Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:We haven't eradicated war yet, but at least now we're doing it for practical reasons like securing oil or stopping communism rather than because we were offended that the enemy violated some abstract notion of honor or believed in the wrong gods.

Wars America has been in to date:

Revolutionary War: Fought to become an independent nation (abstract notion of freedom)

War of 1812: Fought to remove unwanted British influence (abstract notion of independence)

Mexican War: Fought to increase American territorial claims (misguided desire to increase power)

Civil War: Fought to prevent country from splitting in two (foolish concept of 'together we're stronger')

Spanish War: Fought to make territorial gains from Spain (outdated desire to expand territorial claims)

WW1: Directly threatened by Germany (antiquated notion of self-defense)

WW2: Directly attacked by Japan (Biblical notion of self-defense, once again)

Korean and Vietnam Wars: Desire to prevent two small Asian countries from becoming communist (at last we reach the age of Enlightenment - war because of objection to another country's political system)

Gulf War: Protecting American allies and oil suppliers from invasion (a momentary lapse back into the Dark Ages of self-interest and material gain)

Afghanistan: retaliation for 9/11 (anyone else would have done the same)

Iraq: Comprehensive destruction of country because they didn't like its leader (political distaste - the highest of causes)

Hooray for progress!

Do you think that this list you have made is a response to my quote? If so, why? What do you think that sentence meant? Are you sure you actually understood the context of the topic it was posted in? I'm not sure you do, based on your comments within that very thread.

Indeed, your motive is betrayed by the fact that you list only wars the USA has been involved in. It is almost like you don't even care about making an honest point, just about attacking America.

Metsfanmax wrote:Indeed, your motive is betrayed by the fact that you list only wars the USA has been involved in. It is almost like you don't even care about making an honest point, just about attacking America.

You said 'we' are engaging in wars to secure oil and fight communism, so you can probably see why I assumed you were talking about America.

If by 'we' you meant 'humanity' then let's look outside the US:

Some Old World wars fought for reasons of honor and/or ludicrous religious beliefs: the Roman conquests, the Greek conquests, the Mongol conquests, Chinese unification, the expansion of Arab caliphates, the War of Spanish Succession, the European colonial wars etc.

Some modern wars and conflicts fought for pragmatic reasons: Falkland War (nationalism)； IS, Somalia and Nigeria (establishment of Islamic government); Rwanda (ethnic genocide); Arab-Israeli War (religious conflict); Cold War (political ideology).

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Indeed, your motive is betrayed by the fact that you list only wars the USA has been involved in. It is almost like you don't even care about making an honest point, just about attacking America.

You said 'we' are engaging in wars to secure oil and fight communism, so you can probably see why I assumed you were talking about America.

If by 'we' you meant 'humanity' then let's look outside the US:

Some Old World wars fought for reasons of honor and/or ludicrous religious beliefs: the Roman conquests, the Greek conquests, the Mongol conquests, Chinese unification, the expansion of Arab caliphates, the War of Spanish Succession, the European colonial wars etc.

Some modern wars and conflicts fought for pragmatic reasons: Falkland War (nationalism)； IS, Somalia and Nigeria (establishment of Islamic government); Rwanda (ethnic genocide); Arab-Israeli War (religious conflict); Cold War (political ideology).

Again, you completely miss the point that was being made. It was not a statement about the nature of war -- it was a statement about how we deal with cultural, political, and religious differences. The argument was that in the past, it occurred much more frequently that one would commit violence against another person or group purely because of differences in their beliefs or political opinions. That is much less common now. That doesn't mean the converse necessarily holds -- there were plenty of wars for pragmatic reasons in the past too. But I wasn't trying to defend the converse, because I wasn't talking about war. I was talking about whether, given purely cultural, political, or religious differences, we have any inclination to go to war.

At the risk of being repetitive, this should have been obvious since the thread was about how we express our anger too much about people disagreeing with our opinions. My point was essentially that today it would be unthinkable to challenge someone to a life-or-death duel because they insulted your honor, but not too many centuries ago that was far from an absurd idea. It had nothing to do with all these other issues you keep dragging into it. I have no idea why you're trying to make it about something else. I only have so much patience to keep explaining this simple point to you, and it's wearing pretty thin.

you two should just make-out already, we all know that's where this is headed

saxitoxin wrote:you two should just make-out already, we all know that's where this is headed

I will kill you.

Metsfanmax wrote:I was talking about whether, given purely cultural, political, or religious differences, we have any inclination to go to war.

That is the exact point I addressed.

Do modern people have any inclination to go to war* over cultural, political or religious differences? Yes, they do. See: the Cold War and all its proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan etc.), Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Nazi-occupied Europe, the Chinese civil war, Serbia, Greece, the Spanish Civil War, Kosovo, Israel... etc.

