Quantcast

The Purpose of Foreign War?

JMCC 2012/08/21 11:45:04
Yes it could...
No, that is too cynical...
Undecided
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Historically there have been many justifications used for nations to go to war, and it is more often than not about the control of people and resources through one theology or another, but are there sometimes more sinister reasons?

Prior to the second world war the world faced a similar situation that we do today; global financial crisis, demilitarisation, food and employment shortages.

It is theorised that the second world war was jumped on as a solution to the problem by some very unethical people who had access to power.

1) War polarises people, a perceived external threat reduces the possibility of internal conflict and revolution, deflecting responsibility from the rich and powerful and putting it on hold.

2) War stimulates production and scientific development.

3) It gives the excuse to bring in the rationing of essential goods.

4) It justifies nations the excuse to rid themselves of excess or surplus population.

5) It allows those who always benefit to profit from war supplies and war loans...

Could this really be the reason why some are banging the drums of war, and not for the security of nations?
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • TheR 2012/08/21 16:21:18
    None of the above
    TheR
    +1
    There is no purpose for War. Killing someone solves no issue, no problem, and certainly does not make you a winner. The US is the most despised country in the world. They are not an original people. They are paranoid thieves who stole Native American Indian Lands, and ran out of land, so now they are attacking all the other nations in the world. Even if you say you are a Coalition Partner, be known they want to control you. To this very day American thinks it controls the UK, and all the the major Nations in the world. I think the US Empire is a fraud, and will crumble like Rome.

    Roman Ruins
  • Scout 2012/08/21 15:02:46
    None of the above
    Scout
    War is only justified in defense of the nation.
  • JMCC Scout 2012/08/21 15:14:40
    JMCC
    +1
    What about preemptive strikes?
  • Scout JMCC 2012/08/21 15:56:21
    Scout
    +1
    It sure is easy to call blatant aggression a preemptive strike. The people will buy most anything if you package it right.
  • Kozmo 2012/08/21 14:54:29
    Yes it could...
    Kozmo
    +1
    Counterproductive to the Military Industrial Complex if done on the Home Front.
    This is EXACTLY as George Orwell wrote in 1984.
  • Joyce Brand 2012/08/21 14:45:40
    Yes it could...
    Joyce Brand
    +1
    War is never for the "security of nations." It is always for the reasons you list, plus some reasons even more sinister. It always decreases liberty and increases the power of the state.
  • Schläue~© 2012/08/21 13:20:14
    Undecided
    Schläue~©
    +1
    Your 'question' asks one question and your text asks another.
    To the latter, there were many reasons for WW II, none of which threatened the USA at the onset. It was Japan against China in the Pacific, and Germany & Italy against Europe.

    China had the highest number of casualties with 3-4 Million military and 7-16M civilian, Germany 2nd with 5.5 Million military and 1-2M civilian but Poland, #3 in number, lost 250k military, but nearly 6 Million civilians which in total, was almost 17% of their entire population. If anyone knows about loss of freedom and being controlled by a foreign dictator, it's the Polish people.

    FDR needed to get the USA involved in WW II because his New Deal policies were failing miserably, only prolonging the Depression, not ending it.
    He chose to provoke Japan by interfering with the supply lines, mainly fuel to operate their military equipment.
    This was in direct violation of International law at the time, before the U.N and various treaties were signed.
    He was well aware, that Japan had been planning and practicing for a massive coordinated attack which focused on Pearl Harbor, and did everything he could to aid them in pulling it off.

    We not only face the same financial problems as we did in the late 30's - early 40's, but are experiencing the s...

    Your 'question' asks one question and your text asks another.
    To the latter, there were many reasons for WW II, none of which threatened the USA at the onset. It was Japan against China in the Pacific, and Germany & Italy against Europe.

    China had the highest number of casualties with 3-4 Million military and 7-16M civilian, Germany 2nd with 5.5 Million military and 1-2M civilian but Poland, #3 in number, lost 250k military, but nearly 6 Million civilians which in total, was almost 17% of their entire population. If anyone knows about loss of freedom and being controlled by a foreign dictator, it's the Polish people.

