"There has never been a war between two genuine democracies."

[ImaginalDisc]

This site, by a patholigist with varied interests, including role playing games, contains a long essay prefacing his section on violent injuries which is a really interesting piece to read, even if you don't agree with everything he says.

www.pathguy.com

It included one phrase which jumped out at me, and I don't know if it's true, "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies."

The Nazis were democratically elected, for one thing. Think this is a fair assessment, or a No True Scottsman fallacy?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

This site, by a patholigist with varied interests, including role playing games, contains a long essay prefacing his section on violent injuries which is a really interesting piece to read, even if you don't agree with everything he says.

www.pathguy.com

It included one phrase which jumped out at me, and I don't know if it's true, "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies."

The Nazis were democratically elected, for one thing. Think this is a fair assessment, or a No True Scottsman fallacy?

Finland and the Allies during WW II.

[drkitten]

It included one phrase which jumped out at me, and I don't know if it's true, "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies."

The Nazis were democratically elected, for one thing. Think this is a fair assessment, or a No True Scottsman fallacy?

It's a No True Scotsman fallacy. The American Civil War, for example, was between two halves of the same democracy, so the original author will need to explain why South Carolina was a democracy in 1859, but not in 1862, without changing its government. Similarly, the War of 1812 was between the United States and Great Britain, a parliamentary democracy.

[Mid]

Didn't the UK declare war on Finland in WW2?

Having checked wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

Don't think there was any fighting as such though

ETA: Beaten by Jaggy Bunnet, drat.

[andyandy]

technically Japan and Russia are still at war......

[Mid]

But there is another handy list on wikipedia that you may be interested in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_possible_exceptions_to_democratic_peace_th eory

[Cleon]

The "Nazis were democratically elected" bit is a long-held myth, to be perfectly honest.

They did participate in elections, but even at their strongest they only gained about 37% of the vote. In November, 1932, the "final" election only had them at 33%. It was von Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler as chancellor that really ushered in their rise to power; the SA essentially strong-armed the Reichstag into approving Hitler's "emergency powers" and the rest, as they say, is history.

As for "there has never been a war between two democracies," well, as always it depends on how you define "democracy." For example, certain forumites were celebtrating the words of Anatoly ("Natan") Sharanksy, an Israeli MK who declared that "the democracy that hates you is less dangerous than the dictator who loves you." Mysteriously, this philosophy fell by the wayside when the Palestinians elected Hamas in free and fair elections.

Another example is Hugo Chavez; his election (and re-election) was observed by international monitors who declared the polling to be open and fair. However, that little fact is inconvenient, so it's taken as "fact" among right-wing commentators that Chavez rigged the election somehow.

There has always been a minority of governments considered sufficiently democratic, especially when it comes time for war. For example, the Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I had two Parliaments (one for Austria, one for Hungary) that held power with a limited-power monarchy.

Then there is the ever-murky question of the US Civil War. The question of slavery aside, a case could be made that both the Confederates and the Union were nominally "democratic" in that elected representatives were the decision-makers.

[pchams]

What's a "true" democracy?
Just askin'......

[ImaginalDisc]

The "Nazis were democratically elected" bit is a long-held myth, to be perfectly honest.

Oh. Good point on that one. I'll take that one back.

Here's another weird one he has about criminality.

However, his site is really great overall. It's a treasure trove of medical information, it's just seasoned here and there with his political opinions. A few traits of career criminals are well-known: (1) they socialized poorly as kids; (2) they were poorly supervised by their parents; (3) they are sensation-seekers and continually seek new excitement; (4) by any reasonable definition, they are racists; (5) they drink alcohol; (6) they have never been seriously interested in serious religion; (7) they suffer less from a bad conscience than do the rest of us. I would have added (8) they are demanding of everyone except themselves; career criminals are the worst crybabies. Most criminals learn early to cite past wrongs (personal, ancestral) to gain sympathy and special privileges. There's a review in Nature 368, 111, 1994.

[Mike B.]

The "Nazis were democratically elected" bit is a long-held myth, to be perfectly honest.

They did participate in elections, but even at their strongest they only gained about 37% of the vote. In November, 1932, the "final" election only had them at 33%. It was von Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler as chancellor that really ushered in their rise to power; the SA essentially strong-armed the Reichstag into approving Hitler's "emergency powers" and the rest, as they say, is history.


Thank you.

This fallacy will be trotted out until doomsday I am sure, but it is nice every now and then to see it rebutted.

[Mike B.]

There are exceptions or quasi-exceptions.

But wouldn't it be safe to say that liberal democracies in general don't fight each other?

[MilwaukeeMike]

It included one phrase which jumped out at me, and I don't know if it's true, "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies."

The Nazis were democratically elected, for one thing. Think this is a fair assessment, or a No True Scottsman fallacy?

Technically the United States is not a 100% true democracy, its a Republic. Check the constitution.

[Leif Roar]

What's a "true" democracy?
Just askin'......

In this context I'd say it's a representative democracy where the constituency is general (there's no significant group of the population excluded) and where it has the actual power to choose its representatives.

[ImaginalDisc]

Technically the United States is not a 100% true democracy, its a Republic. Check the constitution.
Look, I agree. I'm just repeating what the guy with the M.D. said.

[JamesDillon]

There are exceptions or quasi-exceptions.

But wouldn't it be safe to say that liberal democracies in general don't fight each other?
Liberal democracy has only been around for a couple hundred years, and I think there are enough exceptions in that brief span of time to suggest that the general principle is probably not accurate.

[MilwaukeeMike]

I know, democracy is just such a broad statement that maybe they need to define what they mean by it. Or list certain government types. I mean, there are some pretty shady governments that are "Democracies".

[drkitten]

There are exceptions or quasi-exceptions.

But wouldn't it be safe to say that liberal democracies in general don't fight each other?

Well, yeah. And similarly, if you ignore all the exceptions or quasi-exceptions, the Chicago Cubs in general are a winning baseball team.

"Liberal democracies" are a relateively recent phenomenon; most of the "democracies" in the world today are less than 100 years old, and almost any of them can be argued to be "exceptional" (e.g. the US isn't a democracy, it's a republic -- and of course Great Britain isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy, and Switzerland is a confederation, and Canada is actually a colony of a foreign head of state,....).

Which suggests that throwing out all the exceptions and quasi-exceptions is cherry-picking, pure and simple.

[yinyinwang]

Mysteriously, this philosophy fell by the wayside when the Palestinians elected Hamas in free and fair elections.

They did start fighting before that free and fair election.

[Dave1001]

It may also be true that there has never been a war between two genuine fascist states, and that there has never been a war between two genuine islamic theocracies.

[yinyinwang]

It may also be true that there has never been a war between two genuine fascist states, and that there has never been a war between two genuine islamic theocracies.
Nazi/soviet

[Dave1001]

Nazi/soviet

A good case can be made that the Soviets weren't fascist. Certainly fascists didn't think so.

[Mike B.]

Well, yeah. And similarly, if you ignore all the exceptions or quasi-exceptions, the Chicago Cubs in general are a winning baseball team.

"Liberal democracies" are a relateively recent phenomenon; most of the "democracies" in the world today are less than 100 years old, and almost any of them can be argued to be "exceptional" (e.g. the US isn't a democracy, it's a republic -- and of course Great Britain isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy, and Switzerland is a confederation, and Canada is actually a colony of a foreign head of state,....).

Which suggests that throwing out all the exceptions and quasi-exceptions is cherry-picking, pure and simple.

Totally false assumptions here.

You are arguing something different.
The question is whether liberal democracies are more apt to not fight each other than other forms of government.
Look at trends.

Your Chicago Cubs comment is completely off the point.

[drkitten]

It may also be true that there has never been a war between two genuine fascist states, and that there has never been a war between two genuine islamic theocracies.

Given that in the entire course of world history, there has been exactly one "genuine fascist state" (Mussolini's Italy), it would have been irregular for there to have been a war between two of them.

Similarly -- how many genuine Islamic theocracies have there been in world history? Iran is probably theocratic, since the government is officially supervised by a pair of clerical offices. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a theocracy. The Taliban, as a group of clerics, arguably established a theocracy in Afghanistan. I could make a case for Mahdist Sudan in the 19th century, and for 7th century Mecca under Muhammad.

[drkitten]

Totally false assumptions here.


Yes, starting with your assumption that you can cherry-pick away the exceptions and therefore establish the rule.



The question is whether liberal democracies are more apt to not fight each other than other forms of government.

No, that's a question. There are also several other questions that are relevant at that level of analysis, such as the question about whether two countries both being liberal democracies are a cause or an effect of their being close enough politically to not fight each other, and whether this is a function of the current geo-political situation (i.e. the reason that we don't see western monarchies fighting western monarchies any more is because there aren't any left.)

But the question is :

"Is the statement ""There has never been a war between two genuine democracies" true?"

[ceo_esq]

As for "there has never been a war between two democracies," well, as always it depends on how you define "democracy." For example, certain forumites were celebtrating the words of Anatoly ("Natan") Sharanksy, an Israeli MK who declared that "the democracy that hates you is less dangerous than the dictator who loves you." Mysteriously, this philosophy fell by the wayside when the Palestinians elected Hamas in free and fair elections.

Another example is Hugo Chavez; his election (and re-election) was observed by international monitors who declared the polling to be open and fair.

Ah, yes. To quote Dick Tuck, "The people have spoken - the bastards."

[Ziggurat]

The American Civil War, for example, was between two halves of the same democracy, so the original author will need to explain why South Carolina was a democracy in 1859, but not in 1862, without changing its government.

One counter-argument is that because the South had slavery, it could not be considered democratic. Had it not been for the anti-democratic nature of slavery, I don't think it would have come to war.

