Nah, my point was that unlike in WWII I don't think there is such a thing as a discrete military target. The military is now the arm of an economic system rather than a political or ideological one. And that that economic system is dispersed across a large portion of the globe.

The invasion wasn't (to begin with) physical, it was cultural and economic. There were no physical targets on home soil to attack, certainly not ones which could be described as purely military.

And attacking overseas economic targets has (in my opinion) the same logistic and strategic effect (in context) as did the resistance attacks on german military targets in WWII (I disagree that the resistance's targets were predominantly military, but that's beside the point).

I think taking their very different contexts into account the practises are comparable.

Armies have a long and proud history of fighting for economic reasons. Personally, I cannot be arsed with an in-depth search of the historical record, but off the top of my head: conquistadors, Lebensraum, the Raj, Nazi gold.

Pretty much all exploration has had, at its roots, the search for lucre at its core. And where's there's lucre there's fighting. And when the lucre and fighting get serious enough there's armies.

Now the fighting is over black gold (or the fight against terrorism, which is less economic perhaps and more ideological). But before that is was gold gold, spices, whatever.

Yes, armies will fight over ideology and politics also, but to divorce those from economics is, in many/most cases, naive. Sorry, I said it!

Money has been involved in war since money has existed, obviously. But I doubt you're going to argue that money was the reason for the Nazis' campaign?

Fighting and getting money is not the same as fighting to stabilise a global economic system. Late medieval expansionism was to gain power and money to better fight European wars, which were in turn about political power (of which economics was by then a part, but not the predominant part).

The British Empire is perhaps an exception, being the first cybernetic empire and one which happily manipulated global markets for gain, but the economics was still a means to an end, not the end in itself.

These days the global economic system and its installation and stabilisation is the end in itself and that's a big difference. It's not about the oil, oil is just today's gold, as you've implied.

In short, there's a huge difference between fighting for money and fighting for... not even 'for', more 'due to' an economic ideology.

No, of course not. And although not a holocaust denier, I doubt that the reason for invading neighbouring nations was to exterminate their Jewish population (ideology, bordering sadism). It all started over Lebensraum, no? And isn't that, to some extent, an economic issue?

All of which reminds me. When my brother first moved to Germany he advertised for a flat to rent. He wanted the usual stuff: kitchen, bedroom, dining room etc. In his (at the time) rusty German he wrote his ad, but instead of writing 'Wohnen' or 'Wohnzimmer' for living room, he put down 'Lebensraum' instead. The estate agent gently advised him that what he was requesting was an apartment with Austria annexed to it.

Hahahaha. Reminds me of a thing from some out-take clipshow years ago. Actually, let's see if it's on youtube.

LMAO
BEAUT!

Brahaha, fucking agents. Coming round here, taking our women.

(giggle)

:'D :'D :'D