Love: Indirect cause of War?

[Patronus]

[size=1][b]Face it, everyone loves something. Love can cause people to do some weird and dangerous things, and there is no limit to it.

War. Love. All is far in love and war, right? Then why does love always interfere and/or cause war?

[u]Civil War[/u]: Southerners [i]loved[/i] having slaves, therefor they weren't willing to give it up. Northerners fought against them for their [i]love[/i] of freedom. Coincidence?

And I'm sure there are alot of Mythological wars and Roman-Era wars that were caused by love. As of now, I'm looking into WWI and WWII. I'm pretty sure that Vietnam wasn't caused by love. (Don't even get me started on the U.S. side of it.)

Anyways, do you believe this, or do you have anything to add? (feel free to add more wars and/or info to that of mine)

EDIT: And take Shakespeare for example. He had to have inspiration for writing [i]Romeo and Juliet[/i], didn't he? Even though it wasn't really a war, Romeo's love for Juliet, and her love for him cause a gigantic feud.[/b][/size]

[Semjaza]

I thought you'd be talking about love... love. As in the love for another specific human being.

Slaves were commodities. They were objects that people talked about like real estate and cash reserves when they tallied up their net worth. They might have "loved" having them, but, to me, it seems weird to claim that "love" as a reason for the war. On top of that, the Civil War wasn't just about the abolitionists versus the anti-abolitionists.

There are always two sides. The obvious cause of wars are disagreements. Obviously one side wants something another doesn't or something another side has. I don't know that I could refer to that as "love" as much as I would "greed".

[eleanor]

[size=1] I don't know much about this topic, but I believe that love can cause an interference with many things. It can create problems, arguments, etc. I really don't believe that love has more rewarding things than the negative results, but if there's no bad days, how can you enjoy good days?

The example of love you use in your thread [of how southerners [i]loved[/i] having slaves and the love of freedom] is probable. Maybe the southerners were sadistic. =_= But I guess anyone would yearn for freedom.

I just know someone is going to come and make a smart rebuttle to this, but yes, I think love can be an indirect cause of war. Or anything smaller, for that matter. Love is a pretty big thing, so I'm guessing it can cause pretty big things...[/size]

[Patronus]

[size=1][b]Semjaza-

Greed is a love of something, right? In my eyes it is.[/b][/size]

[Zen]

Your speaking of material love, which isn't love at all, its just material lust. You can't love a TV, just liek you can't love owning a slave, so i rather you not use it as your discription of war's cause.

[Semjaza]

It's an excessive desire. An obession almost. It deals with possessions, not people. I'd not define that as love, personally.

[Patronus]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Double_B_Daigo [/i]
[B]Your speaking of material love, which isn't love at all, its just material lust. You can't love a TV, just liek you can't love owning a slave, so i rather you not use it as your discription of war's cause. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1][b]Yes, you can love material things. So I'd rather I [i]did[/i] use it for war's cause.[/b][/size]

[Zen]

How can you love a souless entity? You'd have to be mentaly ill to do so. Would you marry a TV or sometihng? No. Meaning that you can't love owning something or doing soemthinhg. You cn enjoy it. Thats why alot of people say. "I lovethis cake!" or "I love running!" its not hat you truly love it, it means that you lenjoy it. Love is when you love a thing with a soul and its not something to be owned.

You can't own love. I don't see your guys problem with Love and its affects. Its like you jsut want to deny it for no good reason. You may have had heart break, but that isn't a reason to hate love. It just gives you a reason to search ahrder for who you love. Its all worth it in the end.

I agree full heartedly with Semjaza's opinion on the subject.

[Drix D'Zanth]

I disagree. Love is never really a cause for war, direct or indirect. You seem to find a bit of paradigm in the fact that people in war may fight for things they love, but when talking about a war's [I]cause[/I] it's usually a reversal on that personal state. Think about it, you don't start war because you want to protect something you love, you start war because you hate whats threatening what you love.

Think WW2, germany invaded poland for love? Sure, they probably LOVED the new land, idea of conquest, and morale of the german machine. However, love would not be the cause of the war. The emotion is far too specific towards the individual and not the war itself, far too indirectly.

And when you think about it, almost every single emotion expressed by humanity could be a direct or indirect cause to war. Pick an emotion, any emotion, and one can easily manipulate some aspect of the soldier or war's purpose around it. So I belive the discussion isn't all that suprising, if anything, perhaps it brings to realization that not all war turns people into lust, loot-induced animals seeking to slake their thirst for blood, but predominately to protect their fundamental characters and the emotions that accompany such.