[Dave1001]

Given that in the entire course of world history, there has been exactly one "genuine fascist state" (Mussolini's Italy), it would have been irregular for there to have been a war between two of them.

Similarly -- how many genuine Islamic theocracies have there been in world history? Iran is probably theocratic, since the government is officially supervised by a pair of clerical offices. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a theocracy. The Taliban, as a group of clerics, arguably established a theocracy in Afghanistan. I could make a case for Mahdist Sudan in the 19th century, and for 7th century Mecca under Muhammad.

Well then, a similar case can be made about democracies. How many genuine democracies have there been over the entire course of world history? I suspect the monarchy has by far been the most common type of government over the course of world history, dwarfing all other types with the possible exceptions of oligarchies and theocracies.

[drkitten]

One counter-argument is that because the South had slavery, it could not be considered democratic.


Yes. More cherry-picking.

[HeavyAaron]

Well then, a similar case can be made about democracies. How many genuine democracies have there been over the entire course of world history? I suspect the monarchy has by far been the most common type of government over the course of world history, dwarfing all other types with the possible exceptions of oligarchies and theocracies.

I'll agree with you conditioned on the definition of monarchy. If monarchy is defined as rule by a single individual, then yes. If it also entails heretary rule then I'm not so sure. Dictatorships and other despotisms seem more numerous now and previously to me.

Of course, it's also a matter of how you measure. Does China count only as a single monarchy for thousands of years, wheras some African nation counts a zillion times as different dictatorships with military coup after military coup?

A more rational measurement (to me) would seem to be weighted by longevity, and perhaps even by population as well.

Aaron

[drkitten]

Well then, a similar case can be made about democracies.


Not really. The definition of "theocratic" and "fascist" are both extremely restrictive; "democracy" less so, precisely because of several hundred years of deliberate blurring on the part of self-identified "democracies."

Basically, lots of people want to be democracies, and are willing to expand the definition of "democracy" in order to encompass themselves. (I already listed some examples of the expansion). On the other hand, even other right-wing authoritarian governments (e.g. Nazi Germany, Peronist Argentina, &c.) have been very direct in distinguishing themselves from "Fascism."

It's the difference between saying that I drive a "rice-burner" and a Honda.

[Ziggurat]

Yes. More cherry-picking.

Cherry-picking on whose part? Mine? I think a country that allows slavery can NOT be considered a true (or, more specifically, a full) democracy. Slavery is about as explicitly anti-democratic as you can get, so I don't have any problem calling pre-civil war US only a partial democracy. And there are better examples of exceptions to the rule given by that wikipedia page linked above anyways.

[yinyinwang]

A good case can be made that the Soviets weren't fascist. Certainly fascists didn't think so.We grade them by their own opinion?

[Ziggurat]

For example, certain forumites were celebtrating the words of Anatoly ("Natan") Sharanksy, an Israeli MK who declared that "the democracy that hates you is less dangerous than the dictator who loves you." Mysteriously, this philosophy fell by the wayside when the Palestinians elected Hamas in free and fair elections.

In the long run, though, I think that will be the case. If the Palestinians democratically elect a party that wants war with Israel, that's probably what they'll get, as we're seeing. They will suffer for that choice, and if they've got any sense at all they will realize it was a mistake and change their choice in the future. So as long as the Palestinians REMAIN democratic (not a given), I think they will change course. In other words, while the election of Hamas does suggest it's not true that democracies never war with each other, it may still turn out to be true that democracies do not wage war with each other as frequently.

Another example is Hugo Chavez; his election (and re-election) was observed by international monitors who declared the polling to be open and fair. However, that little fact is inconvenient, so it's taken as "fact" among right-wing commentators that Chavez rigged the election somehow.

Chavez may indeed have been fairly elected. The problem with him, though, is that he's been systematically dismantling the checks and balances required to KEEP Venezuela democratic. If you subscribe to the idea that democracy makes war less likely, that is troubling.

[drkitten]

Cherry-picking on whose part? Mine?

Yes.

I think a country that allows slavery can NOT be considered a true (or, more specifically, a full) democracy.

You're right. You do think that. That's your after-the-fact judgement that would not have been shared either by members of the Southern political structure or its rivals in the Northern political structure at the time. Basically, you're claiming you know better than both sides in the dispute.

Basically, the Confederacy considered itself a democracy, and considered the Union to be a democracy. Similarly, the Union considered both itself and the Confederacy to be a democracy. As, for that matter, did all the other countries in the world that had diplomatic relations with one or the other country.

Which makes it strongly appear that there's nothing about being "democratic" that keeps two countries from going to war with each other. Unless you're going to retroacctively define "democratic" to mean something other than what it demonstrably meant to everyone involved in the conflict at the time.

And, yes, I consider retroactive definitions tailored to prove the point under discussion to be cherry picking. It's the very definition of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[Dave1001]

Not really. The definition of "theocratic" and "fascist" are both extremely restrictive; "democracy" less so, precisely because of several hundred years of deliberate blurring on the part of self-identified "democracies."

Basically, lots of people want to be democracies, and are willing to expand the definition of "democracy" in order to encompass themselves. (I already listed some examples of the expansion). On the other hand, even other right-wing authoritarian governments (e.g. Nazi Germany, Peronist Argentina, &c.) have been very direct in distinguishing themselves from "Fascism."

It's the difference between saying that I drive a "rice-burner" and a Honda.

My point is that if one argues that there has never been a war between islamic theocracies because islamic theocracies are historically rare, a similar point can be made about "genuine democracies": that they have been historically rare.

[Dave1001]

I'll agree with you conditioned on the definition of monarchy. If monarchy is defined as rule by a single individual, then yes. If it also entails heretary rule then I'm not so sure. Dictatorships and other despotisms seem more numerous now and previously to me.

Of course, it's also a matter of how you measure. Does China count only as a single monarchy for thousands of years, wheras some African nation counts a zillion times as different dictatorships with military coup after military coup?

A more rational measurement (to me) would seem to be weighted by longevity, and perhaps even by population as well.

Aaron

By any of those measures or weightings "genuine democracies" have been a relatively rare form of government.

[HeavyAaron]

By any of those measures or weightings "genuine democracies" have been a relatively rare form of government.

No doubt. For those suffraged, I think Athens counts and that's it for "genuine democracies." I welcome correction, however.

Aaron

[Dave1001]

No doubt. For those suffraged, I think Athens counts and that's it for "genuine democracies." I welcome correction, however.

Aaron

Egads -and Athens had slavery, among other things.

[JamesDillon]

Excellent posts, drkitten. It seems that everyone now must accept either that the statement "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies" is historically false, or that genuine democracies (defined, it seems, in a rather cherry-picking manner) have been so rare that the fact that they have never fought each other is inconclusive.

[Dave1001]

Excellent posts, drkitten. It seems that everyone now must accept either that the statement "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies" is historically false, or that genuine democracies (defined, it seems, in a rather cherry-picking manner) have been so rare that the fact that they have never fought each other is inconclusive.

I agree. Well done drkitten!

[yinyinwang]

I would like to change the topic into "the degree of democracy will reduce the chance of war between two coountries".

[JamesDillon]

I would like to change the topic into "the degree of democracy will reduce the chance of war between two coountries".
To the extent that may be true, I wonder if it's not a matter of correlation rather than causation, since democracy has, until very recently, typically been adopted by relatively stable, affluent nations in the European Enlightenment tradition, that would arguably be less likely to go to war with each other for reasons relating to, but not arising directly from, their democratic forms of government.

[HeavyAaron]

Egads -and Athens had slavery, among other things.

And I'm pretty sure the slaves did not have suffrage. But name ANY other democracy on a nation or nation/state level that was a democracy instead of a republic or parlament.

Aaron

[Ziggurat]

Yes.

You're tossing around a term that aren't really applicable here (more on that below). I'm setting up a definition of what I consider a full democracy. With the definition I use, pre-civil war America does not fit. That's not cherry picking at all. In fact, I'm not even the one who picked that instance, so I don't understand how you concluded that I cherry picked at all. The only objection I could imagine is that either my definition is bad (which is not cherry picking) or that I extrapolated unsupported conclusions beyond that particular instance (which isn't quite cherry picking), but I never made any conclusion about whether or not democracies never war with each other. In fact, I've already suggested that I think that's probably not the case.

You're right. You do think that. That's your after-the-fact judgement that would not have been shared either by members of the Southern political structure or its rivals in the Northern political structure at the time. Basically, you're claiming you know better than both sides in the dispute.

So what? Do you actually disagree? Do you think that a country which permits slavery is a full democracy? If so, then you're in agreement with me. If not, well, why don't you SAY so?

Basically, the Confederacy considered itself a democracy, and considered the Union to be a democracy.

That's nice. But I am under no obligation to share in their beliefs as to what constitutes a democracy, nor do I think self-labeling is what's at issue. The issue of whether or not democracies go to war is not quite the same as whether or not countries which call themselves democracies, or even CONSIDER thenselves democracies, go to war.

Which makes it strongly appear that there's nothing about being "democratic" that keeps two countries from going to war with each other.

I suggest you adopt a definition of democracy for yourself, rather than use as a criteria merely whether or not a country considers itself a democracy. The latter method is useless, because almost any country can think of itself as democratic regardless of whether or not it is. You may find that you have a definition that differs from mine, you may find that, using your definition or even mine, you still conclude that democracies go to war. But it makes no sense to not adopt a definition based upon criteria other than what the country considers itself. And as far as I can tell, that's the only basis you've been working from so far.

Unless you're going to retroacctively define "democratic" to mean something other than what it demonstrably meant to everyone involved in the conflict at the time.

