History - the primary reasons for war [Archive]

jpinard

07-05-2007, 01:52 PM

* Natural Resources = land, oil, gold, water, traderoutes etc.
* Money/Extortion = Enslaving people, conquering just for taxation or plunder.
* Religion = Obvious.
* Political ideology = old Soviet thinking.
* Culture of war = Vikings.
* Race = parts of the Civil War.

I'm curious what people think the primary cause of war has been over history.
Nowadays people always want to blame religion or oil for war, but I'm not so sure its so clearly defined.

This isn't a political debate, just a look at hsitroy and what seems to draw the human race to conflict. For myself, I'm leaning towards the need for land & natural resorces to support a growing population. <--- as the primary cause of war. Japan's attack of the US in WWII and the current situation in the Middle East kind of supports this. However, I don't know where this would put other warring situations like Alexander the Great & the early Roman Empire. It seems the desire for natural resources is always there... but is it the root cause, or a by-product of war?

Obviously it's a complex dynamic of history, but post what you think what has been the #1 trigger for war.

Zylon

07-05-2007, 02:08 PM

The primary cause of war: "I want your stuff."
The second-most cause of war: "Hey, those guys want our stuff!"

Dirt

07-05-2007, 02:09 PM

It all begins with: "We don't have any stuff."

Slainte Mhath

07-05-2007, 02:11 PM

It almost always comes down to resources/territory as the base reason. Religion is very often used as a tool to incite a populace into supporting a war that the people in charge really want to wage for money/resources/territory. Even the crusades, arguably the most religious-centric wars in history, really boiled down to European powermongers wanting the wealth and the territory available in the holy land.

chet

07-05-2007, 02:19 PM

Obviously it's a complex dynamic of history, but post what you think what has been the #1 trigger for war.

The Jews.

unbongwah

07-05-2007, 02:23 PM

Money, land, power - pick one or more of the above. The rest is just window dressing for the masses.

DavidKaye

07-05-2007, 02:27 PM

The Jews.

Also black people, aliens and the Illuminati.

John Merva

07-05-2007, 02:41 PM

The primary cause of war: "I want your stuff."
The second-most cause of war: "Hey, those guys want our stuff!"

Also: they may want our stuff, let's get theirs first.

MonkeyPunky

07-05-2007, 03:09 PM

The Allspark

jpinard

07-05-2007, 03:12 PM

The Jews.

The Mexican-American war, the Punic Wars, the Boer Wars, the Clone Wars... All because of the Israelites. :-/

Crater

07-05-2007, 03:25 PM

War. War never changes.

Lunch of Kong

07-05-2007, 03:32 PM

* Natural Resources = land, oil, gold, water, traderoutes etc.
Greed.
* Money/Extortion = Enslaving people, conquering just for taxation or plunder.
People are a natural resource, so Greed.
* Religion = Obvious.
The only religions that want to conquer other religions are the ones that require fresh converts. So people = resources = greed.
* Political ideology = old Soviet thinking.
Soviets wanted to spread ideology to get people = resources = greed.
* Culture of war = Vikings.
They were greedy bastards.
* Race = parts of the Civil War.
This was about people as a resource too. So, greed again.

If you want a relatively peaceful life, don't covet, and don't brag.

LarryLard

07-05-2007, 04:02 PM

Ephraim

07-05-2007, 04:20 PM

Many philosophers agree that evil, of which war is a prime example, is caused by the human capacity to be driven by external desires. So the "greed" answer is the most common. We want things beyond what we simply need, and that leads to conflict. If we were all absolutely satisfied in just attaining our basic, fundamental desires (read: needs) and no more than that, all would be well.

Spinoza, a Jewish philosopher (I throw him in just as a "heya!" to chet and Mel Gibson), also made that point that there are two types of desires: actions -- needs that are internally generated, like the needs for food, shelter, clothing, and safety and passions -- external desires that come from observing the outside world and wanting things. Actions are inherently good, passions can be either good or bad. He also argued that it's desires that make us band together into societies. So, along with the bad (e.g. war) we also get good, things like helping people in need, having laws that keep us from killing each other, etc...

So, if I had to answer the question of what causes wars: 1) passions (desires that are externally generated) and 2) multiple human societies -- if we were all a single, homogeneous group than we wouldn't be able to target another group to take their stuff.

2 is caused by lots of things, namely geography, racial differences, religious differences, language differences... you get the picture. But it's the superset. If we lived in the Star Trek universe, Earth would be a single society and we'd have to look for Klingons with whom we could war.

