Call me naive or ignorant, but here is(are) my question(s)

[The Straight Story]

Why do we have wars? I mean, ok, someone is attacking you so you defend, I mean I get that whole thing ok.

But the people fighting the wars, the grunts and so forth if you will (and I certainly mean them no disrespect with that term, apology if it is taken as such) - why are they out there fighting for people who won't go and fight themselves - but will decide if there is to be a fight or not.

And I don't mean just Americans. Japan, China, Iran, europe, and where ever such things occur. It seems the few work to control the many based on a crisis (or more than one, or fake ones).

Fear becomes the motivator. The avg person is sold an enemy like a product and I think perhaps in these times that fear is bolstered perhaps by other things to help it along.

As an example - let's take peak oil and how I could see the next major war and the apocalypse (not forming an opinion on it here, but since it is a frequent topic it came to mind first).

We got the whole ME thing going on now with the terrorism threats, 9/11 and so on. Next the right fears the chinese. Now we throw in peak oil. Chinese want the oil, we need to control it so we can have it. Next thing ya know oil is in super short supply (maybe some nuke goes off and contaminates it, or the ME folks promise it to chinese who have more money, etc and so on).

With me so far? Ok - now here is where it gets even better. The men on horses marching to war, from Revelation (9:16-18). Been pegged as the chinese due to the big size of the army. Most people nowadays seem to forget the horses they were riding on. Not enough oil fixes that.

So what could we wind up with? The chinese marching down to take the oil, on horses. Ok, a little detail in the whole mess - but it makes one wonder how many other things could be spelled out so deeply (and something deep like this which is imprinted on the minds of many from church - which I am not knocking church, I am a christian myself and been to my fair share of churches).

* gets his war (and he is not the only one). We ramp up oil going bust, the dollar crashing, the terrorists and communists are coming, and so on and so forth.

While this is but one scenario - it makes me wonder in the history of war how many came down to this in the end. A bunch of salesmen out peddling their fears to motivate people to do things so they don't have to - and so that they themselves live to benefit off the sacrifice you made.

Some wars need to be for survival, If no one came to a war, would anyone hear the sounds of it?

(and sorry if this all seemed sloppy, was a on a conference call and chat with work folks while attempting to write it).

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Impotent old men trying to regain their erections.

[TwilightZone]

2. Religion...

has probably caused more wars than anything else outside of land and/or resource acquisition.

More accurately, religion has been used as an *excuse* to start a lot of wars.

[camitche]

3. I second the religion vote, or "misuse" of religion vote

[BlueJazz]

4. Tell it like it is , Brother....When the powerful talk about their flock..

...they don't call them Sheep for no reason.....

[Ready4Change]

13. Religion is but a means to grab power.

First warriors grabbed power through strength. Then priests via religion. Then Royalty combined warriors with religion. (King Arthur, anyone?)

Late entrants are things like commmunism, which meant to give equal power to all, but instead give all power to those best able to manipulate a corrupt bureaucracy, and Democracy, which seems to reward the most successful liars.

It seems pretty organic. I've yet to hear of an alternative which doesn't eventually break back down into a resource struggle of one sort or another, just like all the existing methods do.

[tubbacheez]

5. The deeper reason is diversity. Different views, different strengths,

different weaknesses, different perceptions regarding what is offensive and what isn't, different ideas about what's acceptable and what someone else should consider acceptable, etc. all contribute to war.



Part of our human nature contains a drive to "get ahead". Not every individual manifests it clearly, but every society generally does.

Whenever resources are scarce, like oil, it becomes difficult for everybody to stay on the same page as to what's fair. Diversity means people have varying needs. Fairness and justice are subjectively determined.

This puts people on collision course for conflict, and in some cases these conflicts result in combat.

[Just Me]

8. Is it REALLY human nature to "get ahead"?

:shrug:

Somehow, I don't think so. I believe "getting ahead" is a conscious choice,...not something beyond our control.

I dunno'. Just my opinion.

[tubbacheez]

12. Like I said, I don't see every individual doing it. But put enough people

together, and somebody is bound to try it.

That's what I meant.

[kaitykaity]

6. War is about resourses. And territroy, power, control.

Now that the primary resource of the modern world economy
is allegedly running out (without petroleum, the earth
only has an agricultural carrying capacity of about 2 billion
people, not 6) blood will be spilled for control of that
resource.



http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/oil/2030.html
"The agriculture miracle of the 20th century may become the
agricultural apocalypse of the 21st." He speculates that an
agriculture meltdown would lead to a nightmarish "die-off": As
many as four billion people could perish.

