WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
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?
Not okay
We are at cross purposes.
Originally Posted by Ardy
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?
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.
Originally Posted by Ezekiel
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).
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.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them." Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." Dostoevsky