[Patronus]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Double_B_Daigo [/i]
[B]How can you love a souless entity? You'd have to be mentaly ill to do so. Would you marry a TV or sometihng? No. Meaning that you can't love owning something or doing soemthinhg. You cn enjoy it. Thats why alot of people say. "I lovethis cake!" or "I love running!" its not hat you truly love it, it means that you lenjoy it. Love is when you love a thing with a soul and its not something to be owned.

You can't own love. I don't see your guys problem with Love and its affects. Its like you jsut want to deny it for no good reason. You may have had heart break, but that isn't a reason to hate love. It just gives you a reason to search ahrder for who you love. Its all worth it in the end.

I agree full heartedly with Semjaza's opinion on the subject. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1][b]Ok, where did you get that I hated love? I never said this. And I'm coming from a slave owners point of view. They loved having the slaves, therefor they wanted to keep them.[/b][/size]

[Zen]

Yes, but you still say that you can love a materail possesion. That is how slave owners saw it. LSaves where no more than possesoins in there eyes. Your idea of love is disfigured.

[Patronus]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Double_B_Daigo [/i]
[B]Yes, but you still say that you can love a materail possesion. That is how slave owners saw it. LSaves where no more than possesoins in there eyes. Your idea of love is disfigured. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1][b]Poor me, right? I never said that I thought love like this--I'm strictly coming from an all-aspect point of view. So, yeah, stay on the topic of [u]war[/u] and not [u]me[/u]. ;)[/b][/size]

[Zen]

All right hen. War is caused by greed and predjudice. But he only war i ever agreed with was the War, that i know many are gonna hate me for, but i actually, semi agreed with. But thats cuz i saw it in an american soilders point of veiw. Its cuz it was obviious soem one had to take out Saddam Hussien. The guy was a pshycotic torturous, dictator. No one else had the perverbial balls to take him on, so Bush and Britain took charge for it. Beleive me, my dads in the army and he gets pretty well informed about it.

But other than that, War is created by greed and prejudice. Like the holy crusades, the WWs and the Civil War. And the Revolutionary War.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Double_B_Daigo [/i]
[B]All right hen. War is caused by greed and predjudice. But he only war i ever agreed with was the War, that i know many are gonna hate me for, but i actually, semi agreed with. But thats cuz i saw it in an american soilders point of veiw. Its cuz it was obviious soem one had to take out Saddam Hussien. The guy was a pshycotic torturous, dictator. No one else had the perverbial balls to take him on, so Bush and Britain took charge for it. Beleive me, my dads in the army and he gets pretty well informed about it.

But other than that, War is created by greed and prejudice. Like the holy crusades, the WWs and the Civil War. And the Revolutionary War. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with you on the Sadaam war. But you do not agree with the other wars? I mean, WW2 was just as much greed, and prejudice as The war in Iraq. Hitler and Sadaam both killed LOTS of their own people because they hated the ethic differences. The war against Iraq is most definately perpetuated by Iraqui hatred for the US. I think you may be misunderstood. I would hope you agree with wars like the Revolutionary or WW2, especially if you lived in the US. These wars are the reason you live with the freedoms you posess today.

However, I understand the possibility you may be confused. You think that the united states fought the rev. war, civil war, etc against hatred and greed. At least I hope you think that. But the same is true for Operation: Iraqui Freedom. You just seem to have the sides mixed up ;). Unless of course you belive the US was fighting a greed, or prejudice-induced war against the German people... in which case... well... :rolleyes:

[Baron Samedi]

D_B_D... your father was pretty well informed about it eh? Well, little ol' cynical me might say that he could have been [i]lied[/i] to. The big, important people will often find an easier lie, than a harsh truth. Plus, if your father was truthfully well-informed, he should be stood down for telling these details to a civilian. But, back to the topic on hand- It may seem that love causes war, such as the battle between the Trojans and the... other fella's. That was about some King's daughter, or something along those lines. But the Southern War?... I would not say they [i]loved[/i] their slaves, but rather that they enjoyed the uses of slaves, enjoyed being lazy, and being waited on. SO, it is not a love, because you have love [i]for[/i] something, whereas they had a love [i]of[/i] slaves. Totally different things, really. A love of something is not a real love at all, more a lust for the benefits such a thing posseses. So Leh, I disagree with your statement, at least until more conclusive evidence is reached, but almost any emotion can be twisted to make the basis for war.

[Spikey]

I think that the Civil War was not entirely caused because of love. The North loved their freedom and the South loved having slaves. That was the loving part. The rest that caused the war to happen was disagreement. The disagreement was that the North said there shouldn't be any slaves. The south disagreed with them, and the war began.

I do not think that love starts wars like that. But love kind of has a good part with it. 'Tis what I think.

[Shinmaru]

There are tons of reasons why the Civil War happened, it's just that slavery is the reason that's mostly discussed by schools.

