Blue_Nose wrote:
Laconfir, I'm sure you have your reasons, but just making a bunch of claims and backing them up with "Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid" isn't the best way to make an argument.
(I realize a lot of people do the same thing, but you did it several times in the same post, and provided no other facts which back up your claims)
I understand your point. I hate it when people do it too, but it was more of a rant.
My reasoning behind saying that without citing, is, I'd assume people would realise wars are expensive and they have to be about a hell of a lot more than money, as a country can never really re-gain what it's spent on a war. At least, not like the US has.
My source:
"One of the constants of history is that a nation rarely goes to war until it has convinced itself that victory is attainable and worth the cost. In reality, warfare is never worth the cost for those who start them. Instigators of wars invariably come to regret it. Those who resist aggression have a better case. Yet avoiding war typically leaves people feeling they have missed a golden oppurtunity to right some wrong" Page 1, Chapter 1,
How to Make War by James F. Dunnigan
Another section:
"Attrition is people and their equipment wearing out. Even in peacetime, up to 2 percent of combat aircraft can be lost to accidents and deterioration each year. In wartime, up to 50 percent of aircraft will be lost each year to non-combat wear and tear. Rarely more than 90 percent of armored vehicles will be in running condition at any given time. Those vehicles that are running will likely break down after going less than 500 kilimetres..." Page 517, Chapter 24,
How to Make War by James F. Dunnigan
Well, it doesn't come right in say it in Ch.24, but I assume you could deduct from that that it means wars cost a lot of money, especially if you look at the average cost of say, aircraft.
I don't have the sources to back it up right now, so you can take it as you will, but I read an article in my philosophy class about the US Military and the Pentagon. A huge article about the Military's dependency on oil. It stated that a military Humvee consumes 3 gallons of fuel per mile, and that, for example the M-2 uses 56 gallons of fuel per mile. I'm not sure how accurate it was, but it's just another example showing wars cost money, a lot of money.
If you look in history, most wars have not been about profit. Vietnam for example, the quagmire that it was, was for the most part stopping the spread of Communism. Even the CIA funding of the Mujihadeen fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation was to stop the spread of communism, so the USSR would not be able to invade Iran and have an all-season port.
And sorry, you can go against my post there all you want, and you're not stupid. The only part I said anything like that was:
Another thing about war is it is never for profit. Anyone that thinks a war is fought for money is stupid. For example, there are many that believe the Iraq War was fought for oil and money. If you think it was fought for oil and monetary gain, you're an imbecile. If the war was over oil, it was because the US wanted power.
And I think by now you'd agree that it's true, wars are not for profit.
Also Blue_Nose, you don't have to cite something if it's common knowledge. As for things that are not common knowledge, would you like me to put my citations in MLA or APA? I prefer MLA.
Site Admin 
CKA Elite 
