StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This claim aka democratic peace theory has been circulating around for a while now. I believe its traced to Francis Fukuyama's "End of history" where its claimed democracies rarely fight each other. George W Bush and Bill Clinton made the same claim.

The implication is that it would be better to not only make non democratic nations democratic, but people automatically look less favourably on a country if they are not. After all they are more likely to attack us right in what is a perversion of cause and effect. Its like the US saying Iraq is more likely to attack us be breeding ground for terrorism because they aren't democratic and we have to attack them first. Oh wait.

I would like to discuss the claim in the title in the following ways. I will also put forward what I think as well as ask other people what they think.
1. Is the claim true?
a) Evidence for and against.

2. If its false (I contend it is) then why does this myth persists?
a) Note a lot of historical myths persists and its hard to pin it down why.

Firstly no matter how great your theory sounds, if reality does not match it, the theory is wrong. This is simply an application of empiricism and with empirical evidence one can find numerous examples counter to this theory. Since classical times I would argue its not true with Athens destruction of Melos during the Peloponnesian War and in the modern period with the conflicts between proto democracies like the nascent USA against the British in the the 18th and 19th century and between the USA and the CSA in the civil war. In fact wiki lists a whole list of conflicts between democracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... emocracies

I will also like to add a few other examples. What about democracies interfering with the democratic process of other democracies via funnelling money to support one particular side in a conflict? For example the US funding of the Shah in Iran and Pinochet in Chile to overthrow democratically elected governments. Or the US refusal to allow democratic elections in South Vietnam because they might vote for the wrong person.

Just given these facts I think either a) a person must be ridiculously ignorant or b) as dishonest as a YEC talking about evolution to persists with this claim.

The next question is why does it persist? I can come up with several possibilities, although it may very well be a mixture of both

i). Redefine what is meant to be democracy.

ii). Persisting Cold War thinking - that is the almost all conflicts can be based on supranational ideologies (like the Communism vs Capitalism / democracy dichotomy during the cold war), rather than national interest of the participants (which is of course not surpranational).

iii). Consolation thinking

Redefining democracy

I am to start with an argument I had against a racist who used the "redefine words to mean whatever he wanted" argument to illustrate it. He argued that multiculturalism was bad and gave an example of why it was bad - he used the British attacks on China in the 19th century (he was a Chinese racist in case anyone was wondering). When I pointed out this is bullshit because the British didn't have a policy of multiculturalism until the 20th century, he just redefined what multiculturalism meant. Apparently "serious" scholars rather than just internet idiots also use this tactic of intellectual masturbation as we can see below.

So if a democratic country fights another one, well one or both of them weren't really democracies. So the theory is still safe. If you think that's becoming a no true scotsman fallacy then you aren't the only one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4017305.stm

In his essay for Peace magazine in 1999, Rudolph J Rummel made the same point as Bush and went further to say "democracy is a general cure for political or collective violence of any kind".

To help his argument, he put forward a rigorous definition of the term:

regular elections for the most powerful government positions
competitive political parties
near universal franchise
secret balloting
civil liberties and political rights (human rights)
This meant that Germany, for instance, was not a democracy in World War I, according to Rummel. And Britain was not a full democracy in 1812-1815 in the Anglo-American War.

He also defined an international war as a military engagement in which 1,000 or more people were killed.

Ok, they also redefined the definition of international war too. BTW since the US engaged in torture ie isn't following human rights then by that definition, the US is not a democracy. I thought democracy was simply rule by the people for the people with elections the easiest way to gauge whether that is so.

Unfortunately one can point to the examples of the US interfering with Iran's and Chile's democratically elected governments as well to kill this idea.

Supranational ideology

Lets first set the stage. A recently published IMF report showed how trade in Asia has dramatically shifting from Japan to China. Keep in mind those two nations have historical and present day territorial disputes. Lets quote Japan's statement.

Japanese officials say that regional influence goes beyond the size of a country’s economy. They argue that Japan — in partnership with the U.S. — offers a model of free-market democracy that other countries in the region aspire to emulate. China offers money, but no model, they assert. And China’s territorial ambitions give Japan shared cause with smaller neighbors.

This is a soft power vs hard power comparison. However I think the important thing is, Japan consider it important that people follow its model rather than China's. Now if you think money talks louder, you might go "so fucking what?" You can run your country the way you like, we will run it the way we like, and that doesn't preclude us from dealing with each other when interests (re : $$$$) coincide. After all, the Cold War wasn't just ideology. The West supported numerous dictatorships, cough Suharto's Indonesia, Pinochet cough cough through hard power, ie money and not because those guys were inspired by democracy and wanted to become like us. However if you wear rose tinted eye glasses you might think that those who supported the First World did so predominantly because they liked our soft power and liked our political model.

Therefore I suspect, countries think a) people who sided with the first world over the second world did so because of democracy and b) the same thing will happen again.

So I suspect Japan believes that if a country follows Japan's political and democratic it will take its side in disputes with China no matter how much money China pours into wooing those countries or irregardless of whoever is at fault. Thus even if they can outspend you, you can get more friends so it balances out. This is quite strange coming from Japan, who engaged in checkbook diplomacy against Australia and NZ when it came to whaling disputes (I guess Pacific Islanders were more interested in Japanese money than anime or something), but there you go. Which brings me to the next point.

Consolation

Niall Ferguson described the history of economic development as, and I paraphrase, first it was the rise of the West and now its the rise of the Rest. What is happening is that the developing world (and former developing nations) now contributing more to world GDP growth than developed nations, and will eventually have a greater share of world GDP the dominance of the industrialised countries will lessen.

Now if you feel bringing people out of poverty is great then no biggie. If you are a nationalist from these industrialised nations who screwed over other nations you might worry about your eroding influence. If you are paranoid you might worry they might want a reckoning or at least to change the international system so it no longer is as advantageous to you. *

However that's not a problem if you believe democracies rarely fight each other. Even if those former rivals have superior economies, if they are democratic we will likely not have a war. For every non democratic China there is at least a democratic India (at least according to Freedom House which shows democracies at around IIRC 48%). There will be no drastic change of the system. Although I would have thought if both sides have more closely matched military would have been a more reassuring fact than whether both sides are democracies.

Apologies that I couldn't spend as much time as I would like to clarify my thoughts, but I would like some input from those knowledgeable of history and geopolitics.

* For example even though India and Brazil have larger economies by several times over Belgium, they have less voting rights in the IMF.