"Retroactive" isn't relevant here: my whole life has been retroactive with regards to the civil war. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with using a different definition than they had: if North Korea started calling itself democratic (oh wait, they do: they call themselves the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"), are we somehow obliged to agree? Of course not. The only thing that would be dishonest is if I CHANGED my definition in order to make the argument fit as different cases are considered. But you have no evidence that I have done that, and any accusation of that towards me is baseless and insulting.

And, yes, I consider retroactive definitions tailored to prove the point under discussion to be cherry picking. It's the very definition of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

But cherry picking and "no true scotsman" fallacies aren't even the same thing. Cherry picking is where you select out specific elements of a set based upon some characteristic, and ignore elements without that characteristic, and then claim that they prove that this characteristic is the norm for the set. The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is where you claim that all elements of some set have a particular characteristic, and redefine any elements that do not have that characteristic as not being a member of that set. There's a difference between the two: one relies upon selective examination, one relies upon redefining. Cherry picking is not relevant to what I have been saying, which is why I was confused when you made the accusation. Your subsequent response indicates that you indeed misused the term. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy COULD be relevant here, but you have not shown that it IS relevant. All you've done so far is suggest that you have a problem with how I'm defining democracy, but that alone isn't enough to show that I've engaged in any fallacy.

Furthermore, I have not anywhere in this thread tried to argue that democracies never go to war with each other, so the fact that I don't consider a side in one conflict to be a true democracy really doesn't mean anything beyond my opinion of that side and that one conflict. The idea that I am changing my definitions to try to prove some point makes no sense unless you're making assumptions about my position which I have not expressed.

[Dave1001]

Here are other ideas I'd like to see tested against the data:
1. Countries where both have a middle class that's larger than their poverty class do not go to war with each other.
2. Countries where both have 3 successive years of economic growth do not go to war with each other.
3. Countries with free trade agreements with each other do not go to war with each other.
4. Countries where both have literacy rates over 90% do not go to war with each other.
5. Countries where both have a press that's free to criticize the leadership without fear of imprisonment, injunction or or state sponsored or condoned physical harm to not go to war with each other.
6. Countries with Universal Health Care do not go to war with each other.
7. Countries with universal health care that covers pyschiatric and psychological illness do not go to war with each other.

[bjb]

How about our wars with with Mexico and Spain? Wasn't the government in Mexico democratically elected?

[HeavyAaron]

Here are other ideas I'd like to see tested against the data:
1. Countries where both have a middle class that's larger than their poverty class do not go to war with each other.
2. Countries where both have 3 successive years of economic growth do not go to war with each other.
3. Countries with free trade agreements with each other do not go to war with each other.
4. Countries where both have literacy rates over 90% do not go to war with each other.
5. Countries where both have a press that's free to criticize the leadership without fear of imprisonment, injunction or or state sponsored or condoned physical harm to not go to war with each other.
6. Countries with Universal Health Care do not go to war with each other.
7. Countries with universal health care that covers pyschiatric and psychological illness do not go to war with each other.

1) middle and poverty classes are defined even less well than democracy

2) economic growth needs to be defined (increase in GDP, increase in GDP per capita, increase in GNP, increase in employment, increase in real capital, increase of stock market evaluation); define year (365 days, 12 months, 1 calender year)

3) totally free trade does not exist between any two nations that I'm aware of, therefore what degree of free trade do you mean?

4) define literate... literacy is not a binary function

5) define "free press"; define "criticize"

6) define "health care" in universal health care

7) define "health care" in universal health care beyond a single stipulation

That was fun.

Aaron

[JamesDillon]

1) middle and poverty classes are defined even less well than democracy

2) economic growth needs to be defined (increase in GDP, increase in GDP per capita, increase in GNP, increase in employment, increase in real capital, increase of stock market evaluation); define year (365 days, 12 months, 1 calender year)

3) totally free trade does not exist between any two nations that I'm aware of, therefore what degree of free trade do you mean?

4) define literate... literacy is not a binary function

5) define "free press"; define "criticize"

6) define "health care" in universal health care

7) define "health care" in universal health care beyond a single stipulation

That was fun.

Aaron
It may have been fun, but I don't think it was particularly helpful. Dave's post raised some interesting issues that I think could use some further academic research. I'd like to see the results of it myself.

You're right to point out, of course, that an academic exploration of these questions would need to pin down the meanings of the terms as objectively as possible, but I think that could be done pretty easily, and I don't think the ambiguity inherent in one-line descriptions of areas for further research makes Dave's post frivolous or useless, as you seem to.

[Leif Roar]

Here are other ideas I'd like to see tested against the data:
1. Countries where both have a middle class that's larger than their poverty class do not go to war with each other.[Quote]

Germany versus France and UK in World War II?

[quote]2. Countries where both have 3 successive years of economic growth do not go to war with each other.

I don't have any statistics at hand, but I would be surprised if none of the belligerants in World War I matched this criteria. An alternative might be Japan versus USA in World War II.

3. Countries with free trade agreements with each other do not go to war with each other.

Isn't that rather like saying "countries with good diplomatic relations do not go to war with each other"? Any free trade agreement would probably have been withdrawn long before any conflict between two countries became a war.

4. Countries where both have literacy rates over 90% do not go to war with each other.

Lebanon/Israel would be awfully close -- literacy rate in Lebanon is 87.4% according to CIA World Fact Book.

5. Countries where both have a press that's free to criticize the leadership without fear of imprisonment, injunction or or state sponsored or condoned physical harm to not go to war with each other.

US Civil War? (Technically not countries, but close enough for government work.)

[Dave1001]

1) middle and poverty classes are defined even less well than democracy

2) economic growth needs to be defined (increase in GDP, increase in GDP per capita, increase in GNP, increase in employment, increase in real capital, increase of stock market evaluation); define year (365 days, 12 months, 1 calender year)

3) totally free trade does not exist between any two nations that I'm aware of, therefore what degree of free trade do you mean?

4) define literate... literacy is not a binary function

5) define "free press"; define "criticize"

6) define "health care" in universal health care

7) define "health care" in universal health care beyond a single stipulation

That was fun.

Aaron

For that matter define war!:D

[marksman]

How about our wars with with Mexico and Spain? Wasn't the government in Mexico democratically elected?
No. Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1822. One could argue that Mexico was a democracy betwee 1824 and the 1840's, during which time the country went through more than 20 "presidents", almost all through military coups.

By the time the Americans fought Mexico in the Spanish-American War (1846), it was run by Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga who had taken power in a coup and then he got ousted by a rapid succession of Presidents until the infamous Santa Ana took over in a coup of his own.

Mexico pretty much estabished a democracy (though its principle feature was kleptocracy) in 1910, after the Mexican Revolution. America has not declared war on Mexico since the 1840's, and has not been in a de facto war with them either.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The "Nazis were democratically elected" bit is a long-held myth, to be perfectly honest.

They did participate in elections, but even at their strongest they only gained about 37% of the vote. In November, 1932, the "final" election only had them at 33%. It was von Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler as chancellor that really ushered in their rise to power; the SA essentially strong-armed the Reichstag into approving Hitler's "emergency powers" and the rest, as they say, is history.

Is there a requirement that a single party wins a majority of the votes for a country to be considered a democracy?

If so then the UK is out as Labour won the last election with 35.3%.

Also Wikipedia has the Nazis getting 43.9% in the last election rather than the 33% figure you quote above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_1933

[a_unique_person]

Lebanon/Israel.

[Cuddles]

3) totally free trade does not exist between any two nations that I'm aware of, therefore what degree of free trade do you mean?

He actually said "countries with a free trade agreement" which is not the same as free trade. No country allows free trade, but many have signed what they call "free trade agreements" to allow less restrictions. Of course, these would almost certainly be cancelled before going to war and so can't really be considered relevent to this debate.

[CapelDodger]

For that matter define war!:D
And if anyone can do that ...

Define civil war! :D

[CapelDodger]

Germany versus France and UK in World War II?
Very similar societies - capitalist, secular, subject to the law, democratic by their mutual standards, no slavery - but did women have the vote? I think not, ergo True Scotsmen were not involved.

As an example - and it's probably the best available - it demonstrates the inanity of that part of the thread-title between quote-marks.

(edited for sufficient reason)

[Cleon]

Is there a requirement that a single party wins a majority of the votes for a country to be considered a democracy?

No, but they have to be able to put together a government, which they cannot do with less than 50%. "Voted into power" means just that, and the Nazis didn't get it.


Also Wikipedia has the Nazis getting 43.9% in the last election rather than the 33% figure you quote above.

I was referring to the November, 1932 election, not the March, 1933 election. By the March election, Hitler had been named Chancellor and the SA and SS were "encouraging" the electorate, shall we say.

[Meadmaker]

Let's compare similar propositions. "There has never been a war between two dictatorships." Hmmm. I think I can find some counterexamples to that one.

There has never been a war between a democracy and a dictatorship. Hmmm. I'm sure I've read about those somewhere.

In the case of "there has never been a war between two democracies", there are plenty of possible counterexamples, and yet there is no clear cut, unquestionable example. Furthermore, statistics don't explain the answer, because since the rise of democratic governments, there have been lots of opportunities for war, but the democracies don't fight each other. They fight the dictatorships.

I think the real message is that free people rarely start wars. It tends to happen in only a couple of very limited circumstances. One occurs when the democracy has overwhelming force and can expect very limited casualties. (e.g. US vs. Iraq today) The other occurs when the democracy is attacked. (e.g. US vs. Japan in 1941)

It's not hard to figure out why, either. War sucks, and everyone knows it. The only time anyone would start one of the silly things would be when he has something personal to gain by it, and figured he and his friends weren't likely to get killed. That means a democracy would only start a war when there was already one going on anyway, as in they were attacked, or when they figured that someone else would fight it and the country as a whole would gain from it. Those situations are so rare that there aren't many wars started by democratic governments.

