I just finished reading Battle Cry, the novel about the Marines in WW2 fighting on the Pacific against the "Japs".

Is it money, real-estate, minerals? Wars are old as time, and there are a few going on right now.

Call me Gus, and perhaps I ask stupid questions, just the feelings after reading the book.

Clausewitz said wars are just politics by other means. Probably pretty accurate.

Money. The industrial complex must be fed.

Always have been, always will be!

[quote=papat]Money. The industrial complex must be fed. [/quote
What he said, the war machine = MONEY.

Put some red and black ants in a box .

i use to think i knew. or at least had pretty good ideas.

nowadays i'm not so sure at all. it's a mystery.

japan, russia, germany, time immemorial.

when the big green machine gets cranked and running it's awesome.

or maybe it's just shock and awe against a psuedo-enemy.

the big ant-hill rivals, who's got the mostest?

Power, prestige, and revenge. Throw religion into the mix and you end up with the middle east.

and of course someone might come along and attempt to share with the rank & file how wars have helped advance the human race over the ages.

some would suggest it's been such a blessing, encouraging the development of new technology and organizational systems.

i'm pretty sure the High Priests at NASA understand how we humans have gotten to the point where we are.

In WWII, Japan kicked things off in the pacific over access to raw materials.

In Europe, German couldn't pay their debts from WWI, and still wanted the raw materials they were after in WWI.

Wars in the middle east have primary been about two things, access to trade routes, and, in modern days, Oil.

Look hard enough, and all wars have an economic root.

wars over natural resources is where it often begins. people need to have access to resources, ultimately to feed their own families.

sometimes there's a profit motive, and other times a pure power/dictatorial motive.

all i know is what i was told in the 1st cavalry division and it was more than half propaganda.

but people needs to have jobs. building tanks, guns, bullets, or whatever. a job is a job.

Rulers that think they are tough like to take stuff away from the weak. Eventually they run into some folks that actually are tough and get their azzes handed to them. Human nature ad nauseum.


mike r

we've come to this point in our selective evolution of humans on the urth.

some nearly 200 countries. we've pretty much fought our way to this point.

the fermentation and distillation of the human ideologies continue on forward.

the hammurabi code, the magna carta, the english kings, america becoming taxable.

http://publicquotes.com/quote/38156/all-wars-are-fought-for-the-sake-of-getting-money.html

worth reading

Resources, land, power, money.....
One of em or a combo.
Since the dawn of time.

All man,s other achievements , pale in comparison to war.

Something like that someone said......

You know, off the top of my head, with the possible exception of WW1, I can't think of any war that wasn't started over money, land, or resources.
WW1 was really pretty senseless in the way it was allowed to begin. Europeon alliances just got outta hand, and one mistake lead into another.
7mm

will be what?

World War One started over coal and Iron ore. The background politics was just the excuses for the real reasons.

To be honest, I never read very far into it. Most of the little bit I did, points to the alliances and pledges of mutual defense, and how these started the vortex after Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.
One thing that is certain in all cases is the fact that if your enemies perceive you to be weak, you can count on them trying to take advantage of it.
7mm

I really believe that the U.S. getting involved in WW 1 brought the whole world to disaster. There was a 20 year truce and rearming and then hell on earth for Europe and Asia which ended up under murderous communist dictatorships. If we had never fought Spain and steered clear of the European war it probably would have ended in basically a stalemate around 1920. It's extremely hard to imagine it could have turned out worse.

You try to make the nature of man too complicated. If my force is greater than your force I get to make the rules, until yet a greater force comes along. Religion? philosophy? politics? All are dominated by the ability to apply the greater force at a given time and/or place.


mike r

Hastings,

The Influenza of 1918 had a lot to do with the war winding down with it did.

The real tragedy occurred at Versailles. Wilson was willing to trade anything for his Utopian League of Nations. In the process he permitted France to saddle Germany with surrender conditions and war debt that inevitably lead to a resumption of hostilities. This was predicted by John Maynard Keynes is his best work, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, published in 1919.

Text version:
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/15776/pg15776.txt

Down load the Kindle version here:

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15776

Yup, and the oligarchs used the anarchists to start the violence, just as they are doing now. It's all about power and control. Wealth itself provides a certain amount of power, politically and economically, once you have the power, then it's about controlling the assets, which include the people.

Communists are all about control and with that control, they get and keep the power and wealth.

Dig back into recorded history and you will find that things have never changed. Doesn't matter what title you put on the masters, it's all about power. Basic human nature.

Ed

Rulers want money and power.

This^^^. Gutlie Rothschild said, "If my sons wanted no wars, there would be none".

The one percenters ej, fiddler, la Roy, gayghost, etc love.

Wars and rumors of wars.

and my point is, thats not even close to an answer to the question. LOL. OT is the theme of 24....

War is simple as already noted. Struggle for power wealth fame and fortune, but I repeat myself.

