Does an argument cause a war?

[rgraham666]

Clausewitz. And he actually said: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." A much uglier statement, true alas.

You should read John Keegan's book, A History of Warfare. It is mostly about how Clausewitz was hideously culture bound when he wrote On War.

Personally, I prefer Sun Tzu when I want to read about war. He always made it clear that war is the last option. And should be over as quickly as possible. Otherwise it usually lose more than it gains, even for the victor.

As far as the cause of wars goes, it's pretty much like any other crime. Ego, greed, fear and insanity are usually the triggers.

 

[Op_Cit]

Doesn't a war have to have a conflic of some kind of material interrest? Be it land of economic or cultural value, water, oil, grazing grounds, and so on. An arguent can be just a conflict on opinion between people who have no competition over resources.

I don't think so...wars have begun over perceived aggression (real or imagined). (so and so killed our ambassador... or he died and we think you killed him...)

Besides, arguments can also be over things of economic value. Look at the frenzies that go on so many times after a rich relative dies.

Do you think arguments are productive or have some other value?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Good one, but does an arguement between you and I, cause a war? A feud?

It very well can start a war. A large part of the formula is the power that each side contains. Dars example of Saddam and Bush is a good example. If the leaders of each side aren't as empowered as the leader of a country, you can still get "war" on a much smaller scale.

Mob bosses go to war with other mob bosses over arguments. The Hatfields and the McCoys are a good example of a family war. That started with an argument.

 

[cantdog]

I realize that the war on terror is a real war, what my question is, is did it turn to Iraq from searching for Osama Bin Laden, because he was really a percieved threat, or did it turn there b/c Bush had to settle a score.

There never was a question of WMD, everyone knew there was no love between Saddam and bin Laden or any other Islamists. Saddam was too much of a realist and a survivor to do any WMD hanky panky to Israel, as was proven back in the day when he had some.

So. Couldn't reach us, had no truck with Islamists, wouldn't hit Israel. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Osama, nothing to do with any threat posed by Iraq or by Saddam. Leaving just about two reasons.

1) He tried to kill my daddy.

2) I can get hold of some resources. I'll make a pantload o money.

Every other reason given by Colin Powell to the UN or by anyone in the civilian leadership to the electorate has been shown to be utterly bogus. I think we're stuck with one of those two. I got friends over there. I really resent that they're being put on the line, from the finest of motives on their own part, in order to serve either purpose.