The theory is true if one considers true democracies only being in place since WWII, which is what I think most people consider. For example, although the case can be made that the German Empire and the United Kingdom were both democracies during WWI, there were several effects which would make them undemocratic - for example, the massive disenfranchisement of the poor, Irish and other undesirables in the British democracy (Rotten boroughs being just one of many examples) - and the dictatorial, at times even hostile, attitude of the executive and army of Wilhelm II towards its elected parliament.

However, if you look at true democracies in the western sense, they often share the same values and therefore do not make war against each other. For example, see the cod war between Iceland and Great Britain. Had Iceland not been a democracy there is not doubt in my mind that Britian would have invaded or really used force.

You can see another similar effect in western foreign policy. Whereas a nation like China and Russia can annex or bully others as they please, western political discourse requires a justification of this by claiming that the others are either a threat, dictators or really bad men (tm). This speaks to a need for a just casus belli, the idea of a bellum iustum, without which democracies have a really bad time fighting wars. You can see that in Vietnam and Iraq.

Democracy in the United States didn't stop it from sliding into a civil war.

And in many ways, US politics remains very very similar to what it then (like putting your men in the Supreme Court to further your cause, mudslinging of all sorts, a very biased press yadayadaya).

Thanas wrote:The theory is true if one considers true democracies only being in place since WWII, which is what I think most people consider.

Naming any colonial empire a true democracy is the worst kind of travesty I ever heard.

Thanas wrote:However, if you look at true democracies in the western sense, they often share the same values and therefore do not make war against each other. For example, see the cod war between Iceland and Great Britain. Had Iceland not been a democracy there is not doubt in my mind that Britian would have invaded or really used force.

Uh... Yeah, like Operation Fork did not happen. And like a that time Britain wasn't, in the Cold War sense, a 'democracy'.

Thanas wrote:You can see another similar effect in western foreign policy. Whereas a nation like China and Russia can annex or bully others as they please, western political discourse requires a justification of this by claiming that the others are either a threat, dictators or really bad men (tm).

Russia does the same by saying 'the others' are (a) a threat (b) fascists/terrorists (c) really bad men (tm). China did not really 'annex others as it pleased', it had its own territories annexed by the so-called democracies under the pretense of... hey, there was no pretense, actually. Justifying a war against someone by saying he's a really bad man (tm) is absolutely indispensable in case of any war, and democracy doesn't really help here. Sometimes an even flimsier excuse is enough. I mean, Turkey didn't justify Operation Atilla by saying Cyprus is a very bad place or something. They said it will fall to the Greeks and because of that - just invade. That's the very same logic.

Stas Bush wrote:

Thanas wrote:The theory is true if one considers true democracies only being in place since WWII, which is what I think most people consider.

Naming any colonial empire a true democracy is the worst kind of travesty I ever heard.

Meh. This is not only besides the point, it is also pointless semantic quibbling and a poor attempt to steer this thread into some kind of anti-colonial rant. Yes, colonialism is bad, yadda yadda. For the purpose of this discussion however Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium etc. were all true democracies. Did they oppress others? Yes. But did they act democratic towards what they considered their people? Yes. Colonialism is a sideshow when asking the OP question of "Do true democracies wage war against each other?".

Uh... Yeah, like Operation Fork did not happen. And like a that time Britain wasn't, in the Cold War sense, a 'democracy'.

Operation fork is, if one is being charitable to your position, an outlier. If one is not, it is nothing but a part of the larger struggle of a democracy vs fascist dictatorships. The operation was not carried out to annex or diminish the state of Iceland and they were given reparations and independence as soon as the war is over. Besides, one can hardly call Operation Fork a war.

Russia does the same by saying 'the others' are (a) a threat (b) fascists/terrorists (c) really bad men (tm). China did not really 'annex others as it pleased', it had its own territories annexed by the so-called democracies under the pretense of... hey, there was no pretense, actually. Justifying a war against someone by saying he's a really bad man (tm) is absolutely indispensable in case of any war, and democracy doesn't really help here. Sometimes an even flimsier excuse is enough. I mean, Turkey didn't justify Operation Atilla by saying Cyprus is a very bad place or something. They said it will fall to the Greeks and because of that - just invade. That's the very same logic.

Sure, but none of the above are democracies warring democracies. Popular support is much more important here than in any dictatorship.

Thanas wrote:The theory is true if one considers true democracies only being in place since WWII, which is what I think most people consider. For example, although the case can be made that the German Empire and the United Kingdom were both democracies during WWI, there were several effects which would make them undemocratic - for example, the massive disenfranchisement of the poor, Irish and other undesirables in the British democracy (Rotten boroughs being just one of many examples) - and the dictatorial, at times even hostile, attitude of the executive and army of Wilhelm II towards its elected parliament.

In that case though, the colonial powers still had massive disenfranchisement of their people did they not? Or at least the non natives which they ruled. If you consider this point "true democracies" I would argue going further back at least around WWI could be considered true democracy as well.

However, if you look at true democracies in the western sense, they often share the same values and therefore do not make war against each other. For example, see the cod war between Iceland and Great Britain. Had Iceland not been a democracy there is not doubt in my mind that Britian would have invaded or really used force.

Then what about America's attempt to subvert democracy in Iran in the 1950s and Chile in the 1970s by funding those regimes' political opponents which ultimately led to a coup. Isn't that a democracy (post WWII) attacking another democracy albeit via proxies?

My thoughts has always been that national interest will rule out against any supranational philosophy, be it religious, or political ones like Communism and Democracy. I also hold to reasonably rational actors calculating costs to their actions. What would the consequences be for the First world if the UK went to war against another member especially during the cold war period? Not good I would imagine especially when Iceland was hosting a NATO base.

Thanas wrote: You can see another similar effect in western foreign policy. Whereas a nation like China and Russia can annex or bully others as they please, western political discourse requires a justification of this by claiming that the others are either a threat, dictators or really bad men (tm). This speaks to a need for a just casus belli, the idea of a bellum iustum, without which democracies have a really bad time fighting wars. You can see that in Vietnam and Iraq.

My understanding is that most nations these days believe or at least give lip service to the "just war" idea. That is most of them will try and come up with a justification for attacking another nation. Witness Russian justification in Crimea. Are you suggesting that when a democracy does it, their claim is more accurate? Or do you believe Russia and China (to use your examples) would not even bother with any justification.

Thanas wrote:Meh. This is not only besides the point, it is also pointless semantic quibbling and a poor attempt to steer this thread into some kind of anti-colonial rant. Yes, colonialism is bad, yadda yadda. For the purpose of this discussion however Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium etc. were all true democracies. Did they oppress others? Yes. But did they act democratic towards what they considered their people? Yes. Colonialism is a sideshow when asking the OP question of "Do true democracies wage war against each other?".

These states massively disenfranchised people in the territories they controlled and shat 24-7 on their human and political rights. There can be no question that 'true democracy' is an absolutely cringeworthy term. By your logic the slaveowning United States were a 'true democracy' because they 'acted democratic' towards 'what' they considered 'their people'. That logic is unacceptable regardless of whether colonialism was 'bad' or good. Disenfranchisement is a reality.

Thanas wrote:The operation was not carried out to annex or diminish the state of Iceland and they were given reparations and independence as soon as the war is over. Besides, one can hardly call Operation Fork a war.

That is absolutely irrelevant: many nations which were not democracies restored the self-rule and political independence of other nations that were invaded and occupied by their forces.

Thanas wrote:Sure, but none of the above are democracies warring democracies. Popular support is much more important here than in any dictatorship.

Turkey and Cyprus are/were not? What are they then? Or 'democracy' is some White Man Bullshit?

I'm sympathetic to the idea that a democracy cannot be fully realized if it disenfranchise people, but that only means that every democracy in the history of mankind exists on a spectrum of enfranchisement. Even today it's frequently more difficult for the poor to exercise their democratic rights, or for migrants to obtain those rights -- that's disenfranchisement too, but to then conclude that even Western European states today must not be democracies would in my opinion mean hurtling your argument into No True Democracy Scotsman territory.

Democracy doesn't make a state immune from making terrible decisions, it just means those decisions by necessity must be supported by a larger segment of the population than if it had been a single strongman calling the shots. The decision to engage in colonial repression in Indonesia right after the Second World War because the Indonesians dared to aspire to self-determination doesn't mean The Netherlands wasn't a democracy. It was, and it makes the decision to engage in oppression all the more heinous.

To write the politional actions off as not the act of a democracy opens the option to throw up one's hands and say 'we weren't a democracy! That means we had no say in this!' I reject this because there's already too much denial of national wrongdoing in the world to open up another avenue to express it. The Netherlands was a democracy, and its democratically chosen government thought it had a right to repress and disenfranchise millions of people. Just like democratic governments circa 1900 disenfranchised women. That's what democracies can do. Democracies in the past, and democracies of today.

Because I'll do you one more: What about the original question of the thread - democracies rarely attack other democracies? Well to me it raises one obvious question: if democracies don't attack other democracies, who do they attack? By and large they attack dictatorships, 'failed states' and other places where military intervention is deemed acceptable by a democratically elected government. So where are these failed states located? Well dress me up and call me Shirley if they aren't mostly post-colonial black holes of civilization.

So what happened here is, we exchanged direct colonial repression with another form of disenfranchisement: now we bomb your country if we deem your government to be unsuitable, and you get just as little to say about it. That's acceptable though because this isn't colonialism, it's a humanitarian intervention! We're not in it for us, we're doing it for the natives' own good!

Guess what arguments the British used for keeping control of India? Or the Dutch in Indonesia? Or the Belgians in Congo? They didn't think themselves moustache-twirling fascists, they genuinely believed they were nation building too.

Now don't get me wrong, I really like democracy. I can't think of a better form of government to run a nation. But this 'democratic peace theory' has the stench of imperialism about it. It reeks of neoconservative postcolonial self-congratulating back-pattery. 'We don't attack people who are like us, just those who are different', nevermind that we bear a great deal of responsibility for the circumstances of those who are different.

So to answer the question what I think of the claim that democracies don't attack democracies, I think that at best it's waferthin feelgood fastfood pop-analysis masquerading as political discourse. At worst it's precisely the kind of tribalism dressed up as civilization with a layer of cultural superiority sprinkled on top that's all too often lead people to make assumptions about those not-like-us, with all the unprecedentedly disastrous consequences we've seen in this last century.

I know about the disenfranchisement of migrants, but they are foreign citizens and theoretically their home country is where they can exercise political rights. I must note I was not disqualifying nations as democracies because they disallow foreign visitors (even those that stay for some years) to vote. That's not logical. So today many nations qualify as proper democracies, while the pre-decolonization period obviously cannot be seen as a period of 'true democracy' (and, as I said above, it is a travesty to apply the term that way). Limited or 'metropole' democracy would be a better term to describe it. Especially considering the various property or gender qualifications that existed in prior times even in metropoles.

I would stick with the idea of describing such nations as limited or metropole democracies exactly because if they were a full democracy, would they even be able to oppress a part of their voting population? I bet not; had the colonies voted, they'd either separate from the metropole or vote for a government in the metropole that considers their interests at least partly.

I would also say that even true democracies can attack other democracies. The US is a prime example. The Indo-Pakistan wars also demonstrate that countries fully inheriting the British system, but poor, are extremely susceptible to war. I'm not even mentioning the constant wars in the Middle East between democratic Arab nations and Israel, which is also a democracy.

Siege expressed what made me feel uneasy about the democratic peace theory - its imperialistic undertones. Imagine if we said we need to convert country x to Christianity because Christian nations rarely attack each other. Or We need to conquer country x to civilise them. In both cases it smacks of an excuse for imperialism.

The way the democratic peace theory is used, may be somewhat more subtle. Its usually of the form we cannot trust country x because they aren't a democracy, rather than we must automatically attack country x because they aren't a democracy. I guess the cost of war has gone up since colonial times, with some of these non democratic countries having decent military budgets and all that.

This also leads to another reason I didn't think of why this myth might persist. Its a justification for certain policies, eg why we are hostile towards a particular country. When we do something we like to think that we have a just cause for doing it.

This is all pretty bullshit, especially how an observation about an historical fact is apparently now imperialistic because apparently it must follow that democracies should be imposed on everyone to guarantee peace or how one example of a country that was occupied during a world wide war to deny the Nazis a base or to wage war against them suddenly means the whole theory is irrelevant. This is all bs that would not fly in a normal debate and I do not expect it to fly here of all places.

The main question the OP asked is whether democratic peace theory is correct in its observation that democracies rarely attack each other. That is pretty much undeniable to anybody with eyes and anybody who has any grasp about world history, especially the European wars.

Stas Bush wrote:These states massively disenfranchised people in the territories they controlled and shat 24-7 on their human and political rights. There can be no question that 'true democracy' is an absolutely cringeworthy term. By your logic the slaveowning United States were a 'true democracy' because they 'acted democratic' towards 'what' they considered 'their people'. That logic is unacceptable regardless of whether colonialism was 'bad' or good. Disenfranchisement is a reality.

