<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Oct 30 2003, 02:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Oct 30 2003, 02:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Firstly, the Versaillies revenge was non-economic, and I never said otherwise. Please refer to the above section. Secondly, whilst the Aryan farmer ideal has roots in racial supremecy ideas and Hitler's own warped philosophy, it is still fundamentally economic in it's nature: the aquisition and distribution of rich, fertile farmland to German colonists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Aryan farmer ideal is not only economic; it also focusses on a happy family life, independance, removal of so-called inferior races, etcetera etcetera. I think a better economic choice would have been to focus on industrialisation and globalisation in stead of being self-sufficient (although this could come in handy in times of war) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kindly do not include personal attacks such as "stupid", especially when you have blatently not read the whole topic nor have any understanding of my arguement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ehm, it was a Play on Words on Clintons saying It's the economy, stupid in his first campaign for president <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Firstly, the Versaillies revenge was non-economic, and I never said otherwise. Please refer to the above section. Secondly, whilst the Aryan farmer ideal has roots in racial supremecy ideas and Hitler's own warped philosophy, it is still fundamentally economic in it's nature: the aquisition and distribution of rich, fertile farmland to German colonists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Aryan farmer ideal is not only economic; it also focusses on a happy family life, independance, removal of so-called inferior races, etcetera etcetera. I think a better economic choice would have been to focus on industrialisation and globalisation in stead of being self-sufficient (although this could come in handy in times of war)
Other than this, I agree that economy is one of the major factors (but never the only one) for waging a war.
Urza, you have plainly not read the whole topic, as you keep repeating things we have already said - we all agree that economics is not the only reason for warfare; the argument is whether or not it's the core issue. Go back and read everything, or stop posting. What you are doing is quite rude by this forum's etiquette standards, and will eventually lead to you losing posting rights in Discussion.
when i read this, i see some confusion, that i, in a way, am feeling too. i think in order to really discuss economies as a cause of war, we need to decide how much cause are we looking for. so far many of the wars that have been cited economy can be named as a reason. but what i see is often, it is not necessarily the primary reason for a war. how much cause are we looking for from economics. are we talking about any vaguely economic situation involved in causing a war? in that case you could name any war in human history. ug attacked grub. why? cuz he wanted grub's chicken. there, economic reasons. but why did he choose grub instead of fuggle, or trugles? ...ok so that wasn't a good example, but i think you get the picture. sure economics can be a cause of war, but i disagree that it's always an economic cause first. and i go back to my american civil war example.
the civil war was about secation(i'll be damned if i could spell that one right, heh) from the union, then about slavery, and about the tarrif, but which of these issues was the most important in the minds of those going to war? i don't feel that, to the south, the tarriff of abominations was as important, to them, as their need to secede from an overpowerful federal government. though i disagree that in the beginning slavery was an issue, it ended up being one, and that too, is a remotely economic issue. but how much of an "issue" are we looking for? any small minorly economic cause? or are we looking for it to be the core reason for the war?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 30 2003, 10:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 30 2003, 10:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Urza, you have plainly not read the whole topic, as you keep repeating things we have already said - we all agree that economics is not the only reason for warfare; the argument is whether or not it's the core issue. Go back and read everything, or stop posting. What you are doing is quite rude by this forum's etiquette standards, and will eventually lead to you losing posting rights in Discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1) Yes, I did read the whole topic 2) What exactly is so rude by this forum's standards? 3) I posted some new Wars 4) I did not attack anyone personally 5) let's quote the initial post (by yourself) Stemming from an offshoot of the US entering WW2 topic, I'd like to see if anyone can come up with a war or conflict that was not caused at its root by economics. People often think that other issues are the main cause of a war (such as religion, civil liberties, etc.), but I submit to you that this is baseless; those issues may have an impact (or more likely, are drummed up for propoganda purposes by both sides to inflame the people), but I believe that if you dig deep enough the reasons always come down to the benjamins.