[Dave1001]

United States and Iraq in the early 21st century. Saddam held an election for president, which he was declared the winner of. So did the US in 2000, prior to the war, which Geoge W. Bush was declared the winner of.

[Dave1001]

Let's compare similar propositions. "There has never been a war between two dictatorships." Hmmm. I think I can find some counterexamples to that one.

There has never been a war between a democracy and a dictatorship. Hmmm. I'm sure I've read about those somewhere.

In the case of "there has never been a war between two democracies", there are plenty of possible counterexamples, and yet there is no clear cut, unquestionable example. Furthermore, statistics don't explain the answer, because since the rise of democratic governments, there have been lots of opportunities for war, but the democracies don't fight each other. They fight the dictatorships.

I think the real message is that free people rarely start wars. It tends to happen in only a couple of very limited circumstances. One occurs when the democracy has overwhelming force and can expect very limited casualties. (e.g. US vs. Iraq today) The other occurs when the democracy is attacked. (e.g. US vs. Japan in 1941)

It's not hard to figure out why, either. War sucks, and everyone knows it. The only time anyone would start one of the silly things would be when he has something personal to gain by it, and figured he and his friends weren't likely to get killed. That means a democracy would only start a war when there was already one going on anyway, as in they were attacked, or when they figured that someone else would fight it and the country as a whole would gain from it. Those situations are so rare that there aren't many wars started by democratic governments.

Good description of the cherry a lot of people want to pick.;)

[gumboot]

I think the real message is that free people rarely start wars. It tends to happen in only a couple of very limited circumstances. One occurs when the democracy has overwhelming force and can expect very limited casualties. (e.g. US vs. Iraq today) The other occurs when the democracy is attacked. (e.g. US vs. Japan in 1941)


This is a rather misleading comment above...

States, full stop, seldom start wars unless they're confident they're going to win. I don't think this is unique to democracies. Pre-WWI Germany expected to defeat France in six weeks. They clearly thought they had "overwhelming force" and could expect "very limited casualties" (bearing in mind the value on human life has increased so "limited casualties" in 1914 is different to "limited casualties" today.

The original statement seems to have been modified specifically to avoid its own fallacy. The use of "genuine" democracy seems to indicate awareness that democracies HAVE fought each other.

(Incidentally I have previous heard this argument presented simply as "two democracies have never fought each other".)

I think also many people in this thread are confusing democracy with "liberal" or "free". They are not one in the same. The natural progression of a democracy is towards liberalism and freedom for all members, naturally, however, to claim a "true democracy" must have universal suffrage and not have things like slavery is to me, incorrect.

What is democracy?

Simply put, a democracy is a state in which the suffraged citizens of that state, as a collective group, are responsible for the governing of that state.

Of course what constitutes a "suffraged citizen" varies. Before 1893 there was not a democracy in human history that had allowed female suffrage. In my country, for example, only people over the age of 18 are suffraged, so it is certainly not "universal" (likewise only citizens and residents can vote).

What constitutes "responsible for governing" also varies. In the original Athenian model, the entire body of voters WERE the government. Imagine if US Congress consisted of all of the USA's 200 million or so voters?

Instead all modern democracies have a governing body who in some form represent the greater population. They (theoretically) exercise the responsibility of their voters in governing the state.

Were we to apply the original model, Athens would be the only "genuine democracy" that ever existed. Most democracies are based more on the Roman model than the Athenian one. (The key being the separation of the ruling body and the general population).

Worse still, the entire concept of democracy is being eroded. The original intent was the whole population were responsible for the state. Now it is a mechanism for aleviating blame. Not "oh the US people did it" but "oh the US government did it".

By simply claiming "oh I didn't vote for our government" someone immediately avoids responsibility for the actions of their nation. This is in complete contradiction of the intent of democracy.

Given this practical application of democracy the world over, it would be easy to claim that there are NO democracies in existence.

-Andrew

[Leif Roar]

Worse still, the entire concept of democracy is being eroded. The original intent was the whole population were responsible for the state. Now it is a mechanism for aleviating blame. Not "oh the US people did it" but "oh the US government did it".

By simply claiming "oh I didn't vote for our government" someone immediately avoids responsibility for the actions of their nation. This is in complete contradiction of the intent of democracy.

I don't really think this is a new phenomenon or limited to representative democracy. I once read a contemporary comment (possibly Spartan, but I forget) about how it was impossible to put an Athenian against the wall and make him take personal responsibility for Athenin politics. It was always "Oh, I wasn't at that sessions" or "Oh, I voted against that proposal."

[Skeptic]

It included one phrase which jumped out at me, and I don't know if it's true, "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies."

The Nazis were democratically elected, for one thing. Think this is a fair assessment, or a No True Scottsman fallacy?

If nothing else, the 1812 war was between democracies (in the wider sense of "elected governments"--the USA is officially a republic and the UK a kingdom). The weasel-word "genuine" allows him to dismiss all cases as "well, it wasn't REALLY a democracy".

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, but they have to be able to put together a government, which they cannot do with less than 50%. "Voted into power" means just that, and the Nazis didn't get it.

Depends on the system - under the UK system you most certainly can put together a government with significantly less than 50% of the vote. For example Labour in the 2005 election won 35.3% of the vote but have an overall majority of seats. In fact no UK government since the second world war has won 50% of the vote.

Does that mean the UK is not a democracy?

I was referring to the November, 1932 election, not the March, 1933 election. By the March election, Hitler had been named Chancellor and the SA and SS were "encouraging" the electorate, shall we say.

I really should learn to read more carefully. Sorry.

[Meadmaker]

This is a rather misleading comment above...

States, full stop, seldom start wars unless they're confident they're going to win. I don't think this is unique to democracies.



But there's an additional element which makes democracies less likely to start wars than dictatorships. The decision makers might be inclined to start a war if they expect to profit from it. When the decision makers consist of a king and the aristocracy, they might look at an imminent conflict and note that there will be a million people killed, but at the end of the day their army will be successful and there will be new lands from which to extract taxes.

If the decision makers include those people who have to bear the million casualties, they might come to a different conclusion about whether or not this adds up to a net gain, and therefore would be less likely to support a war.

[gumboot]

If the decision makers include those people who have to bear the million casualties, they might come to a different conclusion about whether or not this adds up to a net gain, and therefore would be less likely to support a war.


I think that's certainly true. And I think most importantly, the more liberal societies become, and the more they value human life (natural progressions of free democracy, IMHO) the less likely the said millions will get involved.

But I think that's more to do with an indirect link... democracy = liberal = anti-war.

Certainly, in the early stages of World War One the democratic populations of countries like the United Kingdom were well and truely behind the war, and the rates of volunteer sign-up suggest they were happy to bear the burdon personally.

But then at the same time in a democracy there's also the risk of "mob rule" in that angry or aggressive populations might drive leaders to become involved in a war the leader might otherwise have avoided.

But certainly I would say, over time, as democracies naturally become more liberal they become less involved in conflict (and even less involved in large scale conflict).

-Andrew

[Meadmaker]

If nothing else, the 1812 war was between democracies (in the wider sense of "elected governments"--the USA is officially a republic and the UK a kingdom). The weasel-word "genuine" allows him to dismiss all cases as "well, it wasn't REALLY a democracy".

But it is worth noting that the War of 1812 was an offshoot of a wider war that was not fought between democracies. By attacking British interests in the Americas, the US was basically joining Napoleon's side.


It is also worth noting that Great Britain was kinda sorta democratic at the time, but Canada was definitely not democratic. Part of the mistake made by the United States in joining the war was in the assumption that the US would actually have a lot of popular support in Canada, because they thought the people would prefer to join a democratic society than to be ruled by a foreign monarch whose government, although elected, was not elected by them.

[gumboot]

It is also worth noting that Great Britain was kinda sorta democratic at the time, but Canada was definitely not democratic.


Both Britain and Canada were democratic at the time (and in fact Canada had wider sufferage than Britain in the late 18th Century).

It should also be noted that the United States suffrage wasn't that much wider than Britain and Canada at the time either.

-Andrew

[Dave1001]

I think that's certainly true. And I think most importantly, the more liberal societies become, and the more they value human life (natural progressions of free democracy, IMHO) the less likely the said millions will get involved.

But I think that's more to do with an indirect link... democracy = liberal = anti-war.

Certainly, in the early stages of World War One the democratic populations of countries like the United Kingdom were well and truely behind the war, and the rates of volunteer sign-up suggest they were happy to bear the burdon personally.

But then at the same time in a democracy there's also the risk of "mob rule" in that angry or aggressive populations might drive leaders to become involved in a war the leader might otherwise have avoided.


It could be that liberal, representative countries with relatively strong social safety nets are more likely to engage in war than liberal, representative countries that don't have a strong social safety net, because older people are less dependent on needing to have healthy sons to take care of them. A case could be made that this explains America's willingness to go to war in Iraq: SUV driving Boomers for the most part voted us into war (certainly in 2004) whereas generation X'ers and Y'ers are the ones spilling blood on the field.


But certainly I would say, over time, as democracies naturally become more liberal they become less involved in conflict (and even less involved in large scale conflict).

-Andrew

I think many of us want to believe that, and thus, look to backwards justify, No True Scotsman style. Hardly an empirical approach.

[Meadmaker]

Both Britain and Canada were democratic at the time (and in fact Canada had wider sufferage than Britain in the late 18th Century).


In 1812? I had thought that Canada was basically the same status as pre-revolution US, which meant it had a democratic local government, but was ruled by Britain, and they couldn't vote for British MPs. Was this US grade school history propoganda?