It also had to do with the issue of State's rights. The South believed that the States should be more powerful than the Government (in a system similar to the Articles of Confederation, I believe) and the North supported a stronger central government (though, not too strong). Of course, I could be a bit mistaken; it's been a while since I learned this stuff.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]Slavery wasn?t the main reason the Civil War began, it was a secondary factor and a main reason the war perpetuated. The south seceded from the union mainly because southern leaders believed in a Jeffersonian economy, based mainly on agriculture, while the North was beginning to depend on various forms of industry to support their economy. Economy always ends up becoming the focal point for government in the U.S., so obviously there was a huge rift between the North and South and the South eventually tried to (temporarily did) secede. Most historians agree that slavery would have been abolished by 1870 even if the Civil War did not occur; slavery just became an issue in the South because the North abolished it (I?m sure that the consensus in the South was that those damned Yanks were trying to oppress Southerner?s rights to own property). Don?t get me wrong, we accomplished a great thing by abolishing slavery and keeping our nation whole; just don?t think that the war was begun because of slavery.

As far as your theory that wars are begun out of love, I don?t think that is any more valid than saying wars are begun because of greed, hate, lust or any other human emotion. I tend to think that wars are usually begun because of fanaticism in some form or another?[/color]

[lea]

yeah, i agree with heaven's cloud.
does anyone believe in slavery?
-.- some people i know do......
personally, i think its stupid and barbaric....

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Leh [/i]
[B][size=1][b]

[u]Civil War[/u]: Southerners [i]loved[/i] having slaves, therefor they weren't willing to give it up. Northerners fought against them for their [i]love[/i] of freedom. Coincidence?
[/b][/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] Actually, the civil war wasn't mainly focused on slavery. It was more about State issues and things of that matter.

Excuse me for being very vague as to the other causes, but I can't exactly remember the circumstances. But my History teachers said the other day that the Civil war's main part wasn't about slavery.

Think of it this way: In the south the slaves made the raw materials for the north. Then the north took the raw materials and made whatever. So thus, slaves were also beneficial to the north as well as the south.

Here is a further quotation lol. Perhaps it will say things better for me.

[quote]Having read a fair amount on this subject, I'll lean toward slavery being the second reason for going to war. The first was to conquer a newly forming, rival nation that held major agricultural assets, most notably cotton. The textile mills of the North needed that cotton.

The South needed materials like brass for cannon. But, the general feeling was that enough could be scrounged to bust the North's chops. The North, meanwhile, suffered from arrogance as the industrial giant of the Americas.

The North built up troop strength in Fort Sumter, thus goading the South into what might have been an anticipated attack.

And the war began. In the North, near Manassas, VA, citizens brought picnic baskets to watch an early version of the Super Bowl. But it was no picnic. The South was looking pretty darn good in the early years; the North looked pathetic. Then things turned at Gettysburg with, among other bloody events, the insane Pickett's Charge. Historians still argue whether Lee blew it. I believe he did.

Later came Sherman's cruel and devastating march. Atlanta burned.

The South surrendered, but not right away. More blood had to be spilled. Along came Reconstruction and the aftermath of freedom for slaves.

It would take another hundred years before freedom was guaranteed through the Civil Rights Act.

We still, today, have the proponents of states' rights that the South used to justify secession and war. Not too far under the skin, the Civil War is still being fought in bloodless (usually) battles.

Out of the Civil War we got advanced trauma medical procedures, advanced weaponry, and a bunch of post-Napoleanic strategies. Were the underlying goals of the war won? The Union was saved, by force. Slavery was abolished, but freedom was a long way off. We would have to do Rough Riders and world wars to get closer.

So. Today, after a cold war and a bunch of other wars, the gulf wars, we stand as a divided nation yet. We've split between conservative and liberal, primarily, with various flavors of those stances promoted by individuals and groups. Rather than north and south, we have rural and urban, military and civilian. We have the economically stable and the destabalized, the movers/shakers and the disenfranchised protesters.

The Civil War was a penultimative expression of the democratic republic initially envisioned. The loose union of sovereign states went into a mutually destructive phase that pitted brother against brother, and slavery was definitely one horn on the beast's head. Remember John Brown? The other was the right of sovereign states to reject the Union and form its confederation of slave states--state's rights. But, the Civil War was a beast. Of that I have no doubt.

Some say you get reincarnated and carry with you certain lessons learned. Of these lessons, might the memory of men and animals dying on a battle field be one? Might the initial excitement and glory be another, to be replaced with horror and disgust? I've walked many of the battlefields and feel archetypical memories stirring, the most strong at Gettysburg. Illusion or reality? I don't know. But I do know that what came of the Civil War was the trading of one form of slavery for another.

It took civil law process to bring freedom, and it will take this same process to unite a divided nation.[/quote]

Love isn't the cause of war as far as I'm concerned as a whole. As a whole, war is about peace. War is a machine that brutishly makes peace.