Dirt

07-05-2007, 04:40 PM

Spinoza was Dutch. Like Leibniz was German. And Locke was English. And Diderot was French.

Knowing what little I do about Spinoza, I don't think he'd label himself Jewish. He was completely ostracized by the Jewish community for his ideas. Ex-communicated if you will.

Ephraim

07-05-2007, 04:41 PM

Spinoza was Dutch. Like Leibniz was Christian.

Well, technically a Dutch Jew who was "excommunicated" from the Amsterdam Jewish community, most likely due to his alleged homosexuality.

Psst, nice stealth edit, but I posted before you added the rest :) And I disagree with the notion that he was ex-communicated due to his ideas. Judaism has always had learned men with radical beliefs, and they didn't get excommunicated. Nope, it was likely a) his homosexuality or b) the Amsterdam Jewish community didn't want to risk offending the Dutch authorities, they needed the place of safety during the Inquisition and didn't want to rock the boat.

Dirt

07-05-2007, 04:43 PM

Well, technically a Dutch Jew who was "excommunicated" from the Amsterdam Jewish community, most likely due to his alleged homosexuality.
No, he was descended from Portuguese Jews.

Ephraim

07-05-2007, 04:45 PM

No, he was descended from Portuguese Jews.

And was born to two Jewish parents, and was a Jew until his community gave him the boot. Thus, a Jew.

Dirt

07-05-2007, 04:46 PM

And was born to two Jewish parents, and was a Jew until his community gave him the boot. Thus, a Jew.
No, they gave him the boot. Therefore, not a Jew.

Ephraim

07-05-2007, 04:49 PM

No, they gave him the boot. Therefore, not a Jew.

You say potato, I say po-tah-to. OK, I'll concede and call him "a Dutch philosopher of Jewish decent, who was raised and learned in the Jewish tradition until expelled from the Jewish community for arguable reasons".

All that effort just because I wanted to poke a little fun at chet and Mel Gibson. Huh.

Demon G Sides

07-05-2007, 04:56 PM

The Allspark

We've got a winner folks.

wisefool

07-05-2007, 05:03 PM

Nobody's mentioned pillaging and rapine. Any bleak interpretation of the nature of man should include this. It's very sad, you read about Chimps then see how their tribes go against other tribes and kill the babies (thought as far as I know they never filmed them killing their own tribes.)

Even that caveat is very human. We find it reassuring that thought they kill OTHERS (others! bad guys!) we aren't so animal we kill ourselves.

I'm in the interpretation we have tribal/pack instincts. We can only hold so many faces and people in memory and consider them one of "us" - modern nationalism is one of the exceptions transcending biological nature, obviously.
This is my theory on MMRPG guilds - you have to group together, interact together, fight shit and get loot to bond. Your self-sacrifice by declining a piece of loot to another member (greater overall utility) is paid off because you'll be grouping with them soon enough - Enlightened self-interest or what not. 40 members is very close knit. 80-100 is still ok but cliques form of favored members. After that it goes to selfish hell.

Now you'll have to excuse the ranting - I just popped open some 23 year rum that changed my perception of rum. Used to hate it, now I think I rather like it. It's like cognac.

Glenn

07-05-2007, 05:09 PM

No, they gave him the boot. Therefore, not a Jew.If your parents disowned you, would you no longer be Taiwanese?

Dirt

07-05-2007, 05:12 PM

If your parents disowned you, would you no longer be Taiwanese?
I'm a citizen of the Republic of China, I'm not Taiwanese.

Still, to play along: If the USA revoked my citizenship, would I still be an American? Spinoza wasn't just disowned by his parents, he was ostracized by the entire Jewish community.

Ephraim

07-05-2007, 05:17 PM

I'm not Taiwanese in the first place.

Still, to play along: If the USA revoked my citizenship, would I still be an American?

Judaism is not a nationality, so neither of you are correct. It's both a culture and a religion, recognized as such on the Canadian census. In the case of religion, I think if Spinoza no longer considered himself Jewish, then he wasn't a Jew by religion. In terms of a culture, I'm not so sure you can just give that up. If you're raised in a culture, and all you know is that culture, and then you're ejected from that cultural group, I suspect that culture still clings to you, but I'm not absolutely confident of that.

But this is all very far afield of the "War, what is it good for?" question.

