<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Nov 5 2003, 02:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Nov 5 2003, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take civil wars, e.g English Civil. Cavalier vs Roundhead. A fight for parliament and church. Economically motivated? I personally don't think so, but you could argue that the fight for control of the state is the fight for the control of the economy. Meh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The English civil war did come up, and it was decided that vieing for control of the entire nation, plus the throne, was pretty much economic in it's nature. Certainly other factors such as religion came into the mix, but the single largest contributing factor would still seem to be economics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yah, like I said, its semantics.
yadda yadda yadda.
I'm so glad MonsE is wrong (as usual) about me being wrong.
And it never fails to amaze me how the people that lay claim to the name of our language do not know what its words mean. Semantics is an inappproriate definition, as it defines multiple meaning for a single word. There is no multiple meaning here for the word economics - it has to do with finance and property and such. There is no controversy over that word. You are saying that with that phrase that economics is about religion, which it of course is not. Except when you're handing out the collection plate and tithing the flock, naturally. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Not quite, I'm arguing that political, and economic sovereignty aren't necessarily the same thing.
Excuse me, Mr Roundhead, are you fighting for Paliament so that you can have a stake in your nations policies?
or
Excuse me Mr Roundhead, Are you fighting for the ability to control how your government operates, and spends your taxes?
You could aregue that they're ultimately the same, which you are. I disagree. You may as well say: Are there any wars not caused by political leaders, or basic sexual urges, or xenophobia? You could, I'm confident, make a case for any number of variables being the DIRECT cause of war, but thats a trifle short sighted.
Its whether you see a Government as a means of levying and distributing taxes, or something more. Is having a politcal stake the same thing as just having a say in how your taxes are doled out? Would an informed and socially aware adult take up arms SOLELY because he doesn't like how his taxes are being spent? I doubt it. People in the English civil wars were fighting their fathers and brothers. Its one cause, but not the only one. I'd agree that economics is a big factor, but not the sole cause. Coming from a nation where less than half of your population voted for the encumbant leader, I'm wondering why you haven't run into the streets to fight the Democrats/Republicans....
Oh, and lecture us on language when you can spell armour correctly, you dahm colonial.
Thinking that economics does not directly control everything on earth is living in the same fantasyland that adds extra unnecessary U's to words like color and armor. Limey snapperheads!
XD
J/K... About the limey bit; the other part about economics is spot on. You are confusing propaganda influence with REAL influence. Economics make the world (and wars) go 'round. Telling your 17th century peasant army that they are fighting to preserve your wealth and power is not going to get you any results. Telling them its for god and country and apple pie rallies them around you.
And stop saying that economics is the sole reason. If anyone here says that again I will clip their brake line. I have repeatedly said that it is NOT the sole reason. It is NOT the sole reason. IT IS NOT THE SOLE REASON. It is the <b>core</b> reason, found in every conflict ever. You can have tangential reasons as well, but they are window dressing that furthers the goals with far less cause and effect than economics. Sheesh.
I'd say the world wars, personally. While influenced by economy, it wasn't the predominant factor in either of them. The first world war came to be because of politics - the danger of a "balance of power" system, the destabalising effect of the recently formed Germany. The assasination was the catalyst, after all. The second world war was a mixture of politics (appeasement) and ideals (<i>Mein Kampf</i>).
Realistically, there's no way to <i>prove</i> why any war happened without being the key decision maker. I can say politics, you can say economics. Its not going anywhere. Suffice to say that I agree that economics can be one of the causes, but not THE cause (as already highlighted by MonsE and myself above).
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The English civil war did come up, and it was decided that vieing for control of the entire nation, plus the throne, was pretty much economic in it's nature. Certainly other factors such as religion came into the mix, but the single largest contributing factor would still seem to be economics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yah, like I said, its semantics.
yadda yadda yadda.
I'm so glad MonsE is wrong (as usual) about me being wrong.
Excuse me, Mr Roundhead, are you fighting for Paliament so that you can have a stake in your nations policies?
or
Excuse me Mr Roundhead, Are you fighting for the ability to control how your government operates, and spends your taxes?
You could aregue that they're ultimately the same, which you are. I disagree.
You may as well say: Are there any wars not caused by political leaders, or basic sexual urges, or xenophobia? You could, I'm confident, make a case for any number of variables being the DIRECT cause of war, but thats a trifle short sighted.
Its whether you see a Government as a means of levying and distributing taxes, or something more. Is having a politcal stake the same thing as just having a say in how your taxes are doled out? Would an informed and socially aware adult take up arms SOLELY because he doesn't like how his taxes are being spent? I doubt it. People in the English civil wars were fighting their fathers and brothers. Its one cause, but not the only one. I'd agree that economics is a big factor, but not the sole cause.
Coming from a nation where less than half of your population voted for the encumbant leader, I'm wondering why you haven't run into the streets to fight the Democrats/Republicans....
Oh, and lecture us on language when you can spell armour correctly, you dahm colonial.
XD
J/K... About the limey bit; the other part about economics is spot on. You are confusing propaganda influence with REAL influence. Economics make the world (and wars) go 'round. Telling your 17th century peasant army that they are fighting to preserve your wealth and power is not going to get you any results. Telling them its for god and country and apple pie rallies them around you.
And stop saying that economics is the sole reason. If anyone here says that again I will clip their brake line. I have repeatedly said that it is NOT the sole reason. It is NOT the sole reason. IT IS NOT THE SOLE REASON. It is the <b>core</b> reason, found in every conflict ever. You can have tangential reasons as well, but they are window dressing that furthers the goals with far less cause and effect than economics. Sheesh.
The core cause was an inability to influence decisions. Economics merely highlighted it.
So I'll see you in 400 years when you have dropped all your vowels and are communicating by only numbers and consonants.
0mg, ffs! 1ts 4Lr34Dy H4PP3n! 4/\/\3R1C4n 1s t3h 1337357 L4ng|_|4g3! pwnz0rz! pwnpwnpwn!
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
there is no way to disprove sir evil here, because:
all wars are basically for stuff
stuff can be used economically
therefore all wars are basically for economical things
Bah. Foiled again.
(ooh, cutting!)
Realistically, there's no way to <i>prove</i> why any war happened without being the key decision maker. I can say politics, you can say economics. Its not going anywhere. Suffice to say that I agree that economics can be one of the causes, but not THE cause (as already highlighted by MonsE and myself above).