English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Nations never go to war over what is morally right or wrong. Expansionism or maintaining the status quo is always the motivation for war. Moral issues are only used to justify a war and convince the populace to take arms.
Nations posture for war long before its outbreak. They wait for the spark that brings national outrage. The sinking of the Maine and the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11 were all events that sparked wars in which battlelines had already been drawn and allies already chosen. Every war presents an economic advantage for the victor.
9/11 was the spark that drew Americans into the Middle-East. But what is the economic advantage to be obtain? The notion of controlling oil resources seems weak. America could have easily invented its way out of oil dependency for less than the overall cost of the Iraq war.
So, what is the underlying reason that the USA is expending so much of its wealth and the lives of its youth on Iraq? How is the wealth of the country at stake?

2007-02-22 02:53:33 · 5 answers · asked by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4 in Politics & Government Politics

Both World War I & II started over expansionism of the Axis powers. Both were war over economics.

2007-02-22 03:01:11 · update #1

Both WWI & WWII disrupted international trade from the Americas. In its declaration of war against Germany in WWI, Brazil openly admitted it entered the war because German U Boat activity in the Atlantic was destroying its trade with Europe.
The USA entered the war for the same reason.
This isn't to say the reasons were wrong.
Moral issues can always be settled without warfare.

2007-02-22 03:07:39 · update #2

5 answers

Nations often go to war because of right and wrong. What was the reason for the second World War, if not that?
And the 1st World war?
You forgot fear - destroy the enemy before it destroys you.
Additional note: The UK didn't engage in those wars for those reasons. The WWI was because of treaties, the 2ndWW was because Germany invaded Poland. But then the British are like that. They stick up for the underdogs.

2007-02-22 02:58:38 · answer #1 · answered by True Blue Brit 7 · 1 0

For the loser, yes. They get to stop hurting, murdering, taking advantage, and maiming inncoent people. Sounds lucrative to me! America needs an ally in the middle east. Wealth will be brought back to America, when we free Iraq, since industry will grow there in time. Nothing is quick, anything worth having comes at a price. Have you ever heard of anyone making money without spending money? I haven't. To make us grow, we must spend to develop, and once we develop, we grow, and more money flows.

2007-02-22 11:01:57 · answer #2 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 0 0

Wealth is not at stake, I don't agree with your assessment of the underlying reasons for war.

Self preservation seems to be at least half the reason in most wars.

We stood to and did not gain anything from either world war.

2007-02-22 10:59:48 · answer #3 · answered by snowball45830 5 · 1 0

It's usually why aggressors go to War. The US tends to be the exception. We tend to go to war when attacked. Iraq is a battlefield in the war on terror. Militant islam though is a different animal. They go to war just to impose their ideology on everyone.

2007-02-22 11:03:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

True--true! To the victor go the spoils. Always has always will.

2007-02-22 10:58:03 · answer #5 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers