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).
So, albeit, the aggressor doesn't know the outcome, it initiates the aggression with the intention of winning and hence, obtaining an advantage.
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/
Quote
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.
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
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