*and I'm going to include genocides in this

saxitoxin wrote:you two should just make-out already, we all know that's where this is headed

f*ck YOU YOU PIECE OF SHIT FOR TRYING TO HOOK THEM UP

You're missing a few wars from your list there, mrswdk. In addition to your list, we have:

18th Century

Chickamauga War - US vs. Cherokee
Northwest Indian War - US vs various tribes, Britain
Whiskey Rebellion - US vs. tax protestors
Quasi-War - naval war between the US and France, part of the French revolution

19th Century

First Barbary War - response to piracy from the Barbary States
Tecumseh's War - war with various tribes; bleeds over into the War of 1812
Creek War
Second Barbary War
First Seminole War
Texas-Indian Wars
Arikara War - vs. the Arikara tribe
Aegean Sea Anti-Piracy conflict - Greek pirates, this time
Winnebago War - another conflict with native tribes
First Sumatran expedition - response to the massacre of a merchatman ship
Black Hawk War
Second Seminole War
United States Exploring Expedition - expedition around the world with relatively low casualties, but around 30 US sailors and soldiers killed, around 82 natives from Fiji and Tabiteuea
Second Sumatran expedition
Cayuse War
Taiping Rebellion - Yep, the US was involved in this one.
Apache Wars
Bombardment of Greytown on the Mosquito Coast
Puget Sound War
Rogue River Wars
Third Seminole War
Yakima War
Filibuster War - a civil war in Nicaragua that saw the US, Nicaraguan forces, Costa Rica, Honduras, the Mosquito Coast, Guatemala, El Salvador, and the UK fight against a group led by American William Walker
Second Opium War - yep, the US was in this one, too.
Utah War
Navajo Wars
First and Second Cortina Wars - the US and Confederacy teamed up to fight Mexico
Paiute War
Reform War
Bombardment of Qui Nho'n - Vietnam
Yavapai Wars
Dakota War of 1862
Colorado War
Shimonoseki War - vs. the Choshu domain in Shimonoseki, Japan
Snake War
Powder River War
Red Cloud's War
Comanche Campaign
US expedition to Korea - brought about by yet another attack on a merchant ship
Modoc War
Red River War
Las Cuevas War - war is thirsty work
Great Sioux War of 1876
Buffalo Hunters' War
Nez Perce War
San Elizario Salt War
Bannock War
Cheyenne War
Sheepeater Indian War
Victorio's War
White River War
Pine Ridge Campaign
Garza Revolution - For once, the US and Mexico teamed up in this one
Brazilian Naval Revolt
Yaqui Wars
Second Samoan Civil War
Philippine-American War
Moro Rebellion - Part 2 in the Philppine-American War
Boxer Rebellion - yep, the US was in this one, too

20th Century

Crazy Snake Rebellion - US vs the Creek nation
Border War - part of the Mexican revolution
Occupation of Nicaragua - part of the Banana Wars
Occupation of Haiti - ditto
Occupation of the Dominican Republic - see above
Russian Civil War - Allies vs. the Russian communist groups - the US' first defeat in a war
Posey War - the final Indian War in US history
Intervention in Lebanon, 1958
Bay of Pigs Invasion - another defeat
Dominican Civil War
Multinational Force in Lebanon - part of the Lebanese War - 1982-84
Invasion of Grenada - 1983
Invasion of Panama - 1989-90
Iraqi No-Fly Zones - continued until 2003
Somali Civil War - fought to fulfill a UN humanitarian mandate
Intervention in Haiti - reinstated Jean-Bertrand Aristide as president of Haiti
Bosnian Wars - with NATO
Kosovo War

21st Century

War in Pakistan
Operation Ocean Shield - vs. Somali pirates this time
Libyan Civil War
War on ISIL


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ted_States

So, yeah, the motivations behind going to war are pretty diverse and complex. Which of these wars were about political or religious ideologies, though? For the most part, they're wars to conquer territory, secure resources, intervene in humanitarian crises, or respond to attacks (pirates or terrorists).

But just look at Somalia and Bosnia. Those wars are far, far different from the Indian Wars of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Since Vietnam, wars have one main purpose, funding the military industrial complex. Otherwise we we bribe, assassinate, supply rebels or start a color rebellion.

Afghan war: opium.

Iraq war: stopping oil production and sales in non-USD.

Libya: division.

Syria: aiding terrorists (Israel).

War on Drugs: building a police state.

War on Terror: installing corporate fascism.

Ah yeah, I forgot America was involved in the Boxer Rebellion.

