I'm not who you were talking to, but I think you and I can agree that war is primarily a means to increase the power of the aggressor. Money is one form of this, perhaps the main one - though I'd argue things like direct control over other territories and their populace is another (connected to money re: control of resources, sure, but that's just one aspect).
That said, the American WWII dead buried at Arlington, or the Canadians and Brits buried in Dieppe for that matter, or heck, even the Soviets buried in Warsaw (regardless of how you may feel about the former USSR in general) - would you say that their lives were given, primarily, in the name of money/power? Or in defence of that being stripped from others by force?
I'm not going to pretend there isn't an argument to be made for the former, but I am legitimately curious about your thoughts here. Is it ever just to take up arms?