You believe that the main causes for war are always economic. I don't remember, however, where you did define economics, so this is kind of hard to prove. I have not seen a single attempt at trying to rate the importance of different factors for war (nor do i see a way how to do this). Hmm, I just see I wrote just the same as johnjacob
If you had read it all, you would have seen that we frequently point out that economics is not the only reason. Read more carefully and don't skim. We consider not reading a post fully before replying to be rude (as well as saying "it's the *, stupid", without making sure people understand you're quoting). Distinguish the difference between 'always' and 'main' or 'core'; it's not terribly subtle, and it's important. Finally, do not argue with mods publically, just do as they say; if you find me a in a bad mood and try these sorts of posts, I'm usually just apt to cut your access.
The problem with this whole arguement is that it's viewed by people who live in a capitalist society. Through the eyes of a capitalist, it's easy to relate everything back to money. But I'm sure if you view it through the eyes and thoughts of the people of the time of the wars mentioned in this thread, their reasons are probably based not on money, but on other things.
Another problem is that arguing that all wars has a base in economics, is that it is such an obvious point, since if you get right down to it, the economy is driven by people. And since people die in wars, obviously it will have economic ramafications. So with that in mind I can say all conflicts have economic ties simply because at some point, someone died.
Wars are fought because of conflict. Two parties are in disagreement about something to the point where there is no other choice but to dispose of the other. The reasons for the conflict vary WIDELY, but in the end someone gets their way. (Whether it's good or bad depends on your particular bias). There is always going to be a primary reason for the war. I think many people have pointed out in this thread that economic reasons are not the primary reason for ALL wars. Sure, it may tie into economics in some shape or form, but if it isn't the primary reason, what are we arguing about here? We might as well argue that people die in wars.
Another thing I notice getting confused here is money and power. I would argue more that wars are fought mostly for power, not money. While money, material gain, or "land" usually results from power, it's still power that was the goal. In most wars, the agressor is usually the one with the ambition (subjective, but still), and by definition ambition is the quest for power, not money.
Civil uprising / war? Power over oppression (in whatever form). State / Country / Global war? Power/Ownership of land. Holy war? Power over what people believe in. (my god is better than yours etc)
I guess what confuses me about this arguement is what's really being argued here? Are you trying to say that economics is the primary reason for all wars? I would disagree with that for obvious reasons. (The world hasn't always revolved around money). Or are you trying to say that all wars have some sort of economic ties? If that's the case, then obviously.
Tyrsis: I don't think we are arguing over anything here. We just need an example <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It strikes me that MonsE's basic point is that <b>everything = economics</b>. Maybe you should start with finding counterexamples to this, or at least trying to pin him down on his definition of economics...
<!--QuoteBegin--KMO+Oct 31 2003, 06:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KMO @ Oct 31 2003, 06:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It strikes me that MonsE's basic point is that <b>everything = economics</b>. Maybe you should start with finding counterexamples to this, or at least trying to pin him down on his definition of economics... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Guy is a barbarian, you can't seriously discuss with him <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
He already admitted that economics are only a part of wars. I'd dare to say that in many wars economics are smaller part than he makes it out to be. Examples are already in the thread, it's just matter of opinion and how you view it. For example civil wars and revolutions have the economical part(they tax us too much!) but often also another, even bigger part(they don't let us decide on anything and they treat us like dirt. We don't have any control over our lives!)
MonsE actually says: economics are the main and root reason. My response: not always MonsE: example? Me: xxx yyy MonsE: No good, economics involved Me: Bah, not the root reason Mons: Yep Me: Nah ...
