[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Perhaps someone can cite an example where a nation were to war to deliberately damage their own long-term economic situation."

LOL!
Well... I'd suggest that Democrats would love to push President Trump into some war somewhere for just that reason -- damage the economy, elect more Democrats, what's not to like for them?
Except of course if he won the war, that would not be good.

Seriously, consider WWII -- the US did not go to war for economic reasons, we didn't even go to war, much as FDR wanted to, for geo-political reasons, in 1940 Americans were having none of that.
So Nazis marched over our friends in Europe, Japanese sailed into many Asian harbors -- Americans didn't care, it wasn't our business, we weren't going to get sucked into it.

We went to war in 1941 for the same reason we went to war in other years (ahem... 1861) because we were attacked, that's it.
And if you dispute this -- if you think it was some other reason -- then tell us all how, absent Pearl Harbor, FDR was going to reverse the poll numbers in summer 1941 from 80% opposed to war to even majority support, much less the overwhelming majority support needed to seriously win WWII.

[Pelham]

"We went to war in 1941 for the same reason we went to war in other years (ahem... 1861) because we were attacked, that's it."

Well that isn't what Lincoln said. He said nothing about responding to an attack. In his April 15 proclamation that initiated war it was all about forcibly maintaining the National Union.

He called up 75,000 soldiers for the purpose of suppressing the "combinations" that were in control of several states and that had the audacity to leave the union and form their own nation.

Like King George before him, he wasn't going to sit idly by and watch his territory leave. George's 1775 proclamation to Parliament reads remarkably like Lincoln's proclamation 90 years later.

Lincoln's Proclamation April, 15, 1861:

A Proclamation by the President of the United States, April 15, 1861

George's Proclamation August 23, 1775:

A Proclamation, For Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition

[jeffersondem]

“Seriously, consider WWII — the US did not go to war for economic reasons . . .”

The U.S. got into war over economic and political issues - something about Japan wanting economic control over greater southeast Asia, embargo of scrap metal, embargo of oil and gasoline, closing of the Panama Canal to Jap shipping . . .

The U.S. could have avoided war by meeting Jap demands on economic and political issues, but for good reasons, chose not to.

Chief of Staff Nagano gave a verbal directive to the commander of the Combined Fleet, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, informing him: “Japan has decided to open hostilities against the United States, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands early in December...Should it appear certain that Japanese-American negotiations will reach an amicable settlement prior to the commencement of hostilities, it is understood that all elements of the Combined Fleet are to be assembled and returned to their bases in accordance with separate orders.” (Yes, this is from Wikipedia.)

In commenting on economics, I was simply building upon, and agreeing with, Brother Bull Snipe, a respected Lincolnian, who in post 1128 observed: “All war is fought for political reasons. No one makes war just for something to do in their spare time. There is always a political objective in war.”