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

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.