[gumboot]

In 1812? I had thought that Canada was basically the same status as pre-revolution US, which meant it had a democratic local government, but was ruled by Britain, and they couldn't vote for British MPs. Was this US grade school history propoganda?


Well... all British Colonies were ruled by local Governors. Said Governors were elected by the local people. In the case of Canada not enough good hearty Protestants owned land, so they had to widen the suffrage a little (though I believe they cut it back again when things settled down).

The British Empire was much like the Roman Empire would be if the Governors were elected by the population of the Province - only landowners in Britain could vote for the government of the United Kingdom and only landowners in a given colony could vote for the government of that colony (an exception being New Zealand as it was already a nation before the British took control).

-Andrew

[Ryokan]

Serbia was a democracy.

[gumboot]

Serbia was a democracy.


Yeah but was it a "genuine" democracy? ;)

-Andrew

[JamesDillon]

Part of the mistake made by the United States in joining the war was in the assumption that the US would actually have a lot of popular support in Canada, because they thought the people would prefer to join a democratic society than to be ruled by a foreign monarch whose government, although elected, was not elected by them.
Where have I heard that one recently?

[Ryokan]

Yeah but was it a "genuine" democracy? ;)

-Andrew

I would say so, yes.

[Beerina]

And if anyone can do that ...

Define civil war! :D

Actually, it occurs to me that almost all those on the list that are relatively close to a democracy are wars of independence or civil wars.

Two otherwise independent political entities just don't seem to get mad at each other and start a war.

I'd like to use this opportunity to point out that there is a difference between a democracy and a free nation (nations where individuals are relatively free to pursue their own paths.) Perhaps it's free countries that never go to war with each other, with the researcher mis-using "democracy" as a synonym, as politicians are frequently wont to do (because power means power over freedoms retained by the people, and democracy gets you that power, promoting freedom lessens your power.)

[marksman]

I'd like to use this opportunity to point out that there is a difference between a democracy and a free nation (nations where individuals are relatively free to pursue their own paths.) Perhaps it's free countries that never go to war with each other...
What qualities would a "free nation" have that an "unfree nation" does not?

Is this an economic distinction? A sociological one? A political one? Some combination?

[HeavyAaron]

He actually said "countries with a free trade agreement" which is not the same as free trade. No country allows free trade, but many have signed what they call "free trade agreements" to allow less restrictions. Of course, these would almost certainly be cancelled before going to war and so can't really be considered relevent to this debate.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Aaron

[Dave1001]

What qualities would a "free nation" have that an "unfree nation" does not?

Is this an economic distinction? A sociological one? A political one? Some combination?

I think the number one indicator would be freedoms of assembly, expression (speech), and communication, including with the outside world. Also, uncontroversially it would at least be property rights that allow such freedom of expression. More controversial is whether it would allow property rights that allow individuals to accumulate greatly disproportionate wealth (as measured by the market) relative to the median member of society. By being free to do those things, I mean that the population would be free from punishment by the state, or from private agents affiliated with the state.

[Beerina]

What qualities would a "free nation" have that an "unfree nation" does not?

Is this an economic distinction? A sociological one? A political one? Some combination?

By that I mean there's a lot more to freedom than just freedom of speech. A highly socialized democratic nation might have very few economic freedoms. Perhaps this maps better to the concept of not getting into a war with other, similar nations.

[The Atheist]

Just to throw into the mix - a pair of democratically-elected governments of countries which, while not having been at war, are contuining a long and bitter cold war - Turkey and Greece.

These two nations have exchanged blows since WWII, but have never descended into full-scale war.

Does this strengthen the theory - both countries have stepped back from the brink many times? Or weaken the theory - neither country is prepared to bury the hatchet?

[yinyinwang]

What qualities would a "free nation" have that an "unfree nation" does not?

Is this an economic distinction? A sociological one? A political one? Some combination?
Can you have one without the other?

[yinyinwang]

By that I mean there's a lot more to freedom than just freedom of speech. A highly socialized democratic nation might have very few economic freedoms.
Do you want to manipulate some trade? No freedom to commit crimes.

[yinyinwang]

Just to throw into the mix - a pair of democratically-elected governments of countries which, while not having been at war, are contuining a long and bitter cold war - Turkey and Greece.

These two nations have exchanged blows since WWII, but have never descended into full-scale war.

Does this strengthen the theory - both countries have stepped back from the brink many times? Or weaken the theory - neither country is prepared to bury the hatchet?
This is a good case. Imagine if one of them is ruled by another Saddam.

[marksman]

What qualities would a "free nation" have that an "unfree nation" does not?

Is this an economic distinction? A sociological one? A political one? Some combination?

I think the number one indicator would be freedoms of assembly, expression (speech), and communication, including with the outside world. Also, uncontroversially it would at least be property rights that allow such freedom of expression. More controversial is whether it would allow property rights that allow individuals to accumulate greatly disproportionate wealth (as measured by the market) relative to the median member of society. By being free to do those things, I mean that the population would be free from punishment by the state, or from private agents affiliated with the state.

Okay. Given those definitions, how many States have there been that fit this criteria? I assume America doesn't qualify until after the Civil War (1864) and the UK doesn't qualify until after its Civl War (1640). How about Napoleonic France?

I'm finding it very hard to think of many societies that fit these criteria prior to 1950 and precious few after 1950. Such a sample seems too small to make any conclusions.

By that I mean there's a lot more to freedom than just freedom of speech. A highly socialized democratic nation might have very few economic freedoms. Perhaps this maps better to the concept of not getting into a war with other, similar nations.
I don't know what to do with this statement. It doesn't give any measurable criteria with which to judge a political theory.

Can you have one without the other?
That's why I stuck all those question marks in there. :)

[gumboot]

How about Napoleonic France?


It wasn't much of a democracy, and not for very long (and under Napoleon it was an Empire...). One of the first things the French Republic did was abolish the "worship of god". Hardly freedom... :rolleyes:

-Andrew

[marksman]

Dave1001's definition didn't include voting or religious rights, but rather the rights of assembly, expression, and comunication, as well as the right to "disproportionally accumulate wealth." Napoleonic France had all of those rights to a great extent, even though it did not afford its citizens the right to vote.

That's why I ask these questions. Before any comparison needs to be made, we need to know what nations even qualify for the analysis. We could just as easily say:

"No two nations governed by Scientologists have ever gone to war."

It might be true, but it doesn't mean we should all be rushing to worship L. Ron Hubbard!

[Meadmaker]

Dave1001's definition didn't include voting or religious rights, but rather the rights of assembly, expression, and comunication, as well as the right to "disproportionally accumulate wealth." Napoleonic France had all of those rights to a great extent, even though it did not afford its citizens the right to vote.

But Napoleon could decide whether or not to start a war. He didn't have to ask permission from the legislature. The result was a lot of wars.

(I do agree with a previous poster that democracies could be susceptible to the angry mob syndrome. However, those cases would be rare. Angry mobs go after weak, defenseless, groups mostly. That could explain a few wars, but weak, defenseless, nations often have powerful friends. The sense of self preservation among the voters whose families would ahve to fight the wars can control an angry mob in that case.)

[gumboot]

Dave1001's definition didn't include voting or religious rights, but rather the rights of assembly, expression, and comunication, as well as the right to "disproportionally accumulate wealth."


I don't see how you can possibly exclude voting from any definition of "democracy". That seems entirely ridiculous. Like saying "No two genuine Monarchies have ever fought, but I don't consider having a King or Queen an integral part of being a Monarchy".

The fundamental definition of "democracy" is "rule by the people". That means voting (whether by formal election or more like the Athenian Assembly...). I fail to see how "disproportionally accumulating wealth" is in any way directly linked to Democracy. Capitalism is an economical system, not a political one. I can see a socialist nation being democratic (on paper at least).



Napoleonic France had all of those rights to a great extent, even though it did not afford its citizens the right to vote.

Ah yes, right to assembly and expression... like the royalists who protested and were so famously dispersed by Napoleon's "whiff of grapeshot".

-Andrew

[ImaginalDisc]

In light of the debate about the defintion of words such as "war," "true" and "democracy," I move that the statement under question be changed to "there has never been a war between two genuine strawmen."

[gumboot]

In light of the debate about the defintion of words such as "war," "true" and "democracy," I move that the statement under question be changed to "there has never been a war between two genuine strawmen."


Does that include scarecrows?

-Andrew

[brodski]

Does that include scarecrows?

-Andrew only if they're prepared to fight true Scotsmen to the death.

[Elind]

Thank you.

This fallacy will be trotted out until doomsday I am sure, but it is nice every now and then to see it rebutted.

The NRA has a better one. Nazis held on to power because they banned private weapons. Watch out USA!

[Dave1001]

Dave1001's definition didn't include voting or religious rights, but rather the rights of assembly, expression, and comunication, as well as the right to "disproportionally accumulate wealth."

Actually, I personally would not include the right to "disproportionately accumulate wealth" as necessary for the right to free expression -I mentioned it simply to acknowledge that my position might be controversial. The other rights I listed I consider to be necessary to have free expression. I do think you need some individual property ownership rights in order to have functional free expression, but not to the point where individuals can have property disproportionate to the median for an individual. I hope this helps as a clarification of my view on this.

[marksman]

But Napoleon could decide whether or not to start a war. He didn't have to ask permission from the legislature. The result was a lot of wars.That would be a valid point, if Dave1001's definition of democracy included the right to vote, but it didn't. Don't ask me why. It was his definition.

The sense of self preservation among the voters whose families would ahve to fight the wars can control an angry mob in that case.)
America chose to go to war almost every thirty years. War of 1812, a variety of American Indian Wars, Civil War, Spanish American War, Mexican American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II.

