Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News "Unintended Consequences of Military Intervention"

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).