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

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

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.