They weren't a true democracy simply by virtue of enslaving a part of the regular inhabitants of their nation. Democratic peace theory speaks about western democracies in the vein of post 1940 states, specifically European and American democracy. I fail to see how the slavecrocacy of the south matches any of those definitions. If you get your panties in a twist because you massively fail to misunderstand what I write then that is your problem.

Stas Bush wrote:Turkey and Cyprus are/were not? What are they then? Or 'democracy' is some White Man Bullshit?

cyprus was not a democracy, it was ruled by a military junta, as you well should know.

It might even be argued that Turkey also was not a democracy because the main factors of what a democracy is according to the peace theory were not present - namely no freedom of the press, no functioning, well educated electorate, a state that was essentially co-run by the military which made a coup whenever it wanted etc. The peace theory bases its theories on the idea that democracies have a public discourse and exchanges with other democracies.

Siege wrote:I'm sympathetic to the idea that a democracy cannot be fully realized if it disenfranchise people, but that only means that every democracy in the history of mankind exists on a spectrum of enfranchisement. Even today it's frequently more difficult for the poor to exercise their democratic rights, or for migrants to obtain those rights -- that's disenfranchisement too, but to then conclude that even Western European states today must not be democracies would in my opinion mean hurtling your argument into No True Democracy Scotsman territory.

No. Because once you have universal suffrage and a well educated electorate (Zivilgesellschaft, in german) and free press, with free elections on a firm schedule, with no manipulation and due process being served, then you crossed into what is considered to be a modern, "western" democracy.

Democracy doesn't make a state immune from making terrible decisions, it just means those decisions by necessity must be supported by a larger segment of the population than if it had been a single strongman calling the shots. The decision to engage in colonial repression in Indonesia right after the Second World War because the Indonesians dared to aspire to self-determination doesn't mean The Netherlands wasn't a democracy. It was, and it makes the decision to engage in oppression all the more heinous.

Of course, but that doesn't make the theory any less correct.

Because I'll do you one more: What about the original question of the thread - democracies rarely attack other democracies? Well to me it raises one obvious question: if democracies don't attack other democracies, who do they attack? By and large they attack dictatorships, 'failed states' and other places where military intervention is deemed acceptable by a democratically elected government. So where are these failed states located? Well dress me up and call me Shirley if they aren't mostly post-colonial black holes of civilization.

Sure. But that does not follow automatically from the peace theory any more than the theory of the atom leads automatically to nuclear war. You are ascribing ideas and consequences to a theory, which is not only bad form, but also is threading off topic. The OP question was whether the theory that democracies attack each other less frequently is correct. It simply is, especially if comparing the situations before and after democracy swept through Europe.

Now, if you want to argue that this has got more to do with other factors than the states being democracies, be my guest. But trying to turn a simple theory into the harbinger of Imperialism is simply bad form. Just because idiots use it as such does not mean that this is what the theory originally says or even necessarily dictates.

Modern Democracies do not attack each other as frequently as dictatorships. Period. Does that make them saints or mean that they must become pacifists? No. But they do not attack each other.

mr friendly guy wrote:Siege expressed what made me feel uneasy about the democratic peace theory - its imperialistic undertones. Imagine if we said we need to convert country x to Christianity because Christian nations rarely attack each other. Or We need to conquer country x to civilise them. In both cases it smacks of an excuse for imperialism.

And again, that is not what the theory says. If you want to argue about how it is used by idiots, be my guest. But do not ascribe things to a theory which it does not say. It is a bit like Stalin using Marx's ideas to justify the holodomar or Mao using Engels to justify his crimes. In both cases, people in this very thread would argue that communism should not be discredited per se by people using it to justify atrocities, yet somehow the same benefit of the doubt is not given to the peace theory. Why is that?

Thanas wrote:The main question the OP asked is whether democratic peace theory is correct in its observation that democracies rarely attack each other. That is pretty much undeniable to anybody with eyes and anybody who has any grasp about world history, especially the European wars

Wait. So European nations stopped attacking each other for 50 years after the most devastating war in history, and multiple atomic deterrents were created... This means that democracy is the reason for not attacking? WWI puts this claim to shame, since there's little differnce between a 40s and a 1900s European metropole democracy. I think horror of WWII and nuclear deterrents stop war. Well, that and common enemies... But only while they last. 'Post 1940s' is an arbitrary cutoff date. Slave-owning democracies are not disqualified because they disenfranchise slaves, no more than Britain could be disenfranchised for lack of universal suffrage. You also coveniently ignored the Israel and Arab democracies example. Too bad for your taste? That's post 1940. By excluding Turkey because it was imperfect, you are showing what a hypocrite you are. Exclusion of Cyprus because it had a coup at that exact moment is irrelevant - so did Ukraine, people did not disqualify it. India and Pakistan. Yugoslav wars. Democracy is not a panacea against war unless you narrow the concept to a military post-war union of wealthiest WE and North American states... Which you just did.

Assuming for the moment that it's true that modern Western-style democracies don't attack each other very often, wouldn't it make more sense to say that's because all the countries with that form of government share lots of cultural similarities and don't have the kind of conflicting interests that lead to wars? This looks an awful lot like yet another correlation/causation mistake.

Esquire wrote:Assuming for the moment that it's true that modern Western-style democracies don't attack each other very often, wouldn't it make more sense to say that's because all the countries with that form of government share lots of cultural similarities and don't have the kind of conflicting interests that lead to wars? This looks an awful lot like yet another correlation/causation mistake.

Cultural similarity did not prevent them from gleefully killing each other and some random 'barbarians' in the South and East in both World Wars. It is not culture. But political alliance (NATO) may be a better reason. Unlike preceding rival grous like the Entente/Central Powers, or Allies and Axis, Europe finally was in one bloc only.

Stas Bush wrote:

Thanas wrote:The main question the OP asked is whether democratic peace theory is correct in its observation that democracies rarely attack each other. That is pretty much undeniable to anybody with eyes and anybody who has any grasp about world history, especially the European wars

Wait. So European nations stopped attacking each other for 50 years after the most devastating war in history, and multiple atomic deterrents were created... This means that democracy is the reason for not attacking? WWI puts this claim to shame, since there's little differnce between a 40s and a 1900s European metropole democracy.

There is a huge difference actually, when you look at the nations embroiled in the war. Take for example Germany, which went from having a constitunional monarchy with an overrepresented executive to a presidential dictatorship to fascist to democracy. The differences between the various forms of Government and their power is staggering. In Great Britain, you finally had just one MP representing just one constituency since the 1950s, you had women's suffrage, you had the end of Government censorship, you had wages for representatives etc. In France, they underwent several changes in Government until the fifth republic.