In many of those wars, America was the aggressor. In many of those where America was not the aggressor, it was clear that the US could avoid further conflict if it wanted. America, which I think we can all agree is a democracy, calls for war all of the time.

I think the most reasonable conclusion is that a nation's political system is not a strong predictive factor as to whether a nation is likely or unlikely to go to war.

I don't see how you can possibly exclude voting from any definition of "democracy".Why are you asking me? It was dave1001's definition.

Actually, I personally would not include the right to "disproportionately accumulate wealth" as necessary for the right to free expression -I mentioned it simply to acknowledge that my position might be controversial. The other rights I listed I consider to be necessary to have free expression. I do think you need some individual property ownership rights in order to have functional free expression, but not to the point where individuals can have property disproportionate to the median for an individual. I hope this helps as a clarification of my view on this.
A little. So was Napoleonic France free?

[Meadmaker]

I think the most reasonable conclusion is that a nation's political system is not a strong predictive factor as to whether a nation is likely or unlikely to go to war.

Not so fast. Compare the likelihood of the United States to be at war with the likelihood that a comparably sized dictatorship is at war. I think you'd find the US was rather peaceful.

[Leif Roar]

Not so fast. Compare the likelihood of the United States to be at war with the likelihood that a comparably sized dictatorship is at war.

Like the Soviet Union or China? Neither has actually been directly involved in all that many wars after WW-II.

[yinyinwang]

Like the Soviet Union or China? Neither has actually been directly involved in all that many wars after WW-II.
The Soviet Union and China did fight each other and they are all busy fighting their own people.

[Elind]

Like the Soviet Union or China? Neither has actually been directly involved in all that many wars after WW-II.

Depends on how you define war doesn't it?

The Chinese were at war with India, with the rest of the world (?) via North Korea, invaded and annexed Tibet, threatened war with everyone over Taiwan many times and came close to making it happen, and then of course there was Vietnam.

Soviets? Hungary, Poland, actually all of Eastern Europe. Afghanistan?

What have I missed?

[kittynh]

I once read that there has never been a war between two nations that have McDonalds. Which is now untrue

[Dave1001]

I once read that there has never been a war between two nations that have McDonalds. Which is now untrue

There has never been a war between two nations that have a U.S. armed forces base in them? That really might be the simplest solution for world peace. And there probably aren't too many countries left to go ...

[Elind]

That's good.:D

[ImaginalDisc]

Not so fast. Compare the likelihood of the United States to be at war with the likelihood that a comparably sized dictatorship is at war. I think you'd find the US was rather peaceful.
You are wrong.

U.S. Military actions since WWII.
1945-1949

1945-1949 Occupation of part of Germany.

1945-1955 Occupation of part of Austria.

1945-1946 Occupation of part of Italy.

1945-1952 Occupation of Japan.

1945-1946 Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines in preparation for independence.

1945-1949 Occupation of South Korea and defeat of a leftist insurgency.

1945 - 1991 -- Cold War

1946 -- Trieste (Italy). President Truman ordered the increase of US troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed US Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia. Earlier US naval units had been sent to the scene. Later the Free Territory of Trieste, Zone A.

1945 - 1947 US Marines garrisoned in Mainland China to oversee the removal of Soviet and Japanese forces after World War II.

1948 -- Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the US Consul General.

1948 -- Berlin. Berlin Airlift After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the US, British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.

1948-49 -- China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans.
[edit]

1950-1959

1950-53 -- Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions. US forces deployed in Korea exceeded 300,000 during the last year of the conflict. Over 36,600 US military were killed in action.
The Vietnam War was one of the longest military conflicts in U.S. history.
Enlarge
The Vietnam War was one of the longest military conflicts in U.S. history.

1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the US Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.

1954-55 -- China. Naval units evacuated US civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.

1955 - 1963 US sends military advisors to assist President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam. [5]

1956 -- Egypt. A marine battalion evacuated US nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.

1958 -- Lebanon. Lebanon crisis of 1958 Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of President Camille Chamoun to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside. The President's action was supported by a Congressional resolution passed in 1957 that authorized such actions in that area of the world.
[edit]

1960-1969

1959-60 -- The Caribbean. Second Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect US nationals during the Cuban crisis.

1962 -- Thailand. The Third Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by July 30 the 5,000 marines had been withdrawn.

1962 -- Cuba. Cuban Missile Crisis On October 22, President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about US nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.

1963 -- Iraq. The C.I.A. supports a coup in Iraq against the democratically-elected Qassim government.[2][3][4][5]

1962-75 -- Laos. From October 1962 until 1975, the United States played an important role in military support of anti-Communist forces in Laos.

1964 -- Congo (Zaire). The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.

1964 -- Military coup in Brazil; support given by US is provided but not needed. (See Operation Brother Sam)[6]

1964 - 1975 -- Vietnam War. US military advisers had been in South Vietnam for a decade, and their numbers had been increased as the military position of the Saigon government became weaker. After citing what he termed were attacks on US destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf, President Johnson asked in August 1964 for a resolution expressing US determination to support freedom and protect peace in Southeast Asia. Congress responded with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, expressing support for "all necessary measures" the President might take to repel armed attacks against US forces and prevent further aggression. Following this resolution, and following a Communist attack on a US installation in central Vietnam, the United States escalated its participation in the war to a peak of 543,000 military personnel by April 1969.

1965 -- Dominican Republic. Invasion of Dominican Republic The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent 20,000 US troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.

1967 -- Congo (Zaire). The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.

1968 -- Capture of USS Pueblo

1968 -- Iraq. The C.I.A. successfully supports coup in Iraq against the government of Rahman Arif to bring the Ba'ath Party to power, with Saddam Hussein eventually taking the helm.[2]

1968 -- U.S. bombs the Ho Chi Minh trail in Cambodia and Laos. (See Operation Commando Hunt)
[edit]

1970-1979

1970 -- Cambodia. US troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked USand South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.

1974 -- Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated US civilians during hostilities between Turkish and Greek Cypriot forces.

1975 -- Evacuation from Vietnam. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported US naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and US nationals from Vietnam.3

1975 -- Evacuation from Cambodia. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reported that he had ordered US military forces to proceed with the planned evacuation of US citizens from Cambodia.

1975 -- South Vietnam. On April 30 1975, President Ford reported that a force of 70 evacuation helicopters and 865 Marines had evacuated about 1,400 US citizens and 5,500 third country nationals and South Vietnamese from landing zones near the US Embassy in Saigon and the Tan Son Nhut Airfield.

1975 -- Cambodia. Mayagüez Incident. On May 15, 1975, President Ford reported he had ordered military forces to retake the SS Mayaguez, a merchant vessel which was seized from Cambodian naval patrol boats in international waters and forced to proceed to a nearby island.

1976 -- Lebanon. On July 22 and 23, 1974, helicopters from five US naval vessels evacuated approximately 250 Americans and Europeans from Lebanon during fighting between Lebanese factions after an overland convoy evacuation had been blocked by hostilities.

1976 -- Korea. Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American soldiers were killed by North Korean soldiers in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea while cutting down a tree.

1978 -- Zaire (Congo). From May 19 through June 1978, the United States utilized military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to Belgian and French rescue operations in Zaire.
[edit]

1980-1990

1980 -- Operation Eagle Claw

1980 -- Iran. On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six US transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue American hostages being held in Iran.

1981 -- El Salvador. After a guerilla offensive against the government of El Salvador, additional US military advisers were sent to El Salvador, bringing the total to approximately 55, to assist in training government forces in counterinsurgency.

1981 --Libya. On August 19, 1981, US planes based on the carrier USS Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra after one of the Libyan jets had fired a heat-seeking missile. The United States periodically held freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, claimed by Libya as territorial waters but considered international waters by the United States.

1981, 1989 -- Gulf of Sidra Incidents

1982 -- Sinai. On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. Participation had been authorized by the Multinational Force and Observers Resolution, Public Law 97-132.

1982 -- Lebanon. Multinational Force in Lebanon On August 21, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 80 marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the Palestine Liberation force from Beirut. The Marines left September 20, 1982.

1982-1983 -- Lebanon. Operation Urgent Fury Grenada On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. On Sept. 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the continued participation for eighteen months.

1983 -- Egypt. After a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan on March 18, 1983, and Sudan and Egypt appealed for assistance, the United States dispatched an AWACS electronic surveillance plane to Egypt.

1983 -- Grenada. Citing an imminent Soviet threat, the U.S. invades the sovereign island nation of Grenada. Grenada is defended only by several hundred lightly armed troops and policemen.

1983-89 -- Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed US military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.

1983 -- Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces.

1984 -- Persian Gulf. On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a US AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.

1985 -- Italy. On October 10, 1985, US Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking.

1986 -- Libya. Libyan Patrol Boats On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported on March 24 and 25, US forces, while engaged in freedom of navigation exercises around the Gulf of Sidra, had been attacked by Libyan missiles and the United States had responded with missiles.

1986 -- Libya. On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that US air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in Libya. (See Operation El Dorado Canyon)

1986 -- Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.

1986 -- Operation El Dorado Canyon April 15.

1987 - 1988 -- Persian Gulf. After the Iran-Iraq War resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased US joint military forces operations in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Gulf. President Reagan reported that US ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 23, October 10, and October 20, 1987 and April 19, July 4, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988.

1987- 1988 -- Operation Earnest Will

1987 - 1988 -- Operation Prime Chance

1988 -- April 18 strikes against Iranian naval and air forces. (See Operation Praying Mantis)

1988 -- Operation Golden Pheasant

1988 -- USS Vincennes shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655

1988 -- Panama. Operation Just Cause In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as the United States increased pressure on Panamanian head of state General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in the Panama Canal Zone.

