What are the motivations to war?

Most definitely a complex question.

I think it's basically motivated by a desire for power and control. Other things come into play, of course. While America may not have wanted to be involved in WWII, the Japanese apparently were going for power and control in Asia as the Germans were doing it Europe.

So, is isolationism the proper answer? Should we try returning to fortress America? Some here might be happier with the evolution in policy, but I for one don't see how we can achieve that.

Is anyone here in favor of fortress America?

OK, so can we simplify today's conflict down to Iran hoping to excercise power and control in the middle east?

Is America trying to exercise power and control in the middle east?

"Is America trying to exercise power and control in the middle east?"

Of course we are. That's the whole reason behind Iraq. The oil is there as well. As Cory said, money and power play an important part in all this. The Bush Administration wanted so badly to go into Iraq they found even the flimsiest of excuses and sold it to congress and the American people and now here we are. Stuck in the middle of a war zone we helped create.

Oh and isolantionism isn't the answer. We tried that and WWII happened.

There is no easy answer. As long as you have nations or any "groupings" of people, you will have some kind of conflict. Why? Because everyone wants the best for themselves and the people of their group. Why can't Israel and Palestine come to some kind of compromise? They both want the same piece of real estate.

Have you read the "Art of War" of Sun Tzu?

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

It teaches how to be free from violence. The inner war of the individual and the outer war involving others can be won through intelligent efforts. The spiritual work of the individual is as you write. Our teachers have demonstrated it is possible to consciously strive to be in life more like spiritual beings inhabiting earthly bodies.

Many equate "negotiation" with "appeasement". That is like saying the use of military force is the way to win. History shows otherwise. Know your enemy and yourself.

One thing I see looking through others stuff is the perception that Muslims buy into "terrorism" and are fanatic. This phony "War on Terror" has created a belief in America that Muslims are against the West. The very small number of "jihadis" like Osam bin Laden are clever at saying what are real grievances of many - whether in Latin America, Africa , Asia and the Middle East that people have against their own governments oppression and the actions of the West. The US invasion of Iraq , had it been carried out with having elections in 90 days and get out ( as the Colin Powell faction argued for) was changed to "occupy the country, appoint puppet government, write a now "Constitution" (which meant privatize everything- water, utilities, oil etc and sell it off to foreign corporations). It was not about "democracy" for Iraq and creating a "new Middle East." The 300 page plan Rumsfeld sent Bremer (Kissinger's protege) to carry out as Czar was supposed to take "270 days" to do. After that "elections" would be allowed. The Iraqis understood what was going on, and thus the insurgency developed. The appointed interim government was a sham. The current one is not going to last. Those Iraqis who have cooperated with the US will be in big trouble when we leave. Had General Garner , whom Rumsfeld fired as Czar at the time of the invasion and replaced with Bremer, held a "big tent" meeting with the various well-known Iraqi leaders from all groups as he announced to Iraq he intended to do, as well get elections organized to be held in 30 days, there would likely have been no threat of civil war. Iraqis of all groups are nationalistic. The Sunnis and Shias have intermarried for generations. This "in and out" policy has been done in other invaded countries successfully, with immediate elections, and the existing social structure and institutions were not allowed to collapse, bringing chaos, lack of food, water, unemployment etc. Iraq is still a mess for basic services. The 22 acre US Embassy in Baghdad - cost $790 million so far - is being built on schedule, 24/7. Over 50,000 private, foreign contractors with guns in Iraq, often killing people. Many countries - in South America, Middle East, Asia etc- now view the US as a potential military threat to them because of our action against Iraq. Our allies don't trust us not to go around making wars against nations we don't want to negotiate with.

We had established agreements with North Korea on nuclear technology. The Bush administration abrogated those agreements, which had included technology we had promised to supply North Korea and still had not. They set, instead, new demands to begin new negotiations. What was the end result of our failure to negotiate? North Korea acted to do what we demanded unilaterally that they must not do in order to start negotiations. Then we capitulated to North Korea, after they had done what we demanded they promise not to. We look like unreliable incompetent fools to our allies , especially in Asia. North Korea is in a stronger position.

We are making the same mistake with Iran today. If we use our strength wisely we can gain without war. If we continue making demands with the deluded view of Iran we have, and of ourselves, will we weaken ourselves. Iraq has already damaged us in many ways as well the Iraqis.

Marty, if there was no oil in Iraq or in the Middle-East, would the US and its allies be there with either troops on the ground or with other overt and covert support?

Magi

why war? war profit$

The need for access to sources of energy, from the prime areas : Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa , Latin America etc is vital to China, the West, Japan and India to same the larger economies. The US is trying to control the sources by military force. Russia is the world's second largest exporter of oil, so can deal with all for other needed natural resources, although the US and the West are trying to control the 30 or so former Soviet States in Central Asia that are on Russia's southern border. The US has some 400 or more foreign military bases (the DOD admits to 380 or so). Can we afford to support the current policy based on having supreme military force? Will the current military policy work prove successful?

The American right are not happy with the US or Israel :
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/defeatism-and-attacks-on-commander-in_14.html