That's about it. It's about what angle you look at it(meaning I'm giving up because I'm such a weener <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Oct 30 2003, 02:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Oct 30 2003, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you had read it all, you would have seen that we frequently point out that economics is not the only reason. Read more carefully and don't skim. We consider not reading a post fully before replying to be rude (as well as saying "it's the *, stupid", without making sure people understand you're quoting). Distinguish the difference between 'always' and 'main' or 'core'; it's not terribly subtle, and it's important. Finally, do not argue with mods publically, just do as they say; if you find me a in a bad mood and try these sorts of posts, I'm usually just apt to cut your access. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> For the record, let it be shown that I am next in line to bear Monse's children <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
edited November 2003
edit: johnjacob, read this.
i'm still reading through this topic but i saw some controversy regarding the reasons for the Civil War.
i'm currently in AP US history... and yeah. i'm receiving quite a lot of info. too much, but i can pick up most of it.
-<u>slavery</u>, yes, controversy, freesoilers, rich planters, etc.
-GOLD RUSH: northern investors throw themselves at california. southern investors have <u>ALREADY INVESTED EVERYTHING IN SLAAAAAVES</u>.
-Compromise of 1850: not a very good compromise. new <u>territories in demand</u>, people unsatisfied...
-TECHNOLOGY: the north has an <u>extensive railroad network, the comprised length of which is many times that of the railroads in the south</u>. the north has, with these railroads, TELEGRAPH lines, enabling mass-communication at high speeds, defeating the need for messengers bearing important (telegraph-worthy) news. north has lightning fast national news. south has local paper.
<b>-INDUSTRY: in the north, where one prevailing cash crop is WHEAT, the THRESHER does the work of FIVE MEN in the field. in the south, the cotton gin processes BUT DOES NOT PICK the cotton. slaves are an indispensable labor force, driving the virtually <i>SOLE</i> source of resources.</b>
-tariffs on british imports.
in conclusion, the civil war was almost predominantly an economic issue.
edit: <!--QuoteBegin--windelkron+ sometime or another--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (windelkron @ sometime or another)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->because they whole reason the Southern states seceded was because the North put a very heavy tarriff on exports (which the South needed to survive economically).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
they had reparations up the @$$ from wwi, how the hell can you say that they wouldn't want to drop a debt they'd probably still be paying today?? 0_o <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reasons for the actual revenge itself are more alligned with the humiliation of the treaty itself, especially one section of the treaty which placed the entire blame for the war upon Germany and Austria-Hungary (If <i>anyone</i> wants to debate whether the war was soley the fault of the Central powers then please back your arguement up). Germany felt very much that the treaty was too harsh (yes, reparations played a role here), and the resentment towards Britian and France for the treaty was something Hitler tapped into.
Hitler wasn't seeking revenge for purely economic reasons (especially as reparations payments were suspended in the early 30's). There's a good reason why he forced the French government to sign their surrender in the same railway car that the Versailles treaty had been signed in. Hitler wanted to humiliate the French as he percieved they had humiliated Germany.
That isn't to say that attacking France didn't give Germany valuable economic gains, because it did. Simply that economics was not the main reason Hitler sought revenge for Versailles, and revenge in turn was not the main reason Hitler attacked Poland or France.
Actually... Japan attacked the US in part because the US witheld vital steel and oil shipments to the Japanese. They miscalculated and assumed Pearl Harbor would lead America to aquisece to its trade demands, but instead drew them into the war.