I was just going by a list I Googled earlier today, which I'm guessing was just the main wars then.

mrswdk wrote:WW1: Directly threatened by Germany (antiquated notion of self-defense)

WW2: Directly attacked by Japan (Biblical notion of self-defense, once again)

Afghanistan: retaliation for 9/11 (anyone else would have done the same)

So let me get this straight...

Retaliating against Germany when they sank a cruise ship belonging to us: BAD

Retaliating against Japan when they attacked our naval port: BAD

Retaliating against Afghanistan, a country that had done NOTHING to us (Al Qaeda is not the Taliban, and was not ruling Afghanistan): GOOD

You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

Bollocks.

The Lusitania was British, and sunk 2 years before the Yanks joined WWI

Serbia wrote:Retaliating against Germany when they sank a cruise ship belonging to us: BAD

Are you talking about the Lusitania here? Because is you are then you should know that the Lusitania was a British ship, not American and the Lusitania was officially not a cruise ship but was listed as an auxiliary war ship which at the time of her sinking was carrying ammunition and other war supplies. That makes her a legitimate target for sinking.
I wonder how many of the Americans sailing on her at the time of her sinking knew they were sailing on a war ship or if they thought they were on a cruise ship?

WWI is a special case in that all the belligerents seemed to have been suffering some form of insanity, figuratively speaking of course. There weren't any real "bad guys" in that conflict, IMO. More like western civilization collectively lost their minds for a while, IMO.


But, do carry on with whatever it is this thread is about.

DoomYoshi wrote:The Lusitania was British, and sunk 2 years before the Yanks joined WWI

Yeah, wasn't a cruise ship, it was a cargo ship, the Housatonic, which led us to enter the war a few months later. My bad. And that wasn't the only one, they started sinking many American ships.

Bollocks.

Damn you doom yoshi! Damn you straight to hell!

Haha, but you had the same idea I did. Kudos.

lol. You're funny, Serbie.

patches70 wrote:

Serbia wrote:Retaliating against Germany when they sank a cruise ship belonging to us: BAD

was listed as an auxiliary war ship which at the time of her sinking was carrying ammunition and other war supplies.

This particular argument came from Colin Simpson in 1972, but has thoroughly discredited, similar to the Loch Ness Monster

Wasn't Grenada to control the granola for the hippies to consume?

mrswdk wrote:lol.

--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

mrswdk wrote:lol.

--Andy

lol is in the dictionary, you old fart.

Plus, you already used that gif on someone else. There's a glitch in the matrix!

Put her over your knee Andy and show her who's the boss.

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I was talking about whether, given purely cultural, political, or religious differences, we have any inclination to go to war.

That is the exact point I addressed.

Do modern people have any inclination to go to war* over cultural, political or religious differences? Yes, they do. See: the Cold War and all its proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan etc.), Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Nazi-occupied Europe, the Chinese civil war, Serbia, Greece, the Spanish Civil War, Kosovo, Israel... etc.

*and I'm going to include genocides in this

Notice that almost all of your examples have occurred in parts of the world that haven't really gotten the whole liberalism thing yet. While my point wasn't limited to only America, it is limited to countries that generally have freedom of expression and movement. That's ok because my point is a defense of liberalism: I am arguing that things like Syria and Rwanda will be much less likely to happen if these countries accept separation of church and state, freedom of speech, etc.

The others have little to do with political differences. Notice how the Nazis were in power for several years in Germany without any country declaring war on them. The rest of Europe only got involved when the Nazis started moving on people outside their borders. It was clearly an issue of geopolitics and self-defense and had much less to do with other countries giving a shit about how Germany managed its internal affairs. (Although that is its own source of embarrassment, in hindsight.)

Similarly, our fear of communism was that communists would attempt to infilitrate America and its allies, and at the same time gradually creep over the undeveloped world. If we started wars with people just because they were communists and we don't like communism, Cuba would have become an American territory in 1991.

Americas elite loves Nazis and Socialism. They just act like they don't. At least they did in the 1920s - 1950s.

Metsfanmax wrote:Notice that almost all of your examples have occurred in parts of the world that haven't really gotten the whole liberalism thing yet. While my point wasn't limited to only America, it is limited to countries that generally have freedom of expression and movement. That's ok because my point is a defense of liberalism

My list includes Spain, Greece and Israel, but whatever. I cba if you're going to keep changing the goal posts mid-conversation.

'People no longer have wars over religion or politics.'
'There have been wars for those reasons all over the world in recent decades.'
'I mean liberal people don't have wars over religion or politics.'

'Liberal countries don't have wars over politics.'
'They went to war in Korea and Vietnam because of politics.'
'They went to war over politics that made them feel threatened.'

This could go on indefinitely.