1989 -- Libya. On January 4, 1989, two US Navy F-14 aircraft based on the USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The US pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions.

1989 -- Panama. On May 11, 1989, in response to General Noriega's disregard of the results of the Panamanian election, President Bush ordered a brigade-sized force of approximately 1,900 troops to augment the estimated 11,000 U.S. forces already in the area.

1989 -- Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. Andean Initiative in War on Drugs. On September 15, 1989, President Bush announced that military and law enforcement assistance would be sent to help the Andean nations of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru combat illicit drug producers and traffickers. By mid-September there were 50-100 US military advisers in Colombia in connection with transport and training in the use of military equipment, plus seven Special Forces teams of 2-12 persons to train troops in the three countries.

1989 -- Philippines. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1 US fighter planes from Clark Air Base in the Philippines had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from the US Navy base at Subic Bay to protect the US Embassy in Manila.

1989-90 -- Panama. Operation Just Cause On December 21, 1989, the U.S. invades the sovereign nation of Panama to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." Several thousand Panamanian civilians are killed. The Panamanian head of state, General Manuel Noriega, is captured and brought to the U.S. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.

1990 -- Liberia. On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the US Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated US citizens from Liberia.

1990 -- Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the US armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.
[edit]

1991-1999

1991 -- Iraq. Persian Gulf War On January 16 America attacked Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, in conjunction with a coalition of allies and UN Security Council resolutions. Combat operations ended on February 28, 1991. (See Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm)

1991 -- Iraq. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of US forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.

1991 -- Zaire. On September 25-27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, US Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Kinshasa. US planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled evacuated American citizens.

1992 -- Sierra Leone. On May 3, 1992, US military planes evacuated Americans from Sierra Leone, where military leaders had overthrown the government.

1992 -- Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with UN inspection teams.

1992 -2003 -- Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces a "no fly zones" over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings.

1992 -1995 -- Somalia. "Operation Restore Hope" Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)

1991-1996 -- Operation Provide Comfort

1993-Present Bosnia/Yugoslavia/Kosovo.

1993 -- Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.

1993 - 1995 -- Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy US ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.

1994 - 1996 -- Rwanda.

1994 -- Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.

1995 -- Bosnia. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs. (See Operation Deliberate Force)

1996 -- Liberia. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered US military forces to evacuate from that country "private US citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the US Embassy compound...."

1996 -- Central African Republic. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private US citizens and certain U.S. Government employees," and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."

1997 -- Albania. On March 13, 1997, US military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. Government employees and private US citizens from Tirana, Albania.

1997 -- Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of US military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.

1997 -- Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, US military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain US government employees and private US citizens.

1997 -- Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 US military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations.

1998 -- Iraq. US-led bombing campaign against Iraq. (See Operation Desert Fox)

1998 -- Guinea-Bissau. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.

1998 - 1999 Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel was deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

1998 -- Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach On August 20th air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.

1998 -- Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the US Embassy in Monrovia.

1999 - 2001 East Timor. Limited number of US military forces deployed to restore peace to East Timor.

1999 -- NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict. (See Operation Allied Force)
[edit]

2000- present

2000 -- Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000, President Clinton reported that he had ordered a US Navy patrol craft to deploy to Sierra Leone to be ready to support evacuation operations from that country if needed

2000 -- Yemen. On October 14, 2000, President Clinton reported that on October 12, 2000, in the wake of an attack on the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, he had authorized deployment of military personnel to Aden.

2001 -- Afghanistan. US invasion of Afghanistan The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces "began combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaida terrorists and their Taliban supporters."

2002 -- Yemen. On November 3, 2003, an American RQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.

2002 -- Philippines. At the Philippine Government's invitation, the President had ordered deployed "combat-equipped and combat support forces to train with, advise, and assist" the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "existing counterterrorist capabilities."

2002 -- Cote d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Cote d'Ivoire US military personnel went into Cote d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens Bouake.

2003 -- 2003 invasion of Iraq Second Persian Gulf War. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, to invade Iraq with the stated goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. By May 1, 2003, President Bush declares "mission accomplished." Occupation of Iraq by foriegn military forces continues.

2003 -- Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 combat-equipped US military personnel into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the US Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.

2003 --Georgia and Djibouti "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."

2004 -- 2004 Haïti rebellion Haiti.

2004 -- Terrorism: US "anti-terror" related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.

2006 -- Pakistan. 17 people including known Al Qaeda bomb maker and chemical weapons expert Midhat Mursi, were killed in an American RQ-1 Predator airstrike on Damadola (Pakistan), near the Afghan border.

2006 -- Lebanon. US Marine Detachment begins evacuation of US citizens willing to the leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_actions_by_or_within_the_United_S tates

[marksman]

I think you'd find the US was rather peaceful.
As others have shown, that's untrue. It is a myth that people won't vote to go to war. Particularly in America, which manages to organize a large military force on a strictly volunteer basis.

[ponderingturtle]

What do people think about some of the more or less democracies over thrown by the US government and installing dictators? I am thinking about Iran and guatamala to be more precise.

Now I guess that these would be excluded as they did not qualify as wars or something

[ponderingturtle]

But it is worth noting that the War of 1812 was an offshoot of a wider war that was not fought between democracies. By attacking British interests in the Americas, the US was basically joining Napoleon's side.

That and we had a god given right to annex canada. Well that was want some people where strongly advocating. The war of 1812 is much more complex than most people want to think it is, there certainly was an annex canada sentiment in many of the hawks then

[Meadmaker]

You are wrong.

U.S. Military actions since WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_actions_by_or_within_the_United_S tates

But you didn't compare that to a comparably sized dictatorship, of which there were two during the period you noted: the Soviet Union, and China.


I think you would find the Soviet military quite busy during those years.

[yinyinwang]

But you didn't compare that to a comparably sized dictatorship, of which there were two during the period you noted: the Soviet Union, and China.


I think you would find the Soviet military quite busy during those years.
We are talking about war between TWO countries,not just one country war record. Because US may fight a thousand wars with dictators, it does not have significance here.

[gumboot]

You are wrong.

U.S. Military actions since WWII.


I'm sorry but that list is a joke...

Since when did "military action" = war?

The US Navy was the first entity to provide aid to Tsunami victims... eek, that must have been a war too... :rolleyes:

-Andrew

[marksman]

That's true, but it leads us back to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. In addition to making "No two democracies have ever gone to war against one another" true by redfining democracy to exclude a lot of nations that thought they were democracies, we can also redefine "war" to exclude a lot of military conficts that many people consider war.

For example, during the Reagan Administration, the Marines invaded Grenada to undo a Cuban coup. The US called it an "operation." The Cubans refuse to acknowledge it happened. The Grenadans I have met called it a "War for Independence." Was it a war or not? (I'm not saying Cuba is a democracy, by the way.)

What about when England went to war with Argentina over the Falklands? Im pretty sure Argentina and England considered themselves democracies at the time. But we could say the Falklands conflict was a "dispute" or we could say that Argentina wasn't a democracy.

In the end, none of these seems to be very helpful as it all seems to be a lot of backwards engineering to make the thesis true.

[Meadmaker]

We are talking about war between TWO countries,not just one country war record. Because US may fight a thousand wars with dictators, it does not have significance here.

I think you would find the Soviet military quite busy in actions that involved two countries. China would also see plenty of action, although fewer external incidents.

Occasionally, it might be difficult to say when there were "two countries" because the Soviet army was invited in to Poland. And Aghanistan. And Hungary. And Lithuania. And....

[yinyinwang]

China would also see plenty of action, although fewer external incidents.


That is because it is weaker but not better than the former.

[MaxHardcore]

What about when England went to war with Argentina over the Falklands? Im pretty sure Argentina and England considered themselves democracies at the time. But we could say the Falklands conflict was a "dispute" or we could say that Argentina wasn't a democracy.



Argentina was run by a military junta at the time.

[X-COM]

A little reminder regarding monarchies, modern monarchs are often just symbolic figureheads with no remaining political power. Count thease countries among the democracies if the political power are in democratic hands. A prime example of this are my own country Sweden, a constitutanal monarcy. We do have a king but he have no power. Several of our political parties has the abolishment of the monarcy in their political program but have choosen not to do so as long the monarcy are still popular among the people. Personally I am for this monarcy, the idea of separating the pomp and power are healthy I think. A person with both pomp and power may be tempted to enter a state of hubris. Just look at all presidents that are increasing their powers...

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm sorry but that list is a joke...

Since when did "military action" = war?

The US Navy was the first entity to provide aid to Tsunami victims... eek, that must have been a war too... :rolleyes:

-Andrew
It's a list of military actions, I've never claimed it was a list of wars. Now, if you'll kindly show me where and when Congress declared war against Vietnam, please, since it's apparantly so easy to distinguish between wars and miltiary actions, as the line between them is in no way vague. . .

[marksman]

So what do we have then?

What about World War I? Germany had a parliament as well as a Kaiser. Was it a democracy?

What about the Gulf War in the 1990's? Wasn't Saddam a nominally elected President. I suppose not.

How about the US invasion of Grenada? Though that happened in the midst of a military coup, s it's debatable whether it was a democracy at the moment of invasion.

How about the current Israeli-Lebanese conflict. Is Lebanon a democracy?

Was North Viet Nam a democracy when America got involved? I think it was, nominally, when the War began.

To me, the definitions are so narrow, that we might as well state that no two Mormon nations have ever gone to war with one another.

[ImaginalDisc]

So what do we have then?

What about World War I? Germany had a parliament as well as a Kaiser. Was it a democracy?

What about the Gulf War in the 1990's? Wasn't Saddam a nominally elected President. I suppose not.

How about the US invasion of Grenada? Though that happened in the midst of a military coup, s it's debatable whether it was a democracy at the moment of invasion.

