Most despicable reason to go to war?

Morilore · Post by **Morilore** » 2004-09-21 09:40pm

Other: amoral lust for power.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2004-09-21 09:42pm

Morilore wrote:Other: amoral lust for power.

how's that worse than killing for no reason whatsoever?

Morilore · Post by **Morilore** » 2004-09-21 11:28pm

Matt Huang wrote:how's that worse than killing for no reason whatsoever?

There is no such thing as "killing for no reason whatsoever," anymore than breathing for no reason, having sex for no reason, or stealing for no reason. All human behavior is impelled by something... which is but to say that all events have a cause.

Now, I suppose, if the question was "most despicable motive given to the populace to help support a war," my answer would have to be: going to war to save people from themselves (not a tyrant or a conqueror, but their own heathen culture). I guess that could be called either religion or racism, in certain situations.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-09-22 12:33am

Other.

I would have to say going to war Over an Ear Ranks up there.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-09-22 10:18am

Matt Huang wrote:
Morilore wrote:Other: amoral lust for power.
how's that worse than killing for no reason whatsoever?

outside of sociopaths, every war has some type of rationale behind it, even if it's thinly disguised. you won't find too many people who will go to war over absolutely nothing.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2004-09-22 11:04am

Darth_Zod wrote:
Matt Huang wrote:
Morilore wrote:Other: amoral lust for power.
how's that worse than killing for no reason whatsoever?
outside of sociopaths, every war has some type of rationale behind it, even if it's thinly disguised. you won't find too many people who will go to war over absolutely nothing.

so what if you have a nation of sociopaths?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-09-22 11:46am

Master of Ossus wrote: Similarly, religions are almost universally fucked to the point where there is no point arguing which one's better, since they're all pretty bad and the ones that aren't completely bad no one ever fights for.

so if a religion that is not as fucked up as the others (e.g. i don´t think that buddhism is as fucked as christianity) would it be less decpicable for buddhists?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-09-22 11:50am

Matt Huang wrote:
so what if you have a nation of sociopaths?

you're not actually being serious, are you?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-09-22 11:56am

they ALL start over resources, which are contained in territory, it's just that people tend to use religion, nationalism, and rascism as excuses for making the grab for the resources, be they gold, trade routes, oil, etc.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-09-22 12:11pm

A lack of WMD is pretty crappy (hey, someone had to say it)

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-22 12:19pm

This strikes me as N&P material.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-22 12:23pm

All wars may be fought for territory, but if they're sold to the populace on the basis of some other reason, then the war was arguably fought for that other reason as well, simply because it wouldn't have happened without that justification the leaders could use to sell their populations on it.

You can't absolve something of blame if it is successfully used to convince people that they should go to war. It's like arguing over whether the motivation for a crack addict to kill you is the money or the crack he plans to buy with it.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-09-22 12:37pm

Nationalism. Sure, it's good sometimes for bringing a community together, but when used to go to war, it's worse than any of the others, mainly because it is pretty much *all* the others. Nationalism gone bad is a combination of religious intolerance, racism, ethnocentrism, and territorialism.

-Damien

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-09-22 01:02pm

salm wrote:so if a religion that is not as fucked up as the others (e.g. i don´t think that buddhism is as fucked as christianity) would it be less decpicable for buddhists?

Since it is not possible to get someone to go to war over a non-fucked up religion, the question is moot.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-09-23 12:06am

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:Nationalism. Sure, it's good sometimes for bringing a community together, but when used to go to war, it's worse than any of the others, mainly because it is pretty much *all* the others. Nationalism gone bad is a combination of religious intolerance, racism, ethnocentrism, and territorialism.

-Damien

"48* 40* or Fight!" ring a bell to anyone?

ok you canadians can stop looking nervous only O'rielly and rupert murdok are evil enough to suggest that again....

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-23 12:11am

Nobody saying football as a stupid reason for war yet?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-09-23 12:14am

LOL

1968 right the warbetween two south american countries over a bad ref call....

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-23 12:17am

Personal Enjoyment is worst than any of the above.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2004-09-23 02:48am

I am going to agree with Figid here. The worst is a war over simply for the rulers sadistic pleasure. Otherwise, religion, as it is often for reasons so vague and ridiculous it makes coin flipping look like a technological marvel.

Coalition · Post by **Coalition** » 2004-09-23 04:16am

My question, is whther you are starting the war because of those reasons in your country/empire/region, or because the other person is using those reasons? Or, do you see something so horribly wrong in another country, that you can get enough people together, to demand a war?

I.e. if a nation was using a religion to oppress its people completely, would we be justified going to war with them? The other nation has the religion, so it could be termed a religious war, but we are the ones who are turning it into an international issue, and are invading their country.

Nasty stunt to perform is to set up multiple embassies and consulates in the target country, and hire the local people. If they see enough advantages of living in your country vs staying with their family, you could see a wave of amnesty requests (helps if you have decent food and a well-kept building, and the government buildings look half-rundown).

As each person requests asylum, you transfer them back to your country, and hire more locals, preferably from among the person's family. That way, the family can send mail to each other (diplomatic pouches) without it being intercepted by the local government.

It will take years either way though, so you have to get your population demanding the war over and over, and make it look like you are being forced into the situation. Not to mention slowly transferring huge numbers of people to your nation as they request asylum.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-09-23 10:33am

Dark Hellion wrote:I am going to agree with Figid here. The worst is a war over simply for the rulers sadistic pleasure. Otherwise, religion, as it is often for reasons so vague and ridiculous it makes coin flipping look like a technological marvel.

can you actually name a modern (ie - last 500 years) war that was fought over for pure sadistic pleasure?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-23 04:04pm

Vanity or political ambition.