Perhaps the people dying for their country see it as in love, but I don't think that.

Edit: Also read Heavens Cloud's post. Still think the civil war was mainly about slavery?[/size]

[Zen]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i]
[B]D_B_D... your father was pretty well informed about it eh? Well, little ol' cynical me might say that he could have been [i]lied[/i] to. The big, important people will often find an easier lie, than a harsh truth. Plus, if your father was truthfully well-informed, he should be stood down for telling these details to a civilian. But, back to the topic on hand- It may seem that love causes war, such as the battle between the Trojans and the... other fella's. That was about some King's daughter, or something along those lines. But the Southern War?... I would not say they [i]loved[/i] their slaves, but rather that they enjoyed the uses of slaves, enjoyed being lazy, and being waited on. SO, it is not a love, because you have love [i]for[/i] something, whereas they had a love [i]of[/i] slaves. Totally different things, really. A love of something is not a real love at all, more a lust for the benefits such a thing posseses. So Leh, I disagree with your statement, at least until more conclusive evidence is reached, but almost any emotion can be twisted to make the basis for war. [/B][/QUOTE]


This may be off topic, but did you ever see any of the soilders protesting? Ever? No! They had more reason to protest han anyone, but none of them did because they were thinking about surving there country and not out in the streets, ditching work to say, "I don't beleive i nthe war becaue it is sensless violence." and crap liek that. How aobut we send them to Iraq for a day or two. when they come back, your gonna here "This amry needs to kil lthat Saddam son fo a #$%@!", that is if they survived the torture camps. You could ask any one at my school, on my post, or in my town if they agreed with the war. The ywould all say yes! I haven't heard anyone in my school even metion they disagreed. So, please don't degrade my father's knowledge.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Double_B_Daigo [/i]
[B]This may be off topic, but did you ever see any of the soilders protesting? Ever? No! They had more reason to protest han anyone, but none of them did because they were thinking about surving there country and not out in the streets, ditching work to say, "I don't beleive i nthe war becaue it is sensless violence." and crap liek that. How aobut we send them to Iraq for a day or two. when they come back, your gonna here "This amry needs to kil lthat Saddam son fo a #$%@!", that is if they survived the torture camps. You could ask any one at my school, on my post, or in my town if they agreed with the war. The ywould all say yes! I haven't heard anyone in my school even metion they disagreed. So, please don't degrade my father's knowledge. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Uhm, soldiers don't have the right to assemble peacefully in protest...that is why you don't see or hear of them doing so. I am sure that quite a few soldiers disagreed with the reasoning behind our war with Iraq. But they are soldiers, they take orders and they follow orders and hope that they are protecting our country in the best possible way. I am not saying the war in Iraq was wrong I am just saying that your reasoning is flawed.

Also, please try to clean up your posts a bit...it is very hard to decipher what you are trying to say at points...[/color]

[eleanor]

[size=1] [i]Also, please try to clean up your posts a bit...it is very hard to decipher what you are trying to say at points...[/i]

.....yeah.

The War on Iraq was a huge debate amongst many people, so I'm guessing that some soldiers thought it was stupid, too. Heaven's Cloud is right...in practically every aspect. Soldiers should know what they're getting into in the first place, anyway.

And I highly doubt that the recent war was caused by love--lusted love or real love. [/size]

[Zen]

Sorry, just a bit angry and wanted to reply quickly. But i never heard any one aroud me get uppidy about the war, so yeah.

But on subject. War isn't casued by love unless its like two prines fighting over the same princess or something like. All wars where created by greed and prejudice. Its pretty simple. WW2 was about both. Prejudice against the Jewish and greed for power and land.

The Civil War was caused by greed. The greed of wanting to kepp there slaves and owning all of america.

The Revolutionary War was England wanting to remain owners of Armerica.

The Crusades where about prejudice agaisnt the Muslims and control of Jerusalem.

It was never loved that ws involved. It was greed and prejudice.

[Pex]

This also may be off topic did you ever think that whenever we are at war that is when we are really at peace. For example in the novel 1984 one of the slogans is "War is Peace" because when we are at war, the two sides agree that they are doing one thing fighting, therefore that is kind of peace between the nations. However during actual peactime it seems we are at a constant battle of technology and espionage against other nations.

The reason I say this is because the only real way it seems to stop a country from constantly building more dangerous weapons of destruction is to go at were, because while there is tension between nations, there is still a general calmness, think about it when we were at war with Iraq how many of you were really freaking out that something terrible was gonna happen every day, not me, I actually felt safe because of our troops out on the battlefield.

Think about it nations are always trying to be a step ahead of everyone else in technology. So there is war of technology that never ends and that seems to be another type of war.

I only say this to draw a different point to your attention.