I think horror of WWII and nuclear deterrents stop war. Well, that and common enemies... But only while they last. 'Post 1940s' is an arbitrary cutoff date. Slave-owning democracies are not disqualified because they disenfranchise slaves, no more than Britain could be disenfranchised for lack of universal suffrage. You also coveniently ignored the Israel and Arab democracies example.

The arab "democracies" were no more democratic than the Holy Roman Empire was Holy or Roman.

Too bad for your taste? That's post 1940. By excluding Turkey because it was imperfect, you are showing what a hypocrite you are.

No, I am showing why Turkey and cyprus do not count under that theory. You just don't like it because it does not fit your preconceived and narrow narrative.

Exclusion of Cyprus because it had a coup at that exact moment is irrelevant

No, asshole, it is not irrelevant if there is a military junta ruling the place. Or do you consider Korea a democracy? Or Cuba?

- so did Ukraine, people did not disqualify it. India and Pakistan.

I don't consider Ukraine a democracy with a functioning civil society right now, not with Russia destroying it.
The same does also not apply to India and Pakistan, both of which alternated between dictatorships, military juntas etc.

Yugoslav wars. Democracy is not a panacea against war unless you narrow the concept to a military post-war union of wealthiest WE and North American states... Which you just did.

Japan does apparently not exist in your world? Oh wait, you are just looking for an angle to go all RAAARG IMPERIALISM, as usual.

Have fun trying to forcefeed nations into a theory for which it was not crafted and which were not considered.

Stas Bush wrote: Wait. So European nations stopped attacking each other for 50 years after the most devastating war in history, and multiple atomic deterrents were created... This means that democracy is the reason for not attacking?

This is probably the biggest hole in the theory. In the relatively limited sample size of time we're dealing with, a whole host of factors have come together to prevent a major war. I'm not sure it's easy to disentangle them and say "yeah, it was this one thing".

Thanas wrote:No. Because once you have universal suffrage and a well educated electorate (Zivilgesellschaft, in german) and free press, with free elections on a firm schedule, with no manipulation and due process being served, then you crossed into what is considered to be a modern, "western" democracy.

Indeed. I want to clarify that my issue isn't strictly with the statement 'democracies rarely attack other democracies'. As you said, given this definition of democracy it is a historical fact. It'd be silly to deny it.

And yes, academically it is bad form to ascribe motive to every single person wondering about why it is so that democracies are less likely to make war on each other. It's entirely likely that a great many of the people pondering this matter are legitimate scholars, and I'm doing them a disservice. But I've read enough numbers of Foreign Affairs to be deeply suspicious of any conclusions drawn from this one fact, and even moreso of the actions that will be taken based on those conclusions. I know where it may lead, because we've seen that destination in the very recent past.

You brought up that Stalin using Marx's ideas to justify the holodomor shouldn't discredit communism. I'd argue that it's at the very least a reason to be wary of the next guy to use those same ideas to justify something. What this next person is saying might be perfectly sensible, but he might also be the next Iosif Vissarionovich. Caution is therefore in order.

Thanas wrote:There is a huge difference actually, when you look at the nations embroiled in the war. Take for example Germany, which went from having a constitunional monarchy with an overrepresented executive to a presidential dictatorship to fascist to democracy. The differences between the various forms of Government and their power is staggering. In Great Britain, you finally had just one MP representing just one constituency since the 1950s, you had women's suffrage, you had the end of Government censorship, you had wages for representatives etc. In France, they underwent several changes in Government until the fifth republic.

Constitutional monarchies either qualify or they do not. Abitrarily declaring that Britain qualifies after 1940 but didn't qualify in 1914 is the apex of bullshit. It basically means a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Thanas wrote:The arab "democracies" were no more democratic than the Holy Roman Empire was Holy or Roman.

I didn't expect to have this racist shit here from you Thanas. So Lebanon is not, de-facto, a working democracy (which is, by and large, accepted even by Western powers which are known for their hostility to the Middle East, their centuries-lasting racism and xenophobia!), while the British Empire is?

Thanas wrote:No, I am showing why Turkey and cyprus do not count under that theory. You just don't like it because it does not fit your preconceived and narrow narrative.

I see no reason to disqualify a nation just because it had imperfect suffrage and/or lackluster civil liberties. Unlike Britain or France, Turkey had no colonial empire to speak of and had a democratic history well on par with some European nations. In fact most of Southern Europe was just a bunch of dictatorships and petty lil facists by the time Turkey was democratic for quite a whilte.

Thanas wrote:No, asshole, it is not irrelevant if there is a military junta ruling the place. Or do you consider Korea a democracy? Or Cuba?

The nationalist coup lasted 5 days before Turkey invaded. That's less than some nations last without a parliament.

Thanas wrote:The same does also not apply to India and Pakistan, both of which alternated between dictatorships, military juntas etc.

Oh nice, so when you have a poor democracy which is still a lot more democratic than any of the colonial empires that opressed a huge fraction of their population to an extent that eventually these populations simply separated, then it does not qualify. I get it. India doesn't qualify (world's largest functional democracy) because it would harm the theory. So practice be damned, and theory rule supreme.

Thanas wrote:Japan does apparently not exist in your world?

How would a conflict between Japan and a non-colonial European power come to be? Needless to remind you Japan is not a member of NATO. So I excluded it. So what?

Thanas wrote:Have fun trying to forcefeed nations into a theory for which it was not crafted and which were not considered

Your theory's stupid then, because it arbitrarily cuts off nations that have functional democratic institutions (or at least way more functional than those in the 1940s and 1950s Europe, pardon me!), but are not rich. Sorry. After your rant about how Arabs somehow don't qualify cause ...? - I feel no reason to participate in this discussion any further.

Stas Bush wrote:

Esquire wrote:Assuming for the moment that it's true that modern Western-style democracies don't attack each other very often, wouldn't it make more sense to say that's because all the countries with that form of government share lots of cultural similarities and don't have the kind of conflicting interests that lead to wars? This looks an awful lot like yet another correlation/causation mistake.

Cultural similarity did not prevent them from gleefully killing each other and some random 'barbarians' in the South and East in both World Wars. It is not culture. But political alliance (NATO) may be a better reason. Unlike preceding rival grous like the Entente/Central Powers, or Allies and Axis, Europe finally was in one bloc only.

I thought we were saying modern democracies started after the Second World War? But yes, all the major nations being allied probably has something to do with it too.

Firstly, if the democratic peace theory or some variation is used to justify some action, then a case can certainly be made that this may be a reason this belief persists. As per criteria two of my OP. I must admit I didn't think of this reason when I wrote the OP but Siege and Stas certainly got me thinking about it. Just as scientific racism persists in the minds of racists even though its utter bullshit, it does so because it helps justify (in their minds) the behaviour of racists, I think there is something to be said that this theory persists because it justify the actions of various geopolitical actors.

