QUOTE(makaveli91 @ Jun 27 2006, 10:17 PM)
World War 1.
Source.
World War 2 being a matter of opinion. It was territorial at the start. Obviously there would be resources included with territories occupied, but i believe that the initial idea was to take back what was taken from Germany. I'm not a history buff, I'm not to up on it.
What about the Palestinians and Israeli relations? It may not be considered a war in terms of our world war definition or anything. But its been going on for many years. It's over religeous beliefs. The american civil war wasn't over resources. And i'm sure there are a million other civil wars that were over something stupid other than resources.
I believe that wars are more a push for power than a push for resources.. But thats my opinion.
And no offense to anyone, but i do have a life. I have field training. I've been IN the field all fucking weekend... So i have better things to do than sit here and reply to your posts. I admit that i should have explained my reasons why i said what i said. It was more of a quick quip than anything.
Your interpretation of the source you provided is lacking.
QUOTE
On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, in Sarajevo. Princip was a member of Young Bosnia, a group whose aims included the unification of the South Slavs and independence from Austria (see also: the Black Hand). The assassination in Sarajevo set into motion a series of fast-moving events that escalated into a full-scale war. However, the reasons behind the conflict are multiple and complex. Historians and political scientists have grappled with this question for nearly a century without reaching a consensus.
QUOTE
This “official” explanation appeared in Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, often referred to as the War Guilt Clause. The argument was based on the fact that Austria attacked Serbia on July 29, 1914 and Germany invaded Belgium on August 3.[2]Thus, the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires were the initial aggressors and therefore, held responsible for the war. German academics such as Fritz Fischer, Imanuel Geiss, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Wolfgang Mommsen and V.R. Berghahn have all promoted this thesis in the post-World War II period. Fischer contended that Germany wanted to control most of Europe or, at the very least, unite it economically through Germany. However, as he points out, diplomatic efforts to do so had often centered around Anglo-Germanic cooperation, not war.
Where does religion come into play?
When you do a search for the word religion on doc there are no hits.
QUOTE(makaveli91 @ Jun 27 2006, 10:17 PM)
What about the Palestinians and Israeli relations?
Simply cowboys and indians, religion is only the rallying cry. We want your land give it to us we buy guns from the americans. If the americans didnt hedge the Eurealis it would be a nonissue, becuase they wouldnt have military advantage.
QUOTE(makaveli91 @ Jun 27 2006, 10:17 PM)
Obviously there would be resources included with territories occupied, but i believe that the initial idea was to take back what was taken from Germany. I'm not a history buff, I'm not to up on it.
HMM.....
Land = oil
Land = crops
Land = Uranium
Land = Aluminum
Land = Gold
QUOTE
It's over religeous beliefs. The american civil war wasn't over resources. And i'm sure there are a million other civil wars that were over something stupid other than resources.
Funny, I thought american civil war was over slavery economics, Southern economy (mostly US) was based on agricultural industry. The North didnt wasnt wedged in land based economics so abolition wasnt a big decision.
The south decided to leave union, coerced by the British who were still trying to keep hold of Americas.
This replayed today in context of Mexican issue, as well as Asian modern slavery, I buy electronics or whatever from China, Taiwan for $10.00 and sell for $200.00.
Thats why your leaders dont want immigration reform or round up illegals they make to much money from it.
And you american blue collar middle class financially suffers from new age slavery.
You amuse me with your rhetoric, people dont change or evolve we are still doing the same things they did 1000 years ago only doing them with differing approaches.
You can pull up a bible verse written 2000 years ago and the moral of the story still resonates today.
QUOTE
I believe that wars are more a push for power than a push for resources.. But thats my opinion
You only prove my point regarding the Canadian military, you might want to study military strategy. You cant fight a war with out a supply lines (i.e oil, food, raw materials)
Why do you think the roads from airport in Iraq are so dangerous, they represent the supply lines.
I cant fight when im hungry.
My humvee doesnt run on air.
Bullets dont magically appear.
P.S. I hope you have seen the light regarding illegal orders, given the number of soldiers/marines indicted for murder since you started this "macho" tirade.
Author
Topic: War Dodgers/american Defectors (Read 200 times)