[lectrobyte]

7. I believe all wars are basically economic in nature. Nothing is

probably as simple as it looks from history books. Even WW2 has a cloudy start if you look a little deeper than the John Wayne version: American companies financing Germany, for example. And some would argue the whole Japanese adventure was about control of oil and other resources.

[understandinglife]

9. 'Why do we have wars?" -- Control of capital resources. (nt)

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[whistle]

10. Are you young or have you just awaken from a deep sleep?

...Neither question is meant to be disrespectful. I think my best source for an answer to that same question many years ago when I was young, naive and very much alseep come from this book:

<snip>
WAR IS A RACKET
by Smedley Darlington Butler

<snip>

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

<more>
<link> http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

The on-line book is great and you can download for free to read at your leisure.

It's also a topic of study in places of high learning:

http://www.nd.edu/~dlindley/govt491/govt491cowsyllabus.htm

<snip>
Political Science 491k: Causes of War
Fall 2004 Syllabus
Political Science Department Senior Writing Seminar
DeBartolo 326, Tuesdays and Thursdays, 2:00-3:15
Professor Dan Lindley
Department of Political Science
Office: 448 Decio Hall; Phone: [phone]; Email: dlindley "at" nd.edu
Website: http://www.nd.edu/~dlindley/
<more>

<other links>
http://www.abolishwar.org.uk/causes.shtml

http://www.qhpress.org/texts/dymond/causes.html

http://www.isanet.org/sections/fp/syllabi/vaneve~1.htm

[The Straight Story]

14. Interesting information

Thank you!

[whistle]

15. You are most welcome

[The Straight Story]

17. See also

My post #16 I think for some more further thoughts.

I am so glad to be a part of the people here at DU who see life as more than just a simple patriotic thing to America. We are all the children of the Lord if you will, and seperating us into groups only serves to divide and conquer.

Your posts and insights are most welcome, I enjoy reading the diversity of ideas and thoughts I find here (even when I am at odds with them - such things make me think deeper as to why I feel as I do).

[leftofthedial]

11. are you ignorant or just naive?

we are primates

tribal, violent, irrational

war is mankind's single most profitable enterprise.

[The Straight Story]

16. I think sadly the primates are the leaders (and a work story)

They are just good at misleading the masses. The avg person I don't think likes or wants war, it is something we need sold or convinced of by others.

But too you are quite right. We as indivuduals seek peace, but as a group we seperate and too often seek war for the benefit of the group. We protect ourselves and our needs first.

To me it is akin to how I have seen some talk about racism and the group think associated with it. As an example here is something which went on at work some years ago.

I worked in a factory and got close to my co-workers. We spent 8+ hours a day together on an electro-coate line talking as we worked. Two of the guys I worked with were African-Americans, one white and myself (also white I suppose...).

The topic of racism came up off and on, we all talked civily about issues and never took offense. So I pondered a few things and when it all came up again I asked the one guy the following (shortened version):

"You are on a battlefield and there are two injured soldiers. One is white, the other black. You only have enough supplies to save one of them, you don't know either of them at all. Which one do you save?"

He got a little flustered at first, then said the black guy. When I asked why he said because he was more like me (in the long version, I asked the question based on if he knew the white guy - he would save him, if he knew the black guy personally, he would save him - in the end which would he save if he knew neither).

The point I was making to him is that there was nothing wrong with his answer (and he was honest) it was that people tend to categorize and help those closest to themselves. A sort of group mentality. We look out for those in our family, our close friends, our neighbors, then our country, et al - we label and categorize and work for the best results for those within our sphere (and this can go to other things like religion, politics, et al).

As a whole, we are all humans with hopes and dreams. Those who fight wars are seeing a subset (often perhaps) of the group. Help those we know, screw those we can't relate to. It bothers me perhaps because as a christian I see us all as the same group, god's children, and all wanting the same thing - peace. There are those above us on the politics scale, like *, who do not see us this way (and of course, he is not the only one the world over who thinks this way).

It is just sad that the people en masse who want peace often go to war against other people who want peace because of the few who want peace only for the one group and not for all.

[leftofthedial]

18. plus very few of us ever have any meaningful interaction

with members of the "them."

We allow our "leaders" to be the only ones involved in the relationships between us and other countries.

[The Straight Story]

19. Quite true

And well said. We have a buffer which seems to erode our sense of humanity at times towards those that are different.

Education and interaction are a key - one which the right does not seem to like....

[leftofthedial]

20. one which they aggressively avoid