Now Thanas may cringe with reason if some people use the democratic peace theory as a justification and say that its not meant to be used in such a manner, but the fact remains, people do. George W Bush with his neo-imperialistic invasion of Iraq used a variation of the theory after he failed to find WMDs, which was the original justification.

"And the reason why I'm so strong on democracy is democracies don't go to war with each other. And the reason why is the people of most societies don't like war, and they understand what war means.... I've got great faith in democracies to promote peace. And that's why I'm such a strong believer that the way forward in the Middle East, the broader Middle East, is to promote democracy."

Now the question is, is it fair to use the theory as a justification. That is if we believe the theory, can it lead to certain behaviours. I would argue to a limited extent. Unlike say the very weak link to go from Darwin's theory to scientific racism, I would argue the democratic peace theory has a stronger link to the behaviours I will outline shortly. If you believe the democratic peace theory, you can draw the following 2 conclusions.

a. Its more beneficial to the world for more countries to become a "true democracy" ie those after WWII.

Note this does not automatically follow that it is beneficial to promote it by force. This is because we don't know the costs vs benefits of doing so. While there are zealots who won't care about the costs of overthrowing a government and replacing it with a "democracy" ala Iraq, there are people who are not. If the cost in lives for example are immense, some people would not try to use force and try to set an example to promote democracy. I thus feel George W Bush went from a leap in this justification, although I can see why someone might think that if you believe the democratic peace theory.. However...

b. We can also conclude that non "true democracies" are more likely to wage war on a "true democratic" country.

This is simply a logical conclusion based from your theory. What this means that you will generally be more suspicious of a non democratic country or hostile towards it even though they could theoretically have an isolationist policy which puts the Time Lords of Gallifrey to shame.

How many times have we hyped up say the Chinese threat with the justification that they are not a democracy even though in the last 3 to 4 decades the true democracies have objectively waged more wars than the non democratic country. Why are these countries being talked about as a big threat when its the "true democracies" who waged war. This is frankly quite perverse and I don't see how useful it is to exaggerate the threat posed by someone. Unless you are in the military industrial complex.

Shouldn't the actions of non democratic countries in waging war be a more important guide? But don't worry, we will get Jeremy Paxman bullshit by saying "ah, but that's because their military isn't strong enough yet." Unfalsifiable for the win.

Now this brings me to the second point. The validity of the theory itself. If we accept claim that "true democracies" only emerged after WWII we still run into several problems.

a. Its a fucking no true scotsman fallacy.

Its like saying Christians don't do bad things. Hitler did bad things. Hitler was a Catholic. Well Catholics aren't true Christians, thus the original statement holds true.

If a democratic country breaks the premise of the democratic peace theory, well they aren't "true democracies". I bet you under these criteria Russia and Georgia aren't true democracies either so the 2008 war doesn't count. I also going to bet Russia and Ukraine aren't true democracies and Russia's seizure of the Crimea isn't really a "true war" because the Ukraine military chose not to engage (as per Rudolph J Rummel definitions).

Lets just slide the definitions slide.

b. You will have very small sample sizes to make do your analysis.

i) Given that "true democracies" only existed since WWII thus most of human history would have governments which are not "true democracies" whether they include the "proto democracies" in classical times or the monarchies which persisted into the modern period.

ii) If you can redefined democracies how you like it, I can contend under Rummel's own definitions that some countries like the US won't be counted as a "true democracy" given their blatant human right violations. In fact, since Thanas believes capital punishment is a human right violation, thus under this criteria, Japan, the US, India, Singapore etc would not be a "true democracy".

I am sure if we can dig harder we could find cases even in Europe, except perhaps maybe the Scandinavian countries. The point is, under these criteria our sample size becomes even smaller, which makes such analysis questionable.

In short, there are several examples which on the surface invalidate the "democracies don't wage war on each other" meme, but if you counter this by redefining war and democracy, then you run into the problem of just reducing your sample size greatly.

Vaporous wrote:

Stas Bush wrote: Wait. So European nations stopped attacking each other for 50 years after the most devastating war in history, and multiple atomic deterrents were created... This means that democracy is the reason for not attacking?

This is probably the biggest hole in the theory. In the relatively limited sample size of time we're dealing with, a whole host of factors have come together to prevent a major war. I'm not sure it's easy to disentangle them and say "yeah, it was this one thing".

Good thing nobody is actually saying that then. Democratic peace theory quite easily acknowledges that it is only one of many things that can prevent a war or make it more unlikely.

Siege wrote:

Thanas wrote:No. Because once you have universal suffrage and a well educated electorate (Zivilgesellschaft, in german) and free press, with free elections on a firm schedule, with no manipulation and due process being served, then you crossed into what is considered to be a modern, "western" democracy.

Indeed. I want to clarify that my issue isn't strictly with the statement 'democracies rarely attack other democracies'. As you said, given this definition of democracy it is a historical fact. It'd be silly to deny it.

And yes, academically it is bad form to ascribe motive to every single person wondering about why it is so that democracies are less likely to make war on each other. It's entirely likely that a great many of the people pondering this matter are legitimate scholars, and I'm doing them a disservice. But I've read enough numbers of Foreign Affairs to be deeply suspicious of any conclusions drawn from this one fact, and even moreso of the actions that will be taken based on those conclusions. I know where it may lead, because we've seen that destination in the very recent past.

You brought up that Stalin using Marx's ideas to justify the holodomor shouldn't discredit communism. I'd argue that it's at the very least a reason to be wary of the next guy to use those same ideas to justify something. What this next person is saying might be perfectly sensible, but he might also be the next Iosif Vissarionovich. Caution is therefore in order.

That is fair, but honestly, when discussing the merits of a theory then it would be best to discuss the theory in its purest form first and then go about what people use it for. You can still say that while a theory might be correct its current implication is one to be wary of.

Stas Bush wrote:

Thanas wrote:There is a huge difference actually, when you look at the nations embroiled in the war. Take for example Germany, which went from having a constitunional monarchy with an overrepresented executive to a presidential dictatorship to fascist to democracy. The differences between the various forms of Government and their power is staggering. In Great Britain, you finally had just one MP representing just one constituency since the 1950s, you had women's suffrage, you had the end of Government censorship, you had wages for representatives etc. In France, they underwent several changes in Government until the fifth republic.