People have been fighting one another since the beginning of time, and always will.

Arabs fight other Arabs and Jews. Europeans fight other Europeans and Asians fight Asians. Simple really..

There is a saying that young men fight the wars that old men start.

If this is true, what happens to old men to make them want to see the blood of young men spilled.

Wars are started for different reasons. Usually none of them good reasons.

But in WWII I believe there were very good reasons for that one.

As to Marines fighting Japs in the Pacific, you do recall Pearl Harbor, don't you?

The US did not start that war Rick.

WWII was simply WWI, Part 2. What England and France did to Germany at the end of WWI was reprehensible. That doesn't excuse Hitler's megalomania, extreme racism, nor the atrocities he inflicted on even his own people, but it DID give the populace a reason to back him (fully at first) and his agenda. We only got into it by being dragged into it by Hitler's obsession with destroying Great Britain, which caused our supply ships to be sunk, resulting in the loss of American lives and property. It didn't help that some of those ships were sunk off of the Texas coast in the Gulf of Mexico...

As for the Pacific part of WWII, Japan's desire to conquer the entire western Pacific Rim caused them to attack Pearl Harbor as a preemptive strike to prevent the US carrier fleet from stopping their conquest of the Pacific in order to fulfill their plans.

It still all boils down to money, power, and control.

Ed

How was the book? Worth reading?

I'm reading it again.

I didn't say we did.

These days, Y E S !!!

In the 10 commandments God listed the rules for man to live by, and they are also listed in order of importance.

Rules #1 and #2 are foundational. ALL sin has to break one of both of commandments #1 and #2 before they break any other commandment, because ALL sin is an act of saying "I am equal or superior to God and can make my rules more important then His rules."

The first sin ever committed was when Lucifer wanted to be God and that's what got him kicked out of heaven and got him renamed as Satan. The sin nature passed down to all mankind was the same sin, wanting to be in charge, wanting to make our own rules and effectively wanting to be god in our own little spheres of life and influence. When someone is placed into a position of power over a nation or region and wants to be god they want to force their will on other people, all of which are seen in their eyes as "less then" they are. Their will is supreme in their mind, and all those that oppose their ideas are enemies ------------ or at least in the way of progress.

From which comes the creation of war and/or subjugation.

What the false gods want is not combat. They want victory. War is a condition when the opposition will not surrender without a fight. In MOST cases the largest segment of a society are cowards, and will surrender without a fight. We see that in California, Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois, and also in history in China, Russia, Germany France and on and on and on.

When a false god/man decides he or she wants the assets of another nation and invades the "frog can't be boiled slowly" so wars break out. What is odd is how people will fight a foreign false god and but allow the one that is a native of their own nation. In some of our states here in the USA, the males of those states have surrendered 100% to the communists already and they bitch and moan about the fact their freedoms are being "taken away" but that's just an excuse to cover the fact that NOTHING was TAKEN from them. All was simply surrendered.

But the reason we have war is that people want to be god, and those that are given power to command military force use it to try to say in the position of god. A Just War is one fought against such aggression. An unjust war is one waged by the aggressors.

It's going to be VERY bad for those thinking of themselves as gods when they meet the real Holy God face to face. AND THEY ALL WILL!!!

And it's not going to be good for those that follow them and believe in the false god's promise of comfort either.

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, (<<< my note: This means the cowardly) and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, (<<< My note: All of these fit the description of the largest majority of Democrats and Socialists, ---not that it means only Dem/Comms are in the category mind you....) shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The apostle Paul said that to break any of the law one first had to covet what was not his. To break any law begins with coveting and then involves the breaking of two laws.

yes, he probably should, if he's at all serious about building a wall.

problem is, there's so many sanctuary cities, it'd take the marines.

and the interstate hi-ways would become barricaded.

and flow of goods would shut down.

the economy would then fail.

then he wouldn't get re-elected.

so, there it is in writing.

Wars are fought for real estate
Wars are fought for religion

Always have been-- always will be--

yep.

wars to accost groups outside the borderlines.

internal conflicts are called civil wars for lack of a term.

utimately, wars are fought to control access to the water holes.

Great Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland. Germany invaded Poland to reclaim territory that had been part of Germany prior to WW1 and still occupied by ethnic Germans.

It was Churchill's decision that involved the U.S.A. in the war in Europe during WW2.

Urthlings, being of a tribal ancestry thinks that folks who are the enemy are not their friend, so they/we enact rules & regulations to control those foreigners.

and sometimes the antagonists do likewise.

i just hate it when young men get kilt because of some strange king somewheres.

what would happen if we arbitrarily set up 300 countries in the world? how about 100?

surely there's a better answer, one or the other? i mean, we have choices, and can't all vote?

Japan's assets had been frozen and sanctions by the western powers were strangling their economy. It was basically an economic blockade enforced by the U.S. They were in a desperate position. I'm not saying they weren't cruel people but their only options seemed to be extreme national poverty or to do what they did in hopes of wearing the U.S. down in a very bloody war. As it turned out they were able to get a conditional surrender.

