4 ms·

War is almost never to "make a profit". There have been "filibusters" that were more like that; South Africa and South America were mostly the location for thos

War is almost never to "make a profit". There have been "filibusters" that were more like that; South Africa and South America were mostly the location for those. America in WWII might have been better served by simply being the Arsenal of Democracy and selling war materiel. I'd be hard pressed to say that Europe would have been better off. But this is just one of those things about nation-states that we live with. And please realize that Hollywood was overtly pressed into service to sell the War to the American people. I'm not advocating isolationism. but Americans at the time were highly isolationist. Is what's behind all this talk the basic Bismarckian welfare-warfare State concept? It's more subtle than that, IMO.

alanwatts 11y ago
>War is almost never to "make a profit" Where did you get that idea? >war is a matter not so much of arms as of money -Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
- ksdale 11y ago
  Without looking it up I'd still be willing to bet that Thucydides meant war is expensive, not that it's profitable.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    And so following your logic, since war is expensive, it would be rational for any empire to have colonies to increase their profits and thus their ability to secure themselves economically and geographically. I might add for clarification: war is almost never profitable for the common people but is highly profitable for those in power. >Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. -James Madison
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    The Athenian culture was a money culture. The Spartan (League) culture was not. The Athenians won.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  How could anyone ever think that a war could be a mechanism for making money? No doubt many have, but it's nearly prima facie false. It's possible for certain kinds of wars of conquest to leave improved trade networks in their wake - the Mongol Conquest worked this way - but the currency of violence is blood, not treasure. History is full of examples of ruinous wars. It has very few that worked out ... financially even for the victors.
mcv 11y ago
WW2 is exactly the example everybody uses as a war that was not waged for profit. At least from a US point of view. Germany definitely did look for profit, specifically more resources and more space for German people to live. As a US war for profit, the Gulf War and the Iraq War are better examples. They were about oil, access to oil, control over oil, and, in the case of the Iraq War, lucrative deals for Cheney's business friends. (Obviously they didn't make any money for the US tax payer, nor for the people in Iraq.)
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I'm not sure that statement on Germany catches all the subtleties of the racial theories of the time. The belief was that those things already belonged to the Master Race, and all that was needed was token show of force for them to be returned. Source: "The Rise and Fall" by Shirer and just about anything else written after it on the subject. It should be abundantly obvious by now that if the intent of the Iraq War was control over oil fields, then those oil fields are now under the control of ISIS. The rationale for the Iraq War was that the regime in Iraq posed an intolerable threat, based in Neocon readings of history. "Cheney's business friends" presumably include Halliburton, which had trouble with and has since divested of the Brown-Root portion of Halliburton that was directly involved. That design came from white papers filed by Neocon wonks, and nearly nowhere else. It's mostly a return to Dulles Bothers style foreign policy. That is strongly correlated with a sort of imperialism but the imperialism isn't inherent to the mentality. The "Frontline" "Rise of the Vulcans" explains this in great detail. The 1991-ish Gulf War was on invitation from the royal family of Kuwait to reestablish that equilibrium. There has been a time in which oil was an element in a political strategy that may also include war - the boycott of Japan after the Rape of Nanking is an example - but that really isn't done any more. The spot markets make it a lot less of a thing. There were, of course, sanctions on Iran but they leaked. See also Babak Zanjani.

alanwatts 11y ago

>War is almost never to "make a profit" Where did you get that idea? >war is a matter not so much of arms as of money -Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

ksdale 11y ago
Without looking it up I'd still be willing to bet that Thucydides meant war is expensive, not that it's profitable.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  And so following your logic, since war is expensive, it would be rational for any empire to have colonies to increase their profits and thus their ability to secure themselves economically and geographically. I might add for clarification: war is almost never profitable for the common people but is highly profitable for those in power. >Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. -James Madison
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  The Athenian culture was a money culture. The Spartan (League) culture was not. The Athenians won.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
How could anyone ever think that a war could be a mechanism for making money? No doubt many have, but it's nearly prima facie false. It's possible for certain kinds of wars of conquest to leave improved trade networks in their wake - the Mongol Conquest worked this way - but the currency of violence is blood, not treasure. History is full of examples of ruinous wars. It has very few that worked out ... financially even for the victors.

mcv 11y ago

WW2 is exactly the example everybody uses as a war that was not waged for profit. At least from a US point of view. Germany definitely did look for profit, specifically more resources and more space for German people to live. As a US war for profit, the Gulf War and the Iraq War are better examples. They were about oil, access to oil, control over oil, and, in the case of the Iraq War, lucrative deals for Cheney's business friends. (Obviously they didn't make any money for the US tax payer, nor for the people in Iraq.)

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I'm not sure that statement on Germany catches all the subtleties of the racial theories of the time. The belief was that those things already belonged to the Master Race, and all that was needed was token show of force for them to be returned. Source: "The Rise and Fall" by Shirer and just about anything else written after it on the subject. It should be abundantly obvious by now that if the intent of the Iraq War was control over oil fields, then those oil fields are now under the control of ISIS. The rationale for the Iraq War was that the regime in Iraq posed an intolerable threat, based in Neocon readings of history. "Cheney's business friends" presumably include Halliburton, which had trouble with and has since divested of the Brown-Root portion of Halliburton that was directly involved. That design came from white papers filed by Neocon wonks, and nearly nowhere else. It's mostly a return to Dulles Bothers style foreign policy. That is strongly correlated with a sort of imperialism but the imperialism isn't inherent to the mentality. The "Frontline" "Rise of the Vulcans" explains this in great detail. The 1991-ish Gulf War was on invitation from the royal family of Kuwait to reestablish that equilibrium. There has been a time in which oil was an element in a political strategy that may also include war - the boycott of Japan after the Rape of Nanking is an example - but that really isn't done any more. The spot markets make it a lot less of a thing. There were, of course, sanctions on Iran but they leaked. See also Babak Zanjani.