Constitutional monarchies either qualify or they do not. Abitrarily declaring that Britain qualifies after 1940 but didn't qualify in 1914 is the apex of bullshit. It basically means a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Oh yay, the patented tactic of Stas latching on to a word and then going off the cliff. No, constitutional monarchies like the German Empire do not count for the examples of modern democracies because last I checked, in modern democracies you do not have the president/head of state saying "Our nation is lost if I cannot get the parliament to agree with means of a single company of soldiers" or threaten outright executions if he does not get his wish. You also do not have the military dictate the political aims of the country during war, nor do you have the military create a defacto dictatorship.

I didn't expect to have this racist shit here from you Thanas. So Lebanon is not, de-facto, a working democracy (which is, by and large, accepted even by Western powers which are known for their hostility to the Middle East, their centuries-lasting racism and xenophobia!), while the British Empire is?

No, having a terrorist group being in defacto control of half the country does not make that country a modern democracy, Stas. But as you are already throwing out racism allegations, how about you justify your love for the Hezbollah?

I see no reason to disqualify a nation just because it had imperfect suffrage and/or lackluster civil liberties. Unlike Britain or France, Turkey had no colonial empire to speak of and had a democratic history well on par with some European nations.

I would argue that Northern Cyprus is pretty much a textbook example of colonialism. Turkey also started with a genocide, massive ehtnic repression, ethnic cleansing, aggressive wars against their neighbours etc. And yes, suffrage and civil liberties count for this theory is kinda important as the whole point of it is that due to free discourse and exchange of ideas (guess what you need for that) it limits the aggression between democracies.

In fact most of Southern Europe was just a bunch of dictatorships and petty lil facists by the time Turkey was democratic for quite a whilte.

And thus they would not qualify either.

The nationalist coup lasted 5 days before Turkey invaded. That's less than some nations last without a parliament

And without Turkey attacking them there is no reason to assume it would not have lasted longer due to support form the Greek junta.

Oh nice, so when you have a poor democracy which is still a lot more democratic than any of the colonial empires that opressed a huge fraction of their population to an extent that eventually these populations simply separated, then it does not qualify. I get it. India doesn't qualify (world's largest functional democracy) because it would harm the theory. So practice be damned, and theory rule supreme.

And you did note that India in recent times has not engaged in wars with democracies, yes?

Thanas wrote:Japan does apparently not exist in your world?

How would a conflict between Japan and a non-colonial European power come to be? Needless to remind you Japan is not a member of NATO. So I excluded it. So what?

Because it is a democracy, which has not gone to war with other democracies or any other state. But mostly I just listed them because you claimed that no non-western country would ever qualify under the criteria used here, but that is quite clearly nothing but a poor attempt at frantically calling your opposition racist or fascist, because Japan quite clearly qualifies.

Your theory's stupid then, because it arbitrarily cuts off nations that have functional democratic institutions (or at least way more functional than those in the 1940s and 1950s Europe, pardon me!), but are not rich. Sorry. After your rant about how Arabs somehow don't qualify cause ...? - I feel no reason to participate in this discussion any further.

Good, the quality of the discussion can only be enhanced then.

mr friendly guy wrote:Firstly, if the democratic peace theory or some variation is used to justify some action, then a case can certainly be made that this may be a reason this belief persists. As per criteria two of my OP. I must admit I didn't think of this reason when I wrote the OP but Siege and Stas certainly got me thinking about it. Just as scientific racism persists in the minds of racists even though its utter bullshit, it does so because it helps justify (in their minds) the behaviour of racists, I think there is something to be said that this theory persists because it justify the actions of various geopolitical actors.

Popularity among idiots has never been a reason to dispute the worth or validity of theories. If it were, evolution should be considered the worst theory ever out there considering the amount of harm it caused due to people not understanding it (social darwinism, colonialism, civilization theory etc.)

Now Thanas may cringe with reason if some people use the democratic peace theory as a justification and say that its not meant to be used in such a manner, but the fact remains, people do. George W Bush with his neo-imperialistic invasion of Iraq used a variation of the theory after he failed to find WMDs, which was the original justification.

George Bush used almost everything out there and the kitchen sink to justify his politics, using theories he did not understand beyond some buzzwords and most likely he just namedropped them in a pathetic attempt to seem smart or justify his actions. Bush using a theory is the same as Hitler using survival of the fittest as justificaiton of the jews - it should be discounted as idiotic per se and not being considered a reflection of the theory.

In any case, even if we assume that this was his intent - to reduce war by turning Iraq into a democracy (which I don't believe a bit) - then he seriously failed to understand even the basic premise of the theory, that of discussion and exchange between nations. As a democratic Iraq would have been surrounded by autocracies I fail to see how that would have even been possible.

Now the question is, is it fair to use the theory as a justification. That is if we believe the theory, can it lead to certain behaviours. I would argue to a limited extent. Unlike say the very weak link to go from Darwin's theory to scientific racism, I would argue the democratic peace theory has a stronger link to the behaviours I will outline shortly. If you believe the democratic peace theory, you can draw the following 2 conclusions.

a. Its more beneficial to the world for more countries to become a "true democracy" ie those after WWII.

Note this does not automatically follow that it is beneficial to promote it by force. This is because we don't know the costs vs benefits of doing so. While there are zealots who won't care about the costs of overthrowing a government and replacing it with a "democracy" ala Iraq, there are people who are not. If the cost in lives for example are immense, some people would not try to use force and try to set an example to promote democracy. I thus feel George W Bush went from a leap in this justification, although I can see why someone might think that if you believe the democratic peace theory.. However...

Agreed.

b. We can also conclude that non "true democracies" are more likely to wage war on a "true democratic" country.

This is simply a logical conclusion based from your theory. What this means that you will generally be more suspicious of a non democratic country or hostile towards it even though they could theoretically have an isolationist policy which puts the Time Lords of Gallifrey to shame.

I would say that suspicion in general depends on a lot of factors, of which this theory might enhance some perceptions or not. After all, proponents of democracies have no qualms about dealing most dictatorships. Heck, not even Europeans are unwilling to deal with dictatorships. And just speaking from a personal point of view, I as a civilian would automatically be more wary of any state that is not accountable to its people simply because they might decide to disappear me without me having a say about it.

Besides, the theory is mainly a reflection of the fact that democracies have used treaties and diplomatic process to bury resentment and resolve territorial disputes, whereas dictatorships generally do not. Even "enlightened" dictatorships like China and Vietnam are currently involved in BS disputes about some islands instead of resolving the things through decades of rapproachment and conciliation. Dictatorships generally do not give up significant territorial claims like, say, Germany and France did with the Saarland and Alsace-Lorraine. Instead these are kept, like in the case of China and Vietnam.

