Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit
yeah familiar with both. are you familiar with roosevelt's reasons for arming the US pre-ww2 and how all intelligence about perl harbour was ignored so that public sentiment could be turned around by the disaster that followed? after that, WW2 became politically viable. of course, financially it was viable long before that.
point being is that there are and always will be many places in the world where ideals are being threatened and many more where such threats can be fabricated. but if you think the government will fight for an ideal, you're as big of a sheep as they come. in the end, its all about money and i for one would never put 1 second of my life at risk so that some gun manufacturer can get his fat bonus.
but hey, many volunteer not caring what they fight for, they want access to an education, they want a job, they want to see action, they want to travel. and thats a choice i can respect.
|
of course wars are fought over money. duh. money is a resource and the conquest of someone else's resources has been a motivator for war since the sumerians.
but you're drinking your own kool-aid if you don't think ideological factors do not have an impetus in war. groups of people throughout time have found the need to conquer or try to conquer others who do not look at things the same as they do. just like the op of this thread, he stated himself that americans are unable to agree with him when he attempts to communicate his views intelligently (i've yet to see that however), so his solution- hit us on the head with his views "to get his point across".