Dirt

07-05-2007, 05:19 PM

Judaism is not a nationality, so neither of you are correct. It's both a culture and a religion, recognized as such on the Canadian census. In the case of religion, I think if Spinoza no longer considered himself Jewish, then he wasn't a Jew by religion. In terms of a culture, I'm not so sure you can just give that up. If you're raised in a culture, and all you know is that culture, and then you're ejected from that cultural group, I suspect that culture still clings to you, but I'm not absolutely confident of that.
That's why I've said he was excommunicated and not forcibly expatriated. And who's to say he wasn't more culturally Dutch instead of Jewish?

Glenn

07-05-2007, 05:23 PM

I'm not Taiwanese in the first place.If your parents disowned you, would you still be asian?

Still, to play along: If the USA revoked my citizenship, would I still be an American? Spinoza wasn't just disowned by his parents, he was ostracized by the entire Jewish community.American is not an ethnicity, and I don't think they can revoke your citizenship if you're natural-born. Even then, John Walker Lindh (or whatever his name) is still an American. An American in Guantanamo, but still.

Dirt

07-05-2007, 05:43 PM

If your parents disowned you, would you still be asian?

American is not an ethnicity, and I don't think they can revoke your citizenship if you're natural-born. Even then, John Walker Lindh (or whatever his name) is still an American. An American in Guantanamo, but still.
Asian is so Westerner. I prefer Middle Kingdom. Jewishness isn't an ethnicity either. Hence my usage of the word excommunicated. So, I'm confused why you keep bringing race into this.

Glenn

07-05-2007, 05:58 PM

Asian is so Westerner. I prefer Middle Kingdom.Stop it or I'm going to star typing ethnic slurs in bold all-caps.

Jewishness isn't an ethnicity either.What does Ashkenazi mean, Dirt?

Dirt

07-05-2007, 06:16 PM

Stop it or I'm going to star typing ethnic slurs in bold all-caps.

What does Ashkenazi mean, Dirt?
What does Sephardi mean?

It's a multi-tude of ethnicities. And it doesn't stop at Ashkenazi or Sephardic. So, why can't someone just be Dutch without having to say they're Jewish? And if Ashkenazi is a ethnicity and Dutch is a ethnicity and Ashkanazi = Jewish, can you be Dutch Jewish without actually having a parent of Dutch descent? If you're excommunicated from Judaism, doesn't that mean you can only claim to be Dutch born?

Glenn

07-05-2007, 06:42 PM

What does Sephardi mean?Those are the Jews that pray to Chthulu, right? Or are they the ones that were expelled from Spain? I get so confused.

It's a multi-tude of ethnicities. And it doesn't stop at Ashkenazi or Sephardic. So, why can't someone just be Dutch without having to say they're Jewish? And if Ashkenazi is a ethnicity and Dutch is a ethnicity and Ashkanazi = Jewish, can you be Dutch Jewish? If you're excommunicated from Judaism, doesn't that mean you're just Dutch?How many ethnic groups are included collectively under the term Chinese, Dirt? What if someone has one parent each from TWO DIFFERENT ethnic groups? What if they don't live in China anymore? What if they're expelled from the Communist Party? What if they're Barak Obama? Almost every ethnic group is named after some incidental characteristic, in this case it happens to be religion. Figure it out.

Dirt

07-05-2007, 06:46 PM

Those are the Jews that pray to Chthulu, right? Or are they the ones that were expelled from Spain? I get so confused.

How many ethnic groups are included collectively under the term Chinese, Dirt? What if someone has one parent each from TWO DIFFERENT ethnic groups? What if they don't live in China anymore? What if they're expelled from the Communist Party? What if they're Barak Obama? Almost every ethnic group is named after some incidental characteristic, in this case it happens to be religion. Figure it out.
You agree with me then. Spinoza was excommunicated, therefore, he was no longer Jewish.

Zylon

07-05-2007, 07:50 PM

Did you somehow miss the whole "Judaism is a religion AND a floor wax" part of the discussion?

chet

07-05-2007, 08:09 PM

What did I tell you about the jews? They are starting a war right here, they are sneaky like that...

Dirt

07-05-2007, 10:20 PM

Did you somehow miss the whole "Judaism is a religion AND a floor wax" part of the discussion?
Can I be Han without being Chinese?

Brendan

07-05-2007, 10:25 PM

We're just territorial.

Nellie

07-06-2007, 02:43 AM

This started off being quite interesting, now I just want to go and pull my eyes out and sit, sobbing in a corner somewhere.

Did anyone ever go to war after falling out over the ethinicity and/or religious background of a philosopher before?

Can I be Han without being Chinese?
Only if I can be Luke.