    FDR needed to get the USA involved in WW II because his New Deal policies were failing miserably, only prolonging the Depression, not ending it.
    He chose to provoke Japan by interfering with the supply lines, mainly fuel to operate their military equipment.
    This was in direct violation of International law at the time, before the U.N and various treaties were signed.
    He was well aware, that Japan had been planning and practicing for a massive coordinated attack which focused on Pearl Harbor, and did everything he could to aid them in pulling it off.

    We not only face the same financial problems as we did in the late 30's - early 40's, but are experiencing the same environment within our own borders that brought about our Civil War in the 1800's.

    There is a purpose of foreign war, not to reap the spoils and annex the land which was the norm, prior to WW II, but to prevent/eliminate genocide, and ensure the nut-jobs don't use modern technology to eradicate another people, and in the process, fill the atmosphere will nuclear radiation, that will affect everyone on the planet.
    (more)
  • Kozmo Schläue~© 2012/08/21 14:58:43
    Kozmo
    +1
    Not bad, except wasn't it the Soviets that paid the highest cost in Life?
    Info on China not as well-known or reliable so Ivan may have come a close 2nd.
  • Schläue~© Kozmo 2012/08/21 15:12:24
    Schläue~©
    +1
    Yikes,.. you're absolutely correct. I'll blame that oversight on the first cup of coffee.
    They did suffer the most overall in number with 10 Million military and about 13M civilians.
    As bad as that was, it was 14% of their total population compared to Poland's 17%
  • Kozmo Schläue~© 2012/08/21 15:38:27
    Kozmo
    +1
    Poland got pincered by both Adolf & Josef, hence their pain.
    Off-topic, didn't Cambodia lose >25% with Pol Pot?
    brings a new meaning to "Domestic Violence".
    Isn't that & 'Civil War' an oxymoron?
    (Both) soon to be here?
  • Schläue~© Kozmo 2012/08/21 15:51:30
    Schläue~©
    +1
    I believe it was around 21% in a 3 year period of 1976-79 - 1.5 - 2.5 Million.

    Had Congress not defunded Nixon's exit strategy and efforts to establish S. Vietnam as a permanent nation, Pot Pot never would have gone on his reign of terror. The Dem's couldn't allow Nixon to have any sort of victory in the region due to the fact that it was Kennedy's & Johnson's debacle that he took care of, ended the forced draft, and brought the troops home.
  • Vijay Pawar 2012/08/21 12:38:13
    None of the above
    Vijay Pawar
    There are many complex reasons for the purpose of war........
  • JMCC Vijay P... 2012/08/21 12:40:35
    JMCC
    +2
    With one sole purpose - to control...
  • ray 2012/08/21 12:12:43 (edited)
    Undecided
    ray
    +2
    Seems the majority of the wars today are being fought over resources.

    Sudan over control of oil fields, Mideast revolutions over oil (subsequent foreign intervention ) . The United Nations attacks on Libya over oil. The UN support and attacks in Ivory Coast . Obama sending soldiers to Uganda Oils and minerals . Mexico and South America over the Drug trade .

    There is always the usual cast and crew war profiteers, along with the Political maneuvering to gain position . The newest corruption of the United Nations becoming an attacking force and dictating law to sovereign countries is troublesome and argues for elimination of the UN .



    .
  • Kozmo ray 2012/08/21 14:59:56
    Kozmo
    +1
    in Days of Yore, wasn't Colonialism the same thing but a tad slower & less violent?
  • ray Kozmo 2012/08/21 15:14:14
    ray
    WWII was the end of the last of the great colonial expansions with the defeat of the Axis powers. ( unless one considers the liberation of Kuwait )
  • Kozmo ray 2012/08/21 15:40:22
    Kozmo
    +1
    isn't Kuwait an Emirate? They got put back in once the oil started flowing again.
  • ray Kozmo 2012/08/21 16:04:42
    ray
    +1
    Yes ,
    the Iraqi invasion could be considered as an attempt at colonialism .

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/30 05:18:02

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals