Why Do We Have Wars?

[TBF]

My apologies if I've posted this previously ... just seemed like a good time to post it again.

[Lurks Often]

1. That's silly, we've always had wars

Good luck trying to find a time were somewhere in the world one group of humans wasn't trying to kill another group. I went back to 1750 and couldn't find a time and damn sure the 300-400 years prior to 1750 weren't exactly peaceful.

We fight wars for land, religion, resources and politics

[sabrina 1]

36. And they were always for profit.

[Lurks Often]

37. Utter nonsense

many of them were/are religious wars, especially those prior to 1700.

Sunni & Shia have been killing each other for generations over religious differences
Muslims killed Sikhs, Hindu's Jews and Christians (and vice versa) for hundreds if not thousands of years over religion.

[sabrina 1]

47. Religion has long been a weapon used to stir up the masses. It worked here

to drum up support for the Iraq War. Unless you missed the Right Wing bigotry re Muslims. The profiteers otoh, were not concerned about religion, they had other interests. Rousing up religious fervor among the masses worked well for them, always does.

Wars have been fought over territory as far back as history records them. Rulers profit while the masses bicker among themselves.

[socialist_n_TN]

2. This can never be posted too much...

This is warfare in the imperial epoch of capitalism.

[Roy Serohz]

3. Tell 'em, Floyd!

[TBF]

4. ...

[SomethingFishy]

40. Whenever you need an answer to a question about life...

You can find it on Dark Side Of The Moon.

[abelenkpe]

5. Rich and powerful people have a dispute

Use religion and propaganda to convince the rest to fight and die for their profit in order to settle dispute. Every once in a while they offer something up like freedom from slavery or a fair (new) deal to entice a reluctant populace to fight. But overall the have nots suffer the most.

[WillyT]

6. K & R !!!

[cpwm17]

7. Because some people are greedy, selfish, and bigots

who cause most of the evil in this world.

[tabasco]

8. Overpopulation is the primary cause, IMO. n/t

[HereSince1628]

15. Well, in as much as the desire of humans to expand territorial control

is at least partly a consequence of population growth I must agree.

I can't say the question of why war exists is amenable to simple answers that actually say much.

My simple answer, that honestly doesn't say much, is; war is a feature of human nature. War seems to associate with group living, wherein social structures . . . governance, religion, and membership in coalitions of power facilitate it.


Is this just the sum of individual natures or something that emerges from the expanded behavioral repertoires possible in social living?

Is war a consequence of social structures ordered by dominance hierarchies, wherein leaders maximize personal benefits and minimize personal risks by getting others to do the dirty work of marauding for them?

[colsohlibgal]

9. Smedley Butler Nailed It

War is a racket, almost always.

People like Cheney and his gang should be rotting in prison now for serious war profiteering, getting rich on the death and maiming of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

[Starry Messenger]

10. k&r

[RobertEarl]

11. kick

Truth

[davidn3600]

12. Wrealth, power, and religion

I think practically every war in the history of human civilization can be attributed to that.

[hack89]

13. What banks controlled Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan? Nt

[TBF]

14. The question was in present tense -

why do "we" have wars - not why did Ghengis Khan go to war? Although I'm sure looking at history would be very interesting as well.

[hack89]

17. Men have always fought wars

for a multitude of reasons. A simplistic, cartoonish world view centered on evil banks ignores a lot of that history - so yes, perhaps you should take the time to look at it.

[NCTraveler]

21. "we" does not make it present tense. nt.

[whatchamacallit]

22. I imagine a deep study of those times and conflicts would no doubt

reveal a powerful economic component.

[hack89]

24. But not some nefarious shadow government

consisting of evil bankers manipulating kings and queens to their own enrichment. A simplistic, cartoonish world view centered on evil banks ignores not only history but also present day reality.

[TBF]

26. No need for CS -

Capitalism is explanation enough.

[hack89]

27. Empires fought wars well before capitalism. nt

[whatchamacallit]

29. There have always been nobles and peasants

owners and owned, kingdoms which thrived on the plunder of war... Same old game since the dawn of time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. These days, mostly because people think the people governing them are illegitimate

and those governing them disagree. That covers the current wars in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, South Sudan, Central African Republic. Although not generally referred to as a 'war', it covers the conflict in Nigeria too.

[CJCRANE]

33. In at least the first three examples you cite there are outside forces

supporting the combatants, which would indicate that there's more involved.

[The2ndWheel]

18. Organization and expansion

[Orsino]

19. Misses the point.

We have wars because we listen to those elites, and believe their lies sufficiently to go kill and die for them.

[NCTraveler]

20. Truly flawed sprinkled with a complete lack of historical perspective. nt.

[TBF]

25. Go ahead -

If you'd like to elaborate. I'm well aware that the next step in this fiasco is to prepare the populace for war. It's the way these campaigns typically proceed (how about that - I worked in a historical perspective ...).

[NCTraveler]

28. You mean the government prepares its populace before war.

Who would have thought that. The thoughts behind the image are clearly flawed. In a major way. Most don't need elaboration and I don't plan on elaborating. Your "historical perspective" is simply common sense. Maybe if you were governing and planning for war you would weaken the populace as a step before war. Wouldn't be a good outcome.

[TBF]

31. lol - maybe I'd look for a way to avoid war.

But that's just me.

[IDemo]

23. What we have here is a failure to communicate:

[TBF]

42. Well if I'm failing to communicate with corportists

I'm probably doing something right so I can live with that.

[IDemo]

46. Sorry, but my image of the full Earth didn't appear

The post was directed at the general population of the planet. Nothing personal.

[KansDem]

30. List of wars involving the United States from the Revolutionary War to present day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

[TBF]

32. Yup, it seems to be what we do.

I wonder though if it really has to be that way.

[The2ndWheel]

38. How else would it be?

It had to be that way up until today. As the last empire standing after the 20th century, it's the US military that provides the stick to any carrots that are floating around out there. That's why the US Government is pretty much above the law, in terms of international relations.

What will be interesting is to see how long the unipolar world lasts, and what happens if it doesn't.

[KamaAina]

39. 1832

The ONLY year the U.S. has EVER been at peace.

[TBF]

43. That is mind-boggling. nt

[KamaAina]

44. Indeed.

[clarice]

34. Money,land, resources, religion, uncivilized nations . nt

[jrandom421]

35. Von Clauswitz summed it up quite simply

“War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means.”

“It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means”

From Vom Kriege (On War)

[LittleBlue]

41. Too simplistic. Clausewitz nailed it

We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.

edit- lol jrandom beat me

[KamaAina]

45. What are they good for?

Absolutely nothing!