"that's impossible. NoooooOOOOOOOoooooOOOOOOooooOOOOO"

Ahhh the days where "NoooOOOOoooOOOoo!" Didn't make you snigger.

Lurb

07-06-2007, 03:53 AM

What did I tell you about the jews? They are starting a war right here, they are sneaky like that...

Reverse Godwin FTW

metta

07-06-2007, 03:57 AM

There's also the need to have people accept me as their ruler.

The only thing stopping a populace from booting the monarch out on their arse is either

a) The belief that their leader is actually better than them (see *class systems) and the acceptance of religion (see *rule ordained by G-d), or
b) Their leader keeps the populace safe from enemies, maintains local law and order, and ensures they have plenty of mead and muesli.

It's no accident that the two most common buildings in the world are churches and pubs. Religion and booze keep my people happy and docile, and instead of having my armies on 24 hour Pitchfork Watch, I can send them off to put the hurt on the heathens next door. (Although, in the modern west, pubs and churches may have now been supplanted by television and credit cards.)

secretary

07-06-2007, 06:25 AM

I think people like to kill people. Everything else is just their justification for doing so.

Ephraim

07-06-2007, 06:30 AM

I think people like to kill people. Everything else is just their justification for doing so.

But we know this isn't true. Very few people like to kill other people. So few that we identify them as criminally psychopathological and lock them up. Most people who kill other people when they have no choice (e.g. in self-defence or time of war) have very strong feelings against what they did.

I just don't buy the argument that humans kill for pleasure. It's not consistent with all the evidence we have.

secretary

07-06-2007, 06:50 AM

There's undoubtedly a stigma associated with killing in every society (as you said, we lock people up for it) and I think that encourages us to feel bad about it. People absolutely express regret over taking a life, but it could also be a combination of the shame of that stigma, physical shock and fear of punishment.

JMHO, of course. I'd be interested in the evidence to the contrary.

Enidigm

07-06-2007, 06:53 AM

The development of Monarchy, it's associated administrations, and the city-state were closely intertwined in the growth of warfare in ancient Mesopotamia. Warfare has always existed between human tribal societies but it is the rise of "civilization" which allowed Monarchs to channel those instincts into larger scale wars of conquest against whole cities and societies. I love ancient Mesopotamian art, as the imagery and symbolism are nearly straight out of the ancient Biblical narratives; in their simplistic way they totally capture the world view and material / economic culture of their societies.

What's interesting in China is that during the Warring States period the solutions that Lao Tzu and Confucious came up with to end suffering was not political revolution but codified ceremonial traditionalism and naturalistic spirituality; they never advocated overturning the political establishments themselves.

The problem with warfare for centuries was that once every culture and nation has become militarized it became impossible to NOT be mililaristic, as a nation's neighbors would quickly gobble it up and destroy it if it's armies faltered.

The universality of the warfare instinct can be seen pretty clearly in Mesoamerica, which was completely isolated from Old World cultural developments.

Hanzii

07-06-2007, 06:59 AM

But we know this isn't true. Very few people like to kill other people. So few that we identify them as criminally psychopathological and lock them up. Most people who kill other people when they have no choice (e.g. in self-defence or time of war) have very strong feelings against what they did.

I just don't buy the argument that humans kill for pleasure. It's not consistent with all the evidence we have.

Some of the worst warcrimes in history took a lot of manpower. Poland, Nanking, Rwanda, Darfur - unfortunately I get no sense that the foot soldiers were in anyway opposed to what they were required to do and seem to take some pleasure in it.

So either killing for pleasure is a (normally hidden) part of human nature or our inner psychopath isn't that hard to drag out.

Ephraim

07-06-2007, 07:06 AM

Some of the worst warcrimes in history took a lot of manpower. Poland, Nanking, Rwanda, Darfur - unfortunately I get no sense that the foot soldiers were in anyway opposed to what they were required to do and seem to take some pleasure in it.

So either killing for pleasure is a (normally hidden) part of human nature or our inner psychopath isn't that hard to drag out.

Stanley Milgram answered this one pretty definitively with his experiments. He proved that we're very well conditioned to obey authority figures. Again, there was no pleasure involved in the obedience, just that we're inclined towards following the instructions of people in authority. I suppose it comes from our evolution from primates that are submissive to the alpha-male. So you can add that to the list of why we go to war, but I really actively disagree that we fundamentally take pleasure out of killing. I'll try to dig up some research on this later.

