most common cause for war

what do you think the most common cause for war is?? could it be for the perceived economic stability of the country involved, ie oil for the Japanese in WW2 and the US in the Persian Gulf War??

I would say the most common cause is the quest for power, and control of the country by what some call rebels, others call patriots...as we see in the MEast now...and southeast Asia in the 60s, etc

 

Historically I would think it would be the aquisition or reaquisition of territory. That's discouraged now but is still a factor. It was the driving force of WWII in both Europe and the Pacfic as well as most of the conflicts in the Persian Gulf. Religion plays a big part there as well be it's pretty closely connected to territorial acquisition as well.

 

I would go with acquisition of territory/assets. It was a major thing not so many decades ago.
There's a school of thought that postulates that the advent of farming created war, since the need for more land created tensions that may not have existed for hunter-gatherers.
It's still not widely accepted though-
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/50430-did-farming-cause-war/?p=554581

There's also this-
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/52714-war-good-for-humanity/?p=579233

 

One problem with that is that warfare seems to have existed among hunter-gathers as well. For instance the plains Indians weren't big on agriculture but fought among themselves. Indeed prime hunting ground may have been more important than a patch of soil near a village to plant things.

 

That's right Lou, there's no reason to suppose Hunter-gathers didn't fight over resources, we're just less likely to find supporting evidence.

 

well, saddam wanted assets and territory in the 80s and 90s...it seems like wanting territory and assets are still reasons for war....and another example of wanting assets and territory was the Katanga separation of the Congo..Katanga wanted to keep more of the wealth of their province, and, of course, the Congo did not want to lose the wealth...
LWD, glad you brought up 'another' area of war....I thought Red Cloud initiated ''his'' war near the Bozeman trail because settlers were moving through the Native Americans' land, hunting areas, etc after a series of forts were erected.....so the hunting grounds were assets, correct?

 

Indeed. You do know what "Kentucky" means right?

*** edit for ***
Looked it up just make sure I knew the full details and it looks like what I learned wasn't quite correct. See:
http://www.foresthistory.org/ASPNET/Publications/region/8/daniel_boone/appa.htm

But still of some import.

In some ways prime hunting ground is an even more critical asset than land for farming. It tends to require significantly more to support a given population and if over harvested it tends to not come back as quickly. Indeed the fall of the Mound Builder civilization is now attributed to deficiency diseases due to monoculture and the surrounding land being over hunted/gathered to the point where maize become almost the only thing they ate.

My understanding is that there was and maybe still is some considerable friction between the Inuit and the Indians who lived just south of them with fricition over hunting grounds being the main reason. I'm not an expert there though.

 

That goes along with greed. Countries are usually trying to find ways of finding resources to keep their country running and other countries (i.e.: Russia with wheat, grain, food and oil and Norway to obtain an avenue for iron ore coming from Sweden) have them and to the war mongers, the best way to obtain those is by invading. In a way in the case of the war in Europe, you can argue that another factor for the cause of war was Hitler's twisted up version of racism and wanting to make Europe judenfrei.

 

I don't think there is one set most common cause, Tends to fluctuate as well as intertwine between religion, territory, power and economics.

Israel over the centuries has swapped hand's many times over warring parties less so out of religion but more out of the economics, With the location being seen a prime real-estate, A lot of money had been made during those times with trade through Africa, Europe and the Middle East intersecting through there.

In the modern day's economics doesn't play as large a part as it used to, Religion corrupted by extremists has grown to become the new face of warfare.

 

First and foremost farming gave the human a sense of ownership...Farming allowed large groups...and free time...more a factor than more farming land IMO...

 

Economics or ideology. All wars can be grouped under one of those category headings.

 

Interesting that often the cruelty of war is forgotten as the next generation grows up and tension grows, and the wrong doings by the "enemy", ugliness, dumbness, clothing,language,etc all start to lead to a possibility of war. It also always seems that "the war lasts only a couple of weeks and nobody dies, and everybody gets medals, and women will run after you lot." I guess man´s own stupidity is the reason for war most often....

 

as usual, all fantastic, and very interesting posts with varied and great thoughts ... .von noobie brings up something I was thinking of and that's the complicated nature of the subject...usually it's just not one cause, but maybe many that build up over time
, I thought Israel initiated the 6 day war because of the threats made by the Arabs, shutting off of the straits, and also the Arabs kicking the UN observers out...so it seems like that was a 'self defense 'cause' with many other factors involved..
Kai, that was one of my points in my Total War thread...meaning, the Germans and Japanese could not forget the cruelty, as their cities were 'totally' destroyed, where as that did not happen in the Arab-Israeli wars, etc...so, they just kept up the hostility and the wars
I'm no expert on the Balkans, but that seems to be more of an ethnic/tribal war hotbed...a very complicated and long history here, with even Tito dividing his country's people

 

Tito actually eliminated the troublemakers so he could keep the country together. Once he died the troublemakers survived and started to spread propaganda which lead to the war and their own ethnic cleansing.

 

The question is can you really seperate them. Controling the land usually meant controlling the people and the economy. While ideology often provided a pretext control/wealth usually seams to have been the driver for the leadership. Witness the corruption and wealth collected by various Communist, Socialist, and Religious leaders.

 

what does ISIS want? or Al Quaeda? what did Castro want? I thought Castro's and osama's families were affluent... did they want land and assets? I also see some ''ego'' playing a part in some of these conflicts...a young man's idealogy gone to his head....some men and women want to change things for what they think is better or just...and they'll start a revolution for it....of course, not the most common cause, but ego plays a part in a lot of these conflicts

 

Let me rephrase my statement friend.

Economics or ideology; all wars can be grouped under one AND OR both of these categories....at the same time at times. Or morphing from one to another when the need arises.

 

Bobby is absolutely correct.....People want power....people in power want money....people who have money want more power...Power gets money and money gets power; both are equally corrupt.

Money and power are a symbiotic relationship...money can exist without power and power can exist without money but they are not mutually exclusive.

You just have to accept the irony and move on

 

Alternately money is simply an (relativly modern) indicator of power, one could say the same about land be it for farming or resource gathering or whatever. I would argue that ideology is just another reason/rational for accumulating power.

 

We are scratching at the surface here...deeper inside is power for genetic proliferation...once a bicep...then a heard of goats...today, a fat wallet or a Ferrari...or tomorrow...the world!