known.

And, since the american economy has greatly expanded in that last 60+ years, then the pattern is clear: American commercial enterprise must be at the root of alll of the wars of the last 60 years since it is they who have benefitted.

On Libya and the
Unfolding Crises[/b]

I think it is obvious : ever since World War II, The US choice
given to its "friends" : Be obedient, or else we will unleash
chaos on you.
The story is getting rather old.
emphasis added

Points that I argued in this thread long ago

emphasis added.

I think, Ardy, that the problem is this:
You are correct in saying that they don't know the outcome beforehand. However, that doesn't stop them from starting it with the intention of winning.
Example: WWII - I think we can agree that it was initiated by German expansionism in Europe. The motive was economic, in my view, because territorial expansion begets greater economic power. Political dominance is the weapon used to justify economic subjugation. After all, why would anyone want to expand anywhere in the world if not to gain some advantage. Taking over Togo is not going to be much of a gain for anyone lest Togo had some hidden treasure.
We could find ourselves in a chicken vs. egg argument over economics and power, but it seems that economic power is real power, whilst mere power (without economics to back it up) leads to collapse (the USSR, as a recent example, comes to mind).
So, albeit, the aggressor doesn't know the outcome, it initiates the aggression with the intention of winning and hence, obtaining an advantage.

When you point out that the U.S. has been a major beneficiary of almost all recent wars it raises an interesting point that perhaps deserves more attention.

Obviousky the "aggressor" has some rationale for starting a war. It is impossible to eliminate economic factors as one of those considerations. And equally impossible to know that economic factors are the most salient in the decision. People like Hitler, Stalin are power mad. People like Ho CHi Min are nationalist. People like Bin Laden are religious nuts.

People in a bar do not need an economic motive to pick a fight. No one else does either.

Beyond all that, if there is an agressor who has started the fight... then there must be a counter party defending himself. But, according to you, if the defender beats Hitler, and achieves economic success, then they started the war for the economic success that they achieved from the war/
That is not what I said that the US has been very successful over the last 60 years. There were also many wars over that period. It is logically absurd to argue without evidence that US economic sucess was the motivation for those wars, or the major contributing factor for the economic sucess. Switzerland has also been very successful over the same period. But that does not prove that they strted 60 yers of war

Maybe about who's going to pay the tab?


Why is it impossible?

Never said that. Doesn't make sense - if one party started it then the other did not, by default.


Never said that either.

I have to disagree that the US has benefited in the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars. We have record deficits, over 5,000 dead personnel, thousands more wounded or suffering from PTSD, and military families in economic trouble. The ones who benefited were the defense contractors. Not even our government benefited.

Zeke
We have been through all of this before. The decision to go to war is inherently complicated and secretive. We have no access to know exactly why the decision was made.

Why did the US invade Iraq? Many explanations have been given
Now, no specultation zeke, no controversey... simple fact, You tell me the single verifiable reason that USA invaded Iraq


If I say Hitle started WWII, you say USA started it to dominate the world
I say north Korea invaded south Korea, You say is is a USA plo

I say Japan bombed pearl harbor, you say it was american provocation

I say the USA got involved in and exist6ing civil war in Vietnam... and you say it was the usa trying to gain economic advantage

Around and around it goes....
you agree that there are aggressors that start wars....
but somehow the aggressor always turns out to be the USA?
And it is always for the same reason
big corporations are manipulating politicians behind the scene for their corporate profit.



You said
I wonder where you going with that?

I never said there was a single reason. I think economics had something to do with it:

Not necessarily. But in recent history there is a pattern.
Korea, Vietnam, South America (interventions), Iraq, Iran, etc.

Now Ardy, this I never said.

True.

You said it. But I think there may be some truth to it.

Of course I could provide further quotes....
I do not think that any reasonable person would interpret your postings as saying "economics had something to do with it."

Economics has "something" to do with almost everything in life (or at least human affairs), But that observation is inconsequential. Economics has something to do with marriage, and divorce, and school, and athletics, and art, and religion.... the list is endless. Is that really the extent of the point that you have been making?

SO, since the USA started the war in Iraq, and going by the quote that you provided, is it reasonable to conclude that the USA has a major control of oil profits flowing from Iraq,

Please formulate a proposition on this issue that will satisfy your requrirements. Perhaps we can arrange a bet that you will find relevant to the topic.

Or. more likely we will return to endless re-parsing of your intended meaning.

I do not think that the US has any hold on the oil in Iraq. But I do think that it was what Cheney et al had in mind. But like everything else in the War in Iraq, they bungled that, too.