You're absolutely right about GB declaring war on Germany over the occupation of Poland, but there were other alliances that assisted that declaration. It wasn't just the Polish issue.

While it was most certainly Churchill's desire for America to enter he war (which the US strongly resisted), it wasn't until we started being targeted that the US decided, not Churchill, for us to enter the war. Churchill's angst about the US refusing to enter the war has been well documented.

Ed

But why did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor in the first place?

The war wasn't about Pearl Harbor.

It just happens that the contours of economics and religion are correlated. Few "religious wars" are really religious.

The conflict between the Irish Catholics and the British Protestants fell along religious lines, but also along the lines of nationality and economic lines.

No.

We were always going to be involved in it, one way or another.

Gus,

We've already ran that experiment.

Look what happened when the Allied powers randomly set up countries in the Middle East at the end of WWI.

It's better to let peoples determine their own natural border than try to set them up artificially.

It is obvious that you know your stuff about a lot of things. What in a nutshell caused it. I would think it was a contest over who was going to exploit Asia. And Japan had ambitions of an Asian empire which the U.S. interest in the same real estate was thwarting.

Hastings,

You are essentially correct. As Japan entered the industrial age, they lacked several components necessary for effective industrial growth, namely good supplies of iron, coal, oil, and rubber, and some elbow room.

Invading Manchuria was about the iron, coal and elbow room. Indonesian was about oil and rubber. Of course while they were at it, they decided to grab everything else of interest around them from Korea to the Philippines.

Japan was attempting to build a traditional empire which monopoly control over these resources through force, and in the process deny access to other nations that previously might access them through trade.

By this time the U.S. had transistorized to a trade based empire. We didn't need to control the peoples of the world, were were happy to trade with them for the betterment of both sides. The Japanese expansion in the Pacific threaten our trading interests, and consequently, earned them an intimate relationship with the power of the industrial west courtesy of Curtis Lemay.

Maybe.

But Harry Truman's idea was to wait and see who took the lead between Russian and Germany and take the side that was winning.

Old Communist FDR sided with Stalin and the Bolsheviks and the world has been paying the price ever since.

Russia paid it,..China paid it,..Korea paid it,...Cuba paid it,...and now America is paying the Bolshevik tax.

Patton had it right. We fought the wrong enemy in Europe in WW2.

Now we get to be ruled by Communists too!

It's soon to get right sporty.

The lines were already drawn when Wilson screwed the Germans at Versailles. As for letting the Germans and Russians fight it out before making a decision on which way to jump, Germany and Russia had a non-aggression pack and shares the spoils of Poland. Even after the Germans attacked Russian, what were we going to do, join Germany against England France and Russia? Really?

England, France and Russia are a waste.

A German controlled Europe would have been a very productive entity,....and Muslims wouldn't be raping their way across Europe today if Germany was in charge.

In a nutshell,....the world put Germany down because of its potential.

The world supported Russia because it thought that it could handle the Bolsheviks. Now the Bolsheviks have escaped the laboratory and inhabit America.

The world made a bad choice.

After the Germans were done murdering the Jew and Poles, who would of been next?

War is murder.

But for the record,..after the initial clash,..Germans weren't particularly interested in murdering Poles.

I had quite a few in laws who lived under German occupation. They all lived long lives afterwards.

Russians were known for murdering Poles,...and anybody else that they deemed to be a threat,...including other Russians.

Churchill and FDR loved Stalin, anyway.

Not exactly:

Yeah,...the population declined. Guess where it went?

Germany.

They had a THIRD choice, become civilized. The Japs were about the most racially intolerant culture, and genocide was justifiable in their Imperial minds. They threw everything into establishing an east Asian empire. Wiping out inferior cultures, especially the Chinese, was justified by the same racial superiority that Hitler foisted onto the Germans. Our embargo got in the way of their conquest. All they had to do was become a peaceful industrious modern culture, and they could have conquered the economy in east Asia. The warlike thugs that wrested control of Japan painted Japan into a corner of isolation and the resulting poverty of isolation. They then saw war as the only way out. They got it and got what they deserved.

In boxcars.


mike r

Treblinka, Sobibor and several other of the high volume death camps were in Poland. The killing in Poland didn't stop just after the invasion as Bristoe claims.

Additionally, he's assuming facts not in evidence, namely that the Nazi would of turned into boy scouts if we'd left them to their plans of world domination, and instead took on the Russians. We know the evil of the Russian Gulags because we've ran that experiment. There's no good evidence to suggest the Nazi's would of been more humane to Russian people had Hitler taken over Russian. After all, the Slaves were not part of his "Master Race", and he still considered them sub-human, just not as sub-human as he considered the Jewish People.

You can lead a man to the WWW, but you can't make him think.


mike r