I'm not saying that WWII wasn't caused by eocnomic forces (I'm saying that economics played a very large role, indeed the largest role, that's been my point all along). All I did was point out that revenge for Versailles, one of the causes for the war, was not soley economic in nature. That doesn't for one second mean that the war was not largely caused by economics, because it was.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Nov 2 2003, 03:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Nov 2 2003, 03:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not saying that WWII wasn't caused by eocnomic forces (I'm saying that economics played a very large role, indeed the largest role, that's been my point all along). All I did was point out that revenge for Versailles, one of the causes for the war, was not soley economic in nature. That doesn't for one second mean that the war was not largely caused by economics, because it was. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i know, i'm not trying to pin ignorance on you or anything
just sayin that economics was at least 51 or more % the reason XP
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i know, i'm not trying to pin ignorance on you or anything
just sayin that economics was at least 51 or more % the reason XP <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I completely agree. Why are we argueing? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The NATO intervention in (or rather over) Kosovo in 1999 was for the greater part caused by humaitarian reasons. i don't see any economic advantages for the nato here :/.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The NATO intervention in (or rather over) Kosovo in 1999 was for the greater part caused by humaitarian reasons. i don't see any economic advantages for the nato here :/. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except of course the stabilisation of Eastern Europe to allow greater economic freedom and prosperity. The European NATO powers certainly had economic interests to consider, namely the expansion of Western European companies and businesses into Eastern Europe, plus the stability of Europe as a whole. Investors tend to get jumpy when there's a civil war going on next door. Economics certainly played their role in Kosovo.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Nov 3 2003, 09:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Nov 3 2003, 09:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Except of course the stabilisation of Eastern Europe to allow greater economic freedom and prosperity. The European NATO powers certainly had economic interests to consider, namely the expansion of Western European companies and businesses into Eastern Europe, plus the stability of Europe as a whole. Investors tend to get jumpy when there's a civil war going on next door. Economics certainly played their role in Kosovo. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But you forget that the nato strikes were initiated by the US, not by european members.
The entire operation was caused by pressure from the US, actually, in most phases of peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia. And it was not in US interest (economically or otherwise) for Europe to descend into another WW1 precursor due to western european apathy over their less-privileged southeastern neighbor's internal warfare. Again.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 3 2003, 01:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 3 2003, 01:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The entire operation was caused by pressure from the US, actually, in most phases of peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia. And it was not in US interest (economically or otherwise) for Europe to descend into another WW1 precursor due to western european apathy over their less-privileged southeastern neighbor's internal warfare. Again. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Balkan conflict would never ever lead to a WW I. Since the creation of the European Union and the euro, wars between member states have become economically disadvantageous. The small Kosovo conflict ( not the bosnian/croation/serbian war) would have cost the US or the EU far less than militairy intervention.
Take civil wars, e.g English Civil. Cavalier vs Roundhead. A fight for parliament and church. Economically motivated? I personally don't think so, but you could argue that the fight for control of the state is the fight for the control of the economy. Meh.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take civil wars, e.g English Civil. Cavalier vs Roundhead. A fight for parliament and church. Economically motivated? I personally don't think so, but you could argue that the fight for control of the state is the fight for the control of the economy. Meh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The English civil war did come up, and it was decided that vieing for control of the entire nation, plus the throne, was pretty much economic in it's nature. Certainly other factors such as religion came into the mix, but the single largest contributing factor would still seem to be economics.
Cool, Beast is back! And wrong as usual, I see. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Firstly, the Versaillies revenge was non-economic, and I never said otherwise. Please refer to the above section. Secondly, whilst the Aryan farmer ideal has roots in racial supremecy ideas and Hitler's own warped philosophy, it is still fundamentally economic in it's nature: the aquisition and distribution of rich, fertile farmland to German colonists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Aryan farmer ideal is not only economic; it also focusses on a happy family life, independance, removal of so-called inferior races, etcetera etcetera. I think a better economic choice would have been to focus on industrialisation and globalisation in stead of being self-sufficient (although this could come in handy in times of war) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kindly do not include personal attacks such as "stupid", especially when you have blatently not read the whole topic nor have any understanding of my arguement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ehm, it was a Play on Words on Clintons saying It's the economy, stupid in his first campaign for president <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Firstly, the Versaillies revenge was non-economic, and I never said otherwise. Please refer to the above section. Secondly, whilst the Aryan farmer ideal has roots in racial supremecy ideas and Hitler's own warped philosophy, it is still fundamentally economic in it's nature: the aquisition and distribution of rich, fertile farmland to German colonists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Aryan farmer ideal is not only economic; it also focusses on a happy family life, independance, removal of so-called inferior races, etcetera etcetera. I think a better economic choice would have been to focus on industrialisation and globalisation in stead of being self-sufficient (although this could come in handy in times of war)
Other than this, I agree that economy is one of the major factors (but never the only one) for waging a war.
the civil war was about secation(i'll be damned if i could spell that one right, heh) from the union, then about slavery, and about the tarrif, but which of these issues was the most important in the minds of those going to war? i don't feel that, to the south, the tarriff of abominations was as important, to them, as their need to secede from an overpowerful federal government. though i disagree that in the beginning slavery was an issue, it ended up being one, and that too, is a remotely economic issue. but how much of an "issue" are we looking for? any small minorly economic cause? or are we looking for it to be the core reason for the war?
1) Yes, I did read the whole topic
2) What exactly is so rude by this forum's standards?
3) I posted some new Wars
4) I did not attack anyone personally
5) let's quote the initial post (by yourself)
Stemming from an offshoot of the US entering WW2 topic, I'd like to see if anyone can come up with a war or conflict that was not caused at its root by economics. People often think that other issues are the main cause of a war (such as religion, civil liberties, etc.), but I submit to you that this is baseless; those issues may have an impact (or more likely, are drummed up for propoganda purposes by both sides to inflame the people), but I believe that if you dig deep enough the reasons always come down to the benjamins.
You believe that the main causes for war are always economic. I don't remember, however, where you did define economics, so this is kind of hard to prove. I have not seen a single attempt at trying to rate the importance of different factors for war (nor do i see a way how to do this).
Hmm, I just see I wrote just the same as johnjacob
@john
Do you mean cessation?
Another problem is that arguing that all wars has a base in economics, is that it is such an obvious point, since if you get right down to it, the economy is driven by people. And since people die in wars, obviously it will have economic ramafications. So with that in mind I can say all conflicts have economic ties simply because at some point, someone died.
Wars are fought because of conflict. Two parties are in disagreement about something to the point where there is no other choice but to dispose of the other. The reasons for the conflict vary WIDELY, but in the end someone gets their way. (Whether it's good or bad depends on your particular bias). There is always going to be a primary reason for the war. I think many people have pointed out in this thread that economic reasons are not the primary reason for ALL wars. Sure, it may tie into economics in some shape or form, but if it isn't the primary reason, what are we arguing about here? We might as well argue that people die in wars.
Another thing I notice getting confused here is money and power. I would argue more that wars are fought mostly for power, not money. While money, material gain, or "land" usually results from power, it's still power that was the goal. In most wars, the agressor is usually the one with the ambition (subjective, but still), and by definition ambition is the quest for power, not money.
Civil uprising / war? Power over oppression (in whatever form).
State / Country / Global war? Power/Ownership of land.
Holy war? Power over what people believe in. (my god is better than yours etc)
I guess what confuses me about this arguement is what's really being argued here? Are you trying to say that economics is the primary reason for all wars? I would disagree with that for obvious reasons. (The world hasn't always revolved around money). Or are you trying to say that all wars have some sort of economic ties? If that's the case, then obviously.
Tyrsis
Guy is a barbarian, you can't seriously discuss with him <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
He already admitted that economics are only a part of wars. I'd dare to say that in many wars economics are smaller part than he makes it out to be. Examples are already in the thread, it's just matter of opinion and how you view it. For example civil wars and revolutions have the economical part(they tax us too much!) but often also another, even bigger part(they don't let us decide on anything and they treat us like dirt. We don't have any control over our lives!)
MonsE actually says: economics are the main and root reason.
My response: not always
MonsE: example?
Me: xxx yyy
MonsE: No good, economics involved
Me: Bah, not the root reason
Mons: Yep
Me: Nah
...
That's about it. It's about what angle you look at it(meaning I'm giving up because I'm such a weener <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
For the record, let it be shown that I am next in line to bear Monse's children <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
i'm still reading through this topic but i saw some controversy regarding the reasons for the Civil War.
i'm currently in AP US history... and yeah. i'm receiving quite a lot of info. too much, but i can pick up most of it.
-<u>slavery</u>, yes, controversy, freesoilers, rich planters, etc.
-GOLD RUSH: northern investors throw themselves at california. southern investors have <u>ALREADY INVESTED EVERYTHING IN SLAAAAAVES</u>.