Scout,
THere are very few examples where foreign countries have been able to maintain long term to to control of other nation's oil reserves. Iraq is no exception.

I know that the issue of control of the oil was a part of Bush administrations calulations. I have seen no evidence that it was the prime factor in thier decision process.

And, FWIW, if you want to maintain control of a country, you do not invade, as the US did, with a force that is inadequate to control the country you are invading. And, when you finally do get enough boots on the ground, you do not let that country sign all of it's new oil deals with non-US companies.

I didn't say that the Bush Administration was the sharpest knife in the drawer about the Iraq oil. I just said that control of it was what they intended to achieve. I think that was just going to be a bonus. Their main intentions were to enrich the pockets of their defense contractor cronies. That they did very well.

This discussion illustrates the futility of such discussions.

Why exactly did the bush administration do what it did? It is very hard to say... different members of the group had differnt thoughts and motivations.

Just my opinion, but I think GW bush was very pissed that Saddam tried to assaintate his dad... Texans take that sort of thing very seriously. I also think he really thought that he was protecting the interests of the USA. And I think he thought Saddam was a loose cannon that would have to be dealt with sooner or later... and this was the moment to deal with it. And, I also think that he was fool enough to believe that if he just took our Saddam, and gave freedom a chance in the region, that this could be a catalyst that would entirely re-make the whole middle east.

And, of course their free market ideology convinced them that the best way to solve most problems is to let the market find a solution.... so they had an abiding faith that if they simply destroyed the bad, then good would emerge.

But at this point, I don't think many of them would agree on what happened and why... even if they were talking off the record to friends.

Please tell me where I denied saying that economics was the main reason. I have always maintained that point. What I didn't say is that it is the only reason.
Surely you see the difference.

You just can't stand it when facts are presented.
I have said it more than once: please present an alternative explanation to the one I have presented. If you cannot then don't waste your time and mine.
You seem to think that just because you don't agree everyone else must prove it to you.
Doesn't work that way.
You not only have the right but, I daresay, the obligation to question something. But bring facts to the table and not some vague, subjective arm-waving about "complicated" etc.
That is why discussions become sterile.

War, like most other things in this U.S. of A. (and in most parts of the world), is a business. A very profitable one, as I have already pointed out.
I see no reason to doubt Scout's statement.

At one point in my life I had a lot of respect for Noam Chomsky, but the analysis that you quoted here, Ezekiel, is so thin as to be laughable... indeed, I did. He was once a dizzying intellect. Now, he is just dizzy. The problem is that he creates a premise, then allows no other explanation than his stated view even when the evidence he adduces doesn't even support his point. Hidden in all of the words is a startling lack of substance.

Libya is probably the least economically-driven conflict currently in the Middle East. There is certainly an economic component, but it was far more about the history of suppression and possibility of freedom than an external push for resources. Now, was there a significant element of economic interest for some of the intervenors? Of course. But the brush is simply not broad enough to paint a majority of them that way.

Almost every conflict in the world can be explained by three word: perceived relative deprivation.

How about: gol durned lunatics?

I disagree. I think that while Chomsky has made some bold statements, and as with any bold statement, they can SEEM off-the-wall, my experience (both personal and just reading his comments) is that he has a depth of understanding and more information than may be apparent.
Libya is a case where I think economics does play a major role. The notion that a geopolitical strategy needs to be stated out loud, as you know, is rather contrary to reality.
U.S. interests in the middle east are, and always have been, born of economic reasons. I don't see where Libya is any different. Oil is not just a commodity, it has become the currency of the world. Whoever controls that currency, controls the world.
The U.S. (present administration included) has always declared its wish to be THE world power. Hilary Clinton's recent statements about the Benghazi affair, Obama's pronouncements to the nation and to the troops, Hagel's most recent grilling for the job of Sec. of Defense all make clear that nothing has changed with respect to America's wish to dominate (economically and, as a result, politically) the world stage.
When the U.S. president is referred to as the leader of the free world what does that mean?
When the U.S. is referred to as a military superpower, the richest country on the planet, etc. what does that mean?
I think the motivations are apparent. I don't think the U.S. is the only country that wants the job. I'm sure there are others. But at present, the U.S. seems to be the center of this question.

You know, this thread has drifted substantially from "unintended consequences" to "intended consequences" of military intervention.

I know
The proverbial bad penny keeps turning up.

Zeke
there is a very large difference between saying (for example) Catholic priests sometimes molest children, or saying that Catholic preists almost always molest children.

And, for the purpose of clarity, there is a lot of difference between saying that religion is one of the main causes of all wars.... and saying that you define religion to be so expansive in its impact on nearly everything that therefore it is true that religion is the main cause of all wars.

And it is even a further leap of illogic to observe that the Catholic Church is the largest and richest organaized religion... and therefore the cause of almost all wars

Right, so, I said it a hundred times and here goes 101 - I think that economics is almost always the cause of war.
I did not define economics, we have been, for all of this thread, assuming a definition that involves economic gain.
That sounds like a fair assumption.
I never said that because the U.S. is the richest country it is the cause of all wars. It would actually be quite the opposite: the U.S. became the richest country because of interventions and wars (not only because of that and not all of which were started by the U.S., so please let's not go there again). And further, interventions and wars help to maintain it as the richest country.
Ardy, from my point of view, anyway you slice it economics will be a major factor, and if not 100% of the time, a large percentage of the time it will be the main underlying cause of war.
There is no reason to complicate this anymore than it already is.
I have also said that I don't believe this can be proved, but I do believe the facts substantiate the idea.

I think, Ezekiel, that you have jumped back into the causation trap again with both feet. Just because wars always have economic effects does not mean that economics is the cause of the war. It is logic 101. Nor is it true that participation in war creates economic bounty - indeed, the opposite is generally true. The United States has succeeded despite, not because of, its participation in wars. Vietnam and Iraq are prime examples of that. Are their entities that gain economically as a result of war, yes, but not the economy as a whole. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that it was not WWII, but the economic policies put into place before it, that ended the depression. WWII actually set us back economically, but the end of the war brought prosperity because of the underlying infrastructure changes that had occurred during and after it.

In sum, I think the premise is fundamentally flawed.

In fact, I think you are mistaking my argument.
I am not conflating the cause with the outcome. The outcome can be beneficial or not and I have drawn no parallel twixt them.
That there are economic problems caused by war was never in dispute.
The cause, what prompted the war, is.



Joshua S. Goldstein
Professor Emeritus, School of International Service, American University
Nonresident Sadat Senior Fellow, CIDCM, University of Maryland
and Research Scholar, Dept. of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

I'm not sure that I necessarily disagree, but to do so is at the expense of accepting sloppy thought. In the last citation, for example, "economics" is defined so broadly (e.g. "territory") as to be essentially meaningless. Were the Crusades all about economics, or Mohammed's Caliphate? Is that what motivates Al Qaeda or the Taliban? The argument can be made, but the distortions required to get there may abuse logic. My point is merely that the broader the assertion, the wider must be the definition to accommodate its logic. Indeed, bordering on tautological.

I posit that all wars are initiated by bad people. "Initiated" includes all participants - after all, it takes two to tangle. "Bad people" are those that initiate wars. A solid, unassailable assertion.

.I haven't asked 100 times, but I have asked numerous times, which claim are you making? Sometimes it's "is" sometimes it's "almost always". Surely you see the difference.

To clarify my last post, I recognize that he was saying, "nearly all wars are fought over control of territory." But, isn't that, from an analytical standpoint, merely asserting a tautology? What, after all, is "war"? And mustn't it be fought somewhere? Even if that "space" might be virtual (e.g., cyberwarfare), it can be confidently asserted that it is "territory."

I'm not belittling the argument, I just want to put it in a meaningful context.

If you don't know by now then I can't help you. Sorry

While I generally agree with you on this it is a moral judgement. Not what I was thinking.

I don't think it borders on the tautological - the definition of what we meant by economics was "assumed", I agree, and never truly defined.

To define it too narrowly would be problematic because it would become so exclusionary as to become meaningless.

To define it too broadly, I agree, would also make it meaningless.

But I think it is reasonable to assume that war is a very usual way of subjugating some other group of people. Their subjugation usually brings about "economic" (something that can be translated into money) benefits such as the enhancement of wealth via enslavement, direct or indirect control of the processes of production and the dictation of rules of economic relationships and behavior.

I suspect one could ask a broader question:
What good does political control do if it does not carry with it economic benefit?

Some unintended consequences might be the costs to help those who suffer from maimings and PTSD after serving in wars to further the goals and profits of Corporate America. And showing just how little we "support our troops". The aftermath of war seems to lift the veil and show the ugly underbelly.

I don't know by now because you are unpredictably inconsistent on the matter. It's kind of like trying to add fractions without converting to a common denominator first. Pretending that I am stupid doesn't magically allow the fractions to add up.

I can only conclude you do not, in fact, know the difference. I estimate that about half of the posts on your "intended consequences of war" twist in this thread have been about trying to unravel which you mean between an absolute or a qualified position on economics being the cause of war. If you can't see that your position vacillates freely between two very different claims, then I suppose it is pointless to try and discuss it with you.

I'm not sure, as I've said, that I disagree with the premise that "most wars (or 'almost all' or 'all') have an economic genesis," but I wonder if we can define it properly to have meaning. Economist will argue that "all" human interaction has an economic (tit-for-tat) basis, and can be analyzed as such. (Anyone read Freakonomics?) They see this more as a means of analyzing motivations, though, than as a causus belli, per se. That, by the way, is how I would understand it. One could say that "we started the Iraq war to obtain oil" or one could say it was to "establish freedom" - and, of course, a society that is freer (economically-speaking) will make more of their resources available to the "world market." Either way it has an economic impact, good and ill. Is it economic freedom or exploitation?

You'never make it as a Republican economist with that attitude, Bub!

Maybe that's why the almost constant calls from the GOP political strategy recruiters stopped about two minutes after my post?

Probably!

Actually, Scout suggested something along those lines way back somewhere on this thread. I believe the case could be made that all human interaction has some economic underpinning (and one could certainly make the case that human society began with economic interests in mind).
I just thought that it would be more difficult (in the sense of more laborious) to make that case although, I don't disagree with it.
It seems to me that when such divergent and opposite poles of the political spectrum as Ludwig von Mises and a socialist agree on the same general principle, there is something to be said as far as looking into it goes.
That's all I stated and all I intended to discuss. It isn't a game of one-upsmanship or a test of stamina. Merely an attempt at discussion.

Just for the sake of discussion, let's say that you made your point Zeke.... where does that leave us? Is there any actionable take away?

Just to put things in some perspective, I suggest we consider that following assertion.



Love, its all economic
Art, music... it s all economic
Sports.... economic
Food, cooking.... economic
HaVING CHILDREN.... ECONOMIC
rELIGION--- ECONOMIC
sCIENCE... ECONOMIC

There are virtually no known examples of human activity that are not fundamentally economically motivated. Even when a single mountain man lives alone in the wilderness... it is all economics. Whan a soldiee jumps on a grenade to save his friends, it is economic. Jesus and Buddha were no more than great economists.

Well, I'd say it leaves us with a way to understand history and the present that may change our faith in the many diversions our leaders often offer up as excuses for their actions.

They may have been economists, but the "great" part is open to discussion.

I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I see Ardy's comments leading to the idea that one could substitute a number of other primal motivations in place of "economic" and be able to make an almost identical case.

In any case, until the discussion begins to massage opportunities to use the enlightensome information to influence the culture of military interventions, then it's like talking about the Superbowl.

Let's just say that it is pretty clear to me that a lot of non-rational stuff is happening in human behavior.

Was Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky a rational thing? Do people ever makes decisions based upon pride/arrogance? Do we ever act from fear, or overconfidence? Do we ever let ourselves be influenced by a crowd of advisors or public opinion? Do we ever act from hatred or contempt, or compassion? Some people (like G Bush) say they make decisions based upon a "gut" feeling or instinct. Maybe sometimes we act out of habit, convention or social expectation. And yes, sometimes people do act out of spiritual conviction, or some other closely held ideal.

But there is another question. Are decisions most always "pure" in the sense that we can almost always identify a single reason why we made a particular decision? Or, are there lots of subtle and sometimes even unconscious factors that come together to shape a final action? It is now a scientific fact that the human brain often makes a decision even before the conscious brain is aware of that decision. How can we be sure what is the basis for a pre-conscious decision?
It is certainly possible to retrospectively examine a set of events and assign a logical ordering to those events. In fact, much of written history is precisely that sort of exercise. Astrology is a similar effort in struggling to identify patterns in the stars. Our brains are exquisite pattern finding machines. Our brains are so good at this, that we even find patterns that do not exist. We find patterns that justify hating people, or loving them, or enslaving them, or killing them.

We imagine things; we make false assumptions. Our thinking is subject to an endless number of documented forms of bias, logical fallacy and errors of all types.

Individuals are clearly complicated, error prone, and not nearly as rational as we would like to pretend. And I have a hard time buying the idea that if you combine a large number of such people into a political group, the result will be an entirely rational decision making process based upon an assessment of the economic variables involved in that decision.

Out of curiosity, 25 pages into this thread, I went back and discovered that the thread had left the original premise on the first page, and apparently hasn't drifted back since. 24-pages of off-topic discussion. Still, it's a discussion. Maybe a thread rename is in order.

TO review the discussion

There are the pious rationales that are fed to the public in order to start a war. These "objectives: are seldom accomplished.

There is the hidden agenda of economic benifit. Wars also mostly fail to accomplish these goals.

All the rest of it... that is what actually results from a war... that all falls under the heading of "unintended consequences."