BaconTastesGood

07-06-2007, 07:07 AM

So either killing for pleasure is a (normally hidden) part of human nature or our inner psychopath isn't that hard to drag out.

Before someone drags out the prisoner/prison guard psychology experiment, let me just direct you to Cialdini's "Influence", which goes a lot into how completely normal, well adjusted people can slip into sociopathic tendencies trivially. It explains a lot of human atrocities committed by people that can then go home and have dinner with their family and sleep a good night's rest, and the pat answer isn't "Well, those people are just EEEEEvelllll!"

Zylon

07-06-2007, 07:17 AM

Can I be Han without being Chinese?
That depends. Did you shoot first?

Chris Nahr

07-06-2007, 09:29 AM

But we know this isn't true. Very few people like to kill other people. So few that we identify them as criminally psychopathological and lock them up.

Who's that "we" thing you keep talking about? As Bruce Willis observed in Sin City, people who are today considered homicidial maniacs would have been celebrated gladiators in another age. Or successful feudal warlords.

Glenn

07-06-2007, 09:46 AM

Can I be Han without being Chinese?Well, you do manage to be a tarbaby without... nevermind.

jpinard

07-06-2007, 11:44 AM

But we know this isn't true. Very few people like to kill other people. So few that we identify them as criminally psychopathological and lock them up. Most people who kill other people when they have no choice (e.g. in self-defence or time of war) have very strong feelings against what they did.

I just don't buy the argument that humans kill for pleasure. It's not consistent with all the evidence we have.

I'd so like to believe this, but I don't think that's true. Just look at Al Quada. They "love" to kill. Even if it means killing woman and children. Look at gang warfare in inner cities. Some of them have gleeful attitudes about killing.

DeepT

07-06-2007, 11:51 AM

Greed.

Yes, that is exactly true. I am glad someone agrees (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=996079&postcount=18) with me on this point. It has always been greed and always will be greed.

Anders Hallin

07-06-2007, 11:54 AM

I'd so like to believe this, but I don't think that's true. Just look at Al Quada. They "love" to kill. Even if it means killing woman and children. Look at gang warfare in inner cities. Some of them have gleeful attitudes about killing.
Maybe your long life at death's door has desensitized you, but I think those are considered aberrations.
There are certainly cultures that celebrate killing, whether that be criminal organisations or armies, but most often, getting people to kill is a process, that often includes dehumanising the intended victims.

Alan Au

07-06-2007, 12:08 PM

War. War never changes.The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory. Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower. But war never changes.

In the 21st century, war was still waged over the resources that could be acquired. Only this time, the spoils of war were also its weapons: petroleum and uranium.

- Alan

jpinard

07-06-2007, 12:31 PM

Alan, who said that? I see many people have it as taglines.

Alan Au

07-06-2007, 12:34 PM

Alan, who said that? I see many people have it as taglines.It's the opening narration from the first Fallout game.

- Alan

Anaxagoras

07-06-2007, 01:47 PM

I think if you look far enough back into history to times when nations were at the command of single powerful men, you get things other than pure greed. Anger, for instance. And sheer bloddy-mindedness. I've recently finished reading Justin Marozzi's 'Tamerlane' (http://www.amazon.com/Tamerlane-Sword-Islam-Conqueror-World/dp/0306815435) - it has been said that Timur was "unable to pass by the kingdom of Armenia without razing it" - he did so six times in total. Now, there wasn't that much stuff there even the first time - he apparently just enjoyed it.

I read that book a month or two ago (Awesome, awesome book, by the way) and he makes it pretty clear that Tamerlane kept razing lands only when they rebelled. ( I thought it was the Georgians he massacred over and over... not the Armenians.)

Blind anger rarely moves entire empires... even when those empires are ruled by a single man. The problem with a single ruler or small group of very powerful rulers is that of pride. They want to subjugate and dominate those around them due to their pride. Of course, when their pride is thwarted, then they become angry. And really, who wouldn't be angry when Land X declines to become your obedient vassals? Killing them all is pretty much the only possible answer to such a situation.

Honestly. It's just common sense people.

Dirt

07-06-2007, 02:06 PM

If you look at animals other than humans, they wage war for resources or rather where there are the most resources. It's not about pride.

jpinard

07-06-2007, 02:18 PM

If you look at animals other than humans, they wage war for resources or rather where there are the most resources. It's not about pride.

Do you mean resources like "females"? Wild Stallions will kill off competing males just because they are defending their harem... never considered it might be their food supply as well. Carnivores defaintely a "resource" thing though.