-Compromise of 1850: not a very good compromise. new <u>territories in demand</u>, people unsatisfied...
-TECHNOLOGY: the north has an <u>extensive railroad network, the comprised length of which is many times that of the railroads in the south</u>. the north has, with these railroads, TELEGRAPH lines, enabling mass-communication at high speeds, defeating the need for messengers bearing important (telegraph-worthy) news. north has lightning fast national news. south has local paper.
<b>-INDUSTRY: in the north, where one prevailing cash crop is WHEAT, the THRESHER does the work of FIVE MEN in the field. in the south, the cotton gin processes BUT DOES NOT PICK the cotton. slaves are an indispensable labor force, driving the virtually <i>SOLE</i> source of resources.</b>
-tariffs on british imports.
in conclusion, the civil war was almost predominantly an economic issue.
edit: <!--QuoteBegin--windelkron+ sometime or another--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (windelkron @ sometime or another)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->because they whole reason the Southern states seceded was because the North put a very heavy tarriff on exports (which the South needed to survive economically).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
exports??? 0_0!?? 0_____0!?!?!?!
yeah.
they had reparations up the @$$ from wwi, how the hell can you say that they wouldn't want to drop a debt they'd probably still be paying today?? 0_o
they had reparations up the @$$ from wwi, how the hell can you say that they wouldn't want to drop a debt they'd probably still be paying today?? 0_o <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reasons for the actual revenge itself are more alligned with the humiliation of the treaty itself, especially one section of the treaty which placed the entire blame for the war upon Germany and Austria-Hungary (If <i>anyone</i> wants to debate whether the war was soley the fault of the Central powers then please back your arguement up). Germany felt very much that the treaty was too harsh (yes, reparations played a role here), and the resentment towards Britian and France for the treaty was something Hitler tapped into.
Hitler wasn't seeking revenge for purely economic reasons (especially as reparations payments were suspended in the early 30's). There's a good reason why he forced the French government to sign their surrender in the same railway car that the Versailles treaty had been signed in. Hitler wanted to humiliate the French as he percieved they had humiliated Germany.
That isn't to say that attacking France didn't give Germany valuable economic gains, because it did. Simply that economics was not the main reason Hitler sought revenge for Versailles, and revenge in turn was not the main reason Hitler attacked Poland or France.
but you're pushing real, <i>real</i> hard if you're saying WWII wasn't an economically-caused war, for the MOST part.
Japan attacked the US in part because the US witheld vital steel and oil shipments to the Japanese. They miscalculated and assumed Pearl Harbor would lead America to aquisece to its trade demands, but instead drew them into the war.
i know, i'm not trying to pin ignorance on you or anything
just sayin that economics was at least 51 or more % the reason XP
just sayin that economics was at least 51 or more % the reason XP <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I completely agree. Why are we argueing? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Except of course the stabilisation of Eastern Europe to allow greater economic freedom and prosperity. The European NATO powers certainly had economic interests to consider, namely the expansion of Western European companies and businesses into Eastern Europe, plus the stability of Europe as a whole. Investors tend to get jumpy when there's a civil war going on next door. Economics certainly played their role in Kosovo.
But you forget that the nato strikes were initiated by the US, not by european members.
The Balkan conflict would never ever lead to a WW I. Since the creation of the European Union and the euro, wars between member states have become economically disadvantageous. The small Kosovo conflict ( not the bosnian/croation/serbian war) would have cost the US or the EU far less than militairy intervention.
Take civil wars, e.g English Civil. Cavalier vs Roundhead. A fight for parliament and church. Economically motivated? I personally don't think so, but you could argue that the fight for control of the state is the fight for the control of the economy. Meh.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The English civil war did come up, and it was decided that vieing for control of the entire nation, plus the throne, was pretty much economic in it's nature. Certainly other factors such as religion came into the mix, but the single largest contributing factor would still seem to be economics.
J/K man, we missed you.