鈥?How would you characterise the relationship between ideas about war and how wars have been made?

Have just been given this question for a uni paper today- am trying to work out what sort of angle to tackle it from, any ideas? Thanks.


鈥?How would you characterise the relationship between ideas about war and how wars have been made?|||Hello there


I am the surfer





Political views about war and military theory about war





I.) Political views


Not always words are in match with facts , examples include:


1-.) The crusades; by the time the crusades started inside Jerusalem christians , arabs and jews did live in peace , so why to save Jerusalem or to what from?


So if jesus preached peace, why the need of war to spread his word around!?


2.) Wars of religion arabs like Intifada, christians had done many wars and the Inquisition from Spain too. so words do not match the deeds!


3.) World war one England believed of her self the savior of Europe, but it was actually imperialism , to deprive Germany from access to markets and raw materials!


4.) World war two : The western alliance was meant to eliminate tyranny of germany and bring peace, yet however no effort was made to stop the Holocaust and after the war no effort was made the help jews to fund and create Israel, the opposite happened, England tried very hard at her best to prevent the creation of Israel! (what hypocrisy!)


5.) Asian wars for communism : korea and vietnam , communist attacked south korea with the purpose to "liberate" and unite, to liberate from what, south korea was little , peaceful and not so hostile, so what was the danger posed by south!? none! if the reds attacked is to "liberate" but if they are attacked they cry martyr doom and that they are victims!


6.) Cuba called the us the imperialist aggressor, yet however they attacked Angola during 75! and Angola posed no threat of danger towards Cuba!


7.) Israel attacked Lebanon recently justifying the attacked to rescue some soldiers behind the lines!








When words match the facts


1.) National wars for Independence like Latin America from spain, usa from England and many more!


2.) When the Israelis attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak


3.) When Israelis rescue their own at Entebbe!


When the us attacked Lybia for supporting terrorism !


4.) When usa blockaded cuba to remove missiles, 1961


5.) When south africa defended herself from communism aggression


6.) When south korea ws defended from China nad North korea


7.) When turkey invaded cyprus in 74 to defend turkish citizens from greek abuse and won!








II) Military ideas gone good


Clausewitz once said "war is the continuation of politics by other means!"


1.) The ideas about aerial power are very useful and accurate


2.) The ideas of use of naval air power from carriers are useful to extreme


3.) The german doctrine of submarines was very correct


4.) The theories of aerial combat are very practical


5.) Germany invented tank warfare doctrine and it did produce prominent results , up until today tank warfare is modern warfare.....





From the surfer|||You have to ask yourself - What is war? What does war achieve - what is war meant to achieve?





There are alot of thories about war - such as Clausewitz that war is a continuation of politics by other means. But what about International relations theories?





International relations theories - realists believe that nations are self centred - that nations will look after their own self interests before any other considerations. Liberals believe that nations can join together for the common good and will go to war for the good of humanity. There are those that believe that Liberal democracies will not go to war against each other - they believe that democracies fight for the common good and will seek out ways to avoid war - but is this true?





International bodies were set up - the League of Nations and the United Nations - to prevent war - the liberal ideals of U.S President Woodrow Wilson to prevent the outbreak of another World War - but was this ever possible to prevent war? As we have seen - no.





A nation would not be able to go to war against another unless it had the Means to do so - no nation would go to war knowing it couldnt win right? So war is a way of exercising power - of coercing another nation - to force another nation to do something it doesnt want to do for gain? territory / money / power or resources?





but does war happen because two nations spiral towards war? years of jealousy / hatred / rivalry - arms rivalry - spiral to such an extent - like it did between Imperial Germany and British naval rivalry or even between the Soviet Union and the U.S - that it spirals out of control into war - that no nation can back down without losing face? What would have happened in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis if Kruschev had not have backed down?





Do nations / groups go to war for other reasons? The U.S - Spanish war of 1898 - Did the U.S go to war against Spain to stop spanish brutality in Cuba? Or did the U.S really go to war against Spain to get rid of a dangerous rival in the Americas - considering Monroes Doctrine about the U.S not tolerating another European colonial power in its sphere of influence?





Why did the U.S go to war in Vietnam? To stop communism? Or to prevent the further expansion of influence of a rival - the Soviet Union and China?





What was the U.S Invasion of Iraq about? To stop Al Qaeda and terrorism, to stop Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? Humanitarian reasons? Or was it about the grab for resources? Is it possible that nations go to war for liberal reasons - for the good of humanity? Or is this just a cover for our own greed and needs?





There is a good website - IR Theory http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm - has many instances and theories of International relations - why nations act like they do. Its very good reading as i did an International Relations course for Uni 4 years ago - very interesting.