Democracies rarely attack other democracies (historically)

[Siege]

That would indeed by the logical conclusion, and one I think I actually could support: the most fully realized democracies are those that have all the trappings we associate with a modern democratic state, and haven't used military power to undemocratically force their will on states or people not represented in their system. Other states can still be democracies, but they aren't quite 'up there yet' in terms of their qualifications.

I suppose at some point you'd then have to start thinking about things like how a state's economic power fits into it or headache-inducing questions like how democratically legitimate a government is if less than 50% of voters actually turn out to vote, but as a broad statement I can get behind that conclusion.

You're right of course that this seems to have very little to do with the original theory.

[K. A. Pital]

As long as there is universal suffrage, i.e, the possibility of expressing your will in elections, low participation does not automatically make it undemocratic. Having gender and/or property qualifications, however, does.

[Thanas]

I see you are still unable to find proof for your lies regarding my support for Israel.

Your support manifested right here in your pathetic slandering Arab democracies. Nothing else is needed. Your mockery, your derison of the Middle East as incapable of modern democracy and yet listing all the genocidal colonial powers as 'true democracies' shows just what kind of a person you are.

Really now, Stas? Just because somebody makes a funny comment about something then suddenly he is a fascist supporting Israel? That is pathetic. I mean, I could easily go Stas supports genocide and it would be equally valid. Face it - you got nothing for my support of Israel. Heck, not even the joke which went over your stupid head several times says so. The best an idiot could interpret from that is that I don't hold a high opinion of arab states. Support for Israel however does not follow even from that.

I demand proof of my statements cheering on Israel.

You have been warned two times to put up or concede the point. Your persistent refusal to do so is not only against the rules, it is unbecoming conduct for you as a mod as well.

I will not let your lies about my position on Israel stand.

This is why I wonder if the DPT even is a true theory, or just a ruse to salvage what's left of the obviously failed idea that a democracy can never be an aggressor cause people will never vote for war except for self-defense. And that's why I'm so angry with Thanas - because saying the nation somehow involved in a war suddely is no longer a 'true' democracy is exactly the type of narrative that is employed by the militaristic media to exclude nations that happen to fall under the war hammer of a more developed country, from the list of democracies, thereby making them 'fair game'.

I have never been in favor of military adventurism. Search my posting history for me cheering on an invasion and you will come up empty. Also, I never said that a nation somehow involved in a war is suddenly no longer a true democracy. I said that it would depend on if they met the criteria before committing to a war.

[K. A. Pital]

Did I say you cheered Israel? No. I said your derison of Arab democracy was racist. I see no reason to think otherwise, as you continously said postWW2 WE metropoles are true democracies while ridiculing even the very words 'Arab democracy'.

[TheHammer]

Did I say you cheered Israel? No. I said your derison of Arab democracy was racist. I see no reason to think otherwise, as you continously said postWW2 WE metropoles are true democracies while ridiculing even the very words 'Arab democracy'.

I'd say that's more along the lines of cultural elitism than racism. There is a significant difference between the two terms.

[Thanas]

Did I say you cheered Israel? No. I said your derison of Arab democracy was racist. I see no reason to think otherwise, as you continously said postWW2 WE metropoles are true democracies while ridiculing even the very words 'Arab democracy'.

But since this racist wankfest about democratic Israel fighting dirty 'undemocrats slash unpersons' in Lebanon is allowed to continue, I'm walking out.

If that is not at least implicitly saying that I claim Israel to be worth more than Lebanon, who I apparently consider unpersons (and don't kid me, you know full well what that word means) then you really need some remedial language classes.

[K. A. Pital]

Did I say you cheered Israel? No. I said your derison of Arab democracy was racist. I see no reason to think otherwise, as you continously said postWW2 WE metropoles are true democracies while ridiculing even the very words 'Arab democracy'.

But since this racist wankfest about democratic Israel fighting dirty 'undemocrats slash unpersons' in Lebanon is allowed to continue, I'm walking out.

If that is not at least implicitly saying that I claim Israel to be worth more than Lebanon, who I apparently consider unpersons (and don't kid me, you know full well what that word means) then you really need some remedial language classes.

If you want me to apologize for mistaking your anti-Arab position for a pro-Israeli one, I will. And it is a sincere apology: I will admit my error, since just one post later you said Israel isn't truly democratic for you too. But I still think this is bullshit.

Your touting of Japan as a democracy while at the same time saying Lebanon isn't one (in 1982 Hezbollah, btw, was a marginal force without political representation, and guess why that changed?) belies the elitism, if not racism. Japan was controlled by one party for most of its existence - a party known to be about as xenophobic and reactionary as Switzerland's right-wing parties, what with the treatment of foreign migrants and the idea that women deserve little rights if any persisting way into the latter half of the XX century. Is that 'pluralism'? Is that 'democracy' because neither of the nations attacked another nation nearby? Hell - Jordan may be just as 'democratic' as this, and it was part of the Arab-Israeli conflict for a long time, pretty much like Lebanon.

You're are more honest than the original proponents of the theory who tried to reconcile male-only or propertied-only suffrage with the idea of democracy and then continously ignore non-fitting conflicts. This does not save it. Democracy does not stop war. Democratic support of a single-party rule for 50 years is 'democratic' if the state in question doesn't go to war. But lest there be even a fraction of the population who vote for a party which goes to war later! The state is suddenly not democratic any more.

If you don't see a problem here then my time is truly wasted. Think what you will about the Middle East and Europe: fact is, when the conflict is long and ethnically-culturally driven (meaning: more than merely a territorial dispute!), no amount of shouting 'but democracy!' will stop it. Just as democracy did not stop the war between Turks and Kurds, and it cannot stop the long war between Arabs and Israel despite being introduced there successfully (or at least with greater success than in many other parts of the world that claim to be originators of democracy).

You can say that peace is a precondition for democracy since it cannot develop in war; but in this case the theory is reversed. Peace - international, intranational, regional - is paramount; democracy then follows. However, this theory is only slightly better because it is also wrong. The precondition for democracy in the colonies was their liberation - through resistance, which often entailed war, be it low- or high-intensity. And yet, many created a viable democracy after getting formal independence.

[Panzersharkcat]

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on hegemonic stability theory? I have heard of it as an alternative theory to democratic peace theory. The gist of it, if I read it correctly, is that empires don't let their vassal states fight each other. Examples from the Cold War were the peace between Korea and Japan in the American sphere and East Germany and Poland in the Soviet sphere. It sounds plausible on the surface but I don't know enough to say more.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

They are bad examples. The defining trait of the Cold War was the US-SU competition, so as important as the presence of a hegemon was, the presence of another hegemon to provide a common enemy is at least equally important. Even hegemons can't keep the peace eternally if they can't keep their vassals together, and you can't keep your vassals together if there is no foreigner to keep them preoccupied.

There is, however, the smell of terrible bullshit all about these theories. Their examples are often cherrypicked, their reasoning is often faulty, but the conclusions always leave glowing implications for the current US military dominance. What I'm saying is, they seem less like actual political theories and more like self-serving justifications and attempts to pass the US off as a benevolent dictator; it dovetails nicely with America's line that they are more humane than the hegemons that came before. I have no problem with propaganda, but I want to recognize it and clinically debate it rather than believe in it.