How many times have we hyped up say the Chinese threat with the justification that they are not a democracy even though in the last 3 to 4 decades the true democracies have objectively waged more wars than the non democratic country. Why are these countries being talked about as a big threat when its the "true democracies" who waged war. This is frankly quite perverse and I don't see how useful it is to exaggerate the threat posed by someone. Unless you are in the military industrial complex.

I don't see this theory being that important in threat assesments. If it were, Europe would not be currently in talks with Asian dictatorships to expand their business. The chinese threat largely seems to exist in the mind of the USA as well and even then it is more the fear of losing regional supremacy than anything about a democracy. And quite frankly, I am pretty sure dictatorships have a much better propaganda apparatus to sow the fear of the west.

Shouldn't the actions of non democratic countries in waging war be a more important guide?

Sure. That doesn't bode too well for China though, what with their internal and external wars. It bodes less well for the USA, but it is not as if one nation would get off squeaky clean here.

Now this brings me to the second point. The validity of the theory itself. If we accept claim that "true democracies" only emerged after WWII we still run into several problems.

a. Its a fucking no true scotsman fallacy.

Its like saying Christians don't do bad things. Hitler did bad things. Hitler was a Catholic. Well Catholics aren't true Christians, thus the original statement holds true.

If a democratic country breaks the premise of the democratic peace theory, well they aren't "true democracies". I bet you under these criteria Russia and Georgia aren't true democracies either so the 2008 war doesn't count. I also going to bet Russia and Ukraine aren't true democracies and Russia's seizure of the Crimea isn't really a "true war" because the Ukraine military chose not to engage (as per Rudolph J Rummel definitions).

Do you consider Putin's Russia a democracy? I don't. I also probably would not count the Ukraine as a democracy right now.
However, I would disagree that if a democratic country breaks the premise of the theory then that it is not a true democracy. But no modern democracies have ever fought a war against each other, so at least the basic premise seems to be correct.

i) Given that "true democracies" only existed since WWII thus most of human history would have governments which are not "true democracies" whether they include the "proto democracies" in classical times or the monarchies which persisted into the modern period.

correct.

ii) If you can redefined democracies how you like it, I can contend under Rummel's own definitions that some countries like the US won't be counted as a "true democracy" given their blatant human right violations. In fact, since Thanas believes capital punishment is a human right violation, thus under this criteria, Japan, the US, India, Singapore etc would not be a "true democracy".

I don't believe capital punishment is a human rights violation. Where have I said so? I have said I don't believe in it and consider it immoral, but last i checked being immoral =/= human rights violation.

In short, there are several examples which on the surface invalidate the "democracies don't wage war on each other" meme, but if you counter this by redefining war and democracy, then you run into the problem of just reducing your sample size greatly.

The theory was - as far as I understand it - only crafted to be applicable to the modern world and specifically to ask the question why we have not seen a war despite the many disputes between democracies.

Just to be clear that people don't think of me as some great defender of that theory, here is how I would and have critiqued it:
- while it is true that a democratic process can help states to become more friendly to each other, it might also have negative effects if populists get elected
- The time frame is too small and there are too many external and internal factors to really bookmark the impact of any factor, whether it be economic, political etc. to be declared more important.
- It is - as of now - unverifiable.
- Democracies are not the only ones thriving for peace. Bismarck, an autocrat, always sought conciliatory war goals in those wars he did fight. After his victory over France, he alone kept the peace in Europe for close to 30 years whereas other (elected, if not democratic in the modern sense) leaders tried to entice another war.
- Modern democracies of this day are so entangled in webs of alliances and mutual dependencies that one would be a great nutjob to start a war with another modern democracy.
- As the theory does not advocate for violent regime change, all it does is reinforce the importance of soft power, which people already know about. Thus, it is not that necessary except to provide one more reason why democracies are good. But if you want to promote democracy, I bet that "don't want to go to war with them" is kinda redundant to "let's stop human rights abuses" and "give the people a voice".

But I would not critique it with imperialism nor claim that it is false outright. The basic observation they make is correct, after all.

Like I expected, cheap tricks ('terrorists! Rah!') has been employed to discredit the reality of popular support for Hezbollah that was achieved through elections, just as the democratic support for HAMAS is ignored here cause terrists. Which once again underscores, just as with Palestine, that democracy alone cannot stop over-arching ethnic conflicts. But since this racist wankfest about democratic Israel fighting dirty 'undemocrats slash unpersons' in Lebanon is allowed to continue, I'm walking out. Was nice to see the depths of dishonesty that people will fall to in order to save their theory. Creationists would be proud.

What about those times the West used underhanded means to get rid of democratically elected people it didn't like in other states and replaced them with more pliable dicators? Like Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran?

Stas Bush wrote:Like I expected, cheap tricks ('terrorists! Rah!') has been employed to discredit the reality of popular support for Hezbollah that was achieved through elections, just as the democratic support for HAMAS is ignored here cause terrists. Which once again underscores, just as with Palestine, that democracy alone cannot stop over-arching ethnic conflicts.

Just because an idea or movement enjoys popular support does not make it a modern democracy. Just because people win elections does not make their country a democracy. Hitler won a lot of German elections yet his Germany clearly was not democratic. Hisbollah wins elections but their territory is not a modern democracy.

But since this racist wankfest about democratic Israel fighting dirty 'undemocrats slash unpersons' in Lebanon is allowed to continue

Fuck off. You know where I stand on Israel, you know what I think of their policies and ethnic cleansing. Yet you continue to slander and lie about me wanting to cheer on Israel despite having better knowledge about my stance just because you are unable to engage honestly on this issue.

I thought better of you.

, I'm walking out. Was nice to see the depths of dishonesty that people will fall to in order to save their theory. Creationists would be proud.

I am not even going to dignify that with a response.

****************

Metahive wrote:What about those times the West used underhanded means to get rid of democratically elected people it didn't like in other states and replaced them with more pliable dicators? Like Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran?

That is a valid criticism of this theory and bravo to you by bringing it up instead of engaging in shitflinging. Indeed, this is one of the better examples of a democracy (another even better one would be Allende / Pinochet, as there you had an even better case of a western democracy attacking. Even if one were to argue that those were not modern democracies, the fact is that they were on their way there before being stopped by other western powers. I don't know how people answer that, as I said I am not a proponent of the theory. My guess is that they would argue that either the context of the cold war or the fact that imperialism is not dead yet would be the answer, furthermore they would also probably claim that they only claim that democracies "rarely" attack each other. But I don't know if this has ever been brought up or rebutted.