How about the current Israeli-Lebanese conflict. Is Lebanon a democracy?

Was North Viet Nam a democracy when America got involved? I think it was, nominally, when the War began.

To me, the definitions are so narrow, that we might as well state that no two Mormon nations have ever gone to war with one another. No two True Mormon nations, you mean.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What about when England went to war with Argentina over the Falklands?

What do you mean when England went to war? You do know that England is not the same thing as the UK don't you?

[marksman]

Jaggy,
Did you not understand what I meant by making a technical error in writing "England" when I clearly meant "United Kingdom"? Was that a productive contribution to the discussion?

No two True Mormon nations, you mean.Precisely. :D

[ponderingturtle]

Not so fast. Compare the likelihood of the United States to be at war with the likelihood that a comparably sized dictatorship is at war. I think you'd find the US was rather peaceful.

Ah but is it a true dictatorship or a partial dictatorship?

[marksman]

I'm not sure you can really call the Soviet Union a "true dictatorship" after Stalin's death. Khruschev and his successors were seriously hampered in their ability to make orders by the Politburo, which took more and more power from the Premier throughout the 1950's and 1960's. I think the Soviet Union was closer to an oligarchy, as was Red China after the death of Mao.

Do we have evidence of two true dictatorships going to war against one another? By dictatorship, I certainly do not mean hereditary monarchies of the Medieval or Renaissance or oligarchies like Red China or the Soviet Union or the various miltary juntas of Latin America? Hmm... Perhaps we should institute a true dictatorship throughout the world as no two true dictatorships have ever gone to war against one another.

edited for sarcasm

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure you can really call the Soviet Union a "true dictatorship" after Stalin's death. Khruschev and his successors were seriously hampered in their ability to make orders by the Politburo, which took more and more power from the Premier throughout the 1950's and 1960's. I think the Soviet Union was closer to an oligarchy, as was Red China after the death of Mao.

That was basicly my point. You can use the True Dictatorship as way to discount any dictatorships that got into wars with other dictatorships just like you can use the True democracies to produce the same results.

Where Stalin in russia and Hitler in germany really the same kind of leadership, and can you point out enough differences to make one of them not a true dictatorship? I think so.

So it would seem that the use of True Democracies is in there to exclude any cases where democracies faught, becuase true democracies do not go to war with each other therefore one of them must not have been a true democracy.

[Meadmaker]

But if you look at the history of wars, you can debate the proposition about no democracies ever going to war, but you can't debate the proposition about a democracy and a dictatorship, or two dictatorships. (At least, not without sounding silly.)

The real message of the assertion that democracies don't go to war with each other is that democracy prevents war, and I think that's a fair assertion, even though it isn't true 100% of the time. If the whole world converted to democratic government, there might still be wars, but I believe there would be a whole lot fewer of them.

[marksman]

But if you look at the history of wars, you can debate the proposition about no democracies ever going to war, but you can't debate the proposition about a democracy and a dictatorship, or two dictatorships. (At least, not without sounding silly.)
I actually think that looking at the history of war it's pretty clear that democracies are a relatively new phenomenon and you cannot make any conclusions about how frequently a democracy will go to war.

The real message of the assertion that democracies don't go to war with each other is that democracy prevents war
If that were true, then we just need to look at how often a democracy initiates a war. It shouldn't matter the type of government against which the war is initiated. If the conflict is with a non-democracy, under tyour theory, it would more likely than not be the non-democracy commencing the war against the democracy.

However, the history of democracies shows this not to be the case.

The American Revolution is a war between two democracies.
The War of 1812 is a war between two democracies.
The Civil War is a war between two democracies.
The First and Second Boer Wars were between democracies.

This is not an insignificant number of wars between democracies given how few democracies there were in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. If you then add in all the military interventions were initiated by democracies against non-democracies, you'd be hard-pressed to state that democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies.

That's why there is so often resort to the "No True Scotsman" defense. In order to preserve the appearance of democratic passivity, one must narrowly define democracy and/or war. One might also put in an unnecessary caveat that only wars among democracies would disprove the thesis.

If the whole world converted to democratic government, there might still be wars, but I believe there would be a whole lot fewer of them.

Possibly. But I'll make two points...

1) In his most recent book, Fareed Zakaria makes an interesting thesis: democracies are only sustainable if there is a minimum level of prosperity in the society. Otherwise, like pre-WWII Germany, Italy and Spain, they will descend into dictatorship or fascism. If true, then you are confusing the correlation of democracy and peace with causation. It may be that prosperity is the cause of both democracy and peacefulness.

2) It is a romantic notion to think that wars are the products of oligarchs who care nothing for the common folk who die and suffer in war. In truth, foreign wars are often the demise of dictators. The Argentinian Junta, for example, was deposed shortly after losing the Falklands War. Now, this may be because unstable dictatorship use war as a last resort of rallying nationalistic fervor and thus a failed war only causes the deposal of a regime that may have been deposed regardless. But we have scant evidence that democracies are less belligerent than other forms of government.

Mostly, that is because we have very little history of democracies from which to make a judgment at all!

[The Atheist]

Wouldn't there even be a simpler way of finding an answer to this question?

Take a broad definiton of democracy - e.g. free, multi-party elections resulting in a governing body.

Apply that to all countries and put them on one side of the list and everyone else on the other.

You may well find that most democracies, especially since WWII, are either members of NATO, the British Commonwealth or the USA Commonwealth (Japan, Israel, Phillipines, Mexico etc.). Accordingly, they're not likely to go to war against each other.

Voila; democracies hardly ever fight each other, because we're mostly on the same side.

i.e. Democracy is good

i.e. Impose democracy upon the planet

I'm sure I've seen that somewhere recently.

[Meadmaker]

Voila; democracies hardly ever fight each other, because we're mostly on the same side.


We're mostly on the same side because we're democracies.

I think if we were all democracies, there would hardly ever be an "other side". However, that might be wishful thinking.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Jaggy,
Did you not understand what I meant by making a technical error in writing "England" when I clearly meant "United Kingdom"?

I understood it, but it is simply inaccurate - I thought you might care about trying to get it right in the future so as not to undermine your credibility by making a basic error.

Imagine if someone posted about the Texan invasion of Iraq - what would you think of their understanding of the situation based on that post? Why is your post any different?

[Beerina]

It occurs to me that Lebanon is not a democracy in the sense being considered important here. Key to a democracy is elected officials being in charge. Although Hamas has elected officials, they do not appear to be under control of those officials as an official branch of government. The president of Lebanon, or whoever, says to Hamas, "cut it out!", which should be among his powers, but they laugh and go their merry way.

[Cleon]

It occurs to me that Lebanon is not a democracy in the sense being considered important here. Key to a democracy is elected officials being in charge. Although Hamas has elected officials, they do not appear to be under control of those officials as an official branch of government. The president of Lebanon, or whoever, says to Hamas, "cut it out!", which should be among his powers, but they laugh and go their merry way.

This might have something to do with the fact that Hamas does not exist in Lebanon to any significant degree.

[ponderingturtle]

But if you look at the history of wars, you can debate the proposition about no democracies ever going to war, but you can't debate the proposition about a democracy and a dictatorship, or two dictatorships. (At least, not without sounding silly.)

Sure you can. How many dictatorships are True Dictatorships? You need to use words to exclude democracies from your list, so what is so different about excluding dictatorships for not being absolute enough, when you are excluding democracies for not being democratic enough?


The real message of the assertion that democracies don't go to war with each other is that democracy prevents war, and I think that's a fair assertion, even though it isn't true 100% of the time. If the whole world converted to democratic government, there might still be wars, but I believe there would be a whole lot fewer of them.

It is dishonnest. Saying Democracy might reduce the rate of war might be accurate or not. Depends on culture and such. Colonial Briton was pretty democratic, but also an empire and conquored many places. So democracy by itself does not seem to make all the difference, but it might often be part of a larger world view that does do this.

[ponderingturtle]

We're mostly on the same side because we're democracies.

I think if we were all democracies, there would hardly ever be an "other side". However, that might be wishful thinking.

This is nonsense, the US has overthrown quite a number of unfriendly democracies, and always tries to catagorize any unfriendly country as not being democratic enough

[marksman]

I understood it, but it is simply inaccurate - I thought you might care about trying to get it right in the future so as not to undermine your credibility by making a basic error.
It was nitpicky. I think the meaning of my post was clear and it is not an uncommon error for people to write "England" when meaning the "United Kingdom."

I also note that you didn't actually explain that the proper term was "United Kingdom". You just snarkily attacked an error. If you actually "care[d] about [me] trying to get it right in the future" one would expect you would have supplied me with the correction. But you didn't.

Imagine if someone posted about the Texan invasion of Iraq - what would you think of their understanding of the situation based on that post?
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that it was an innocent error. I wouldn't conclude it meant anything about his understanding on the situation based on a single error.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It was nitpicky. I think the meaning of my post was clear and it is not an uncommon error for people to write "England" when meaning the "United Kingdom."

Not among intelligent people.

I also note that you didn't actually explain that the proper term was "United Kingdom". You just snarkily attacked an error. If you actually "care[d] about [me] trying to get it right in the future" one would expect you would have supplied me with the correction. But you didn't.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Pointing out that England is not the same at the UK was sufficient to enable you to spot your error. All the information you needed was in my post.

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that it was an innocent error. I wouldn't conclude it meant anything about his understanding on the situation based on a single error.

And if nobody corrected him and he repeated the error again and again?

[marksman]

Not among intelligent people.
Even intelligent people make innocent mistakes. For example, I think you are an intelligent person who made the mistake of posting a message contributing nothing of substance to the thread.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Pointing out that England is not the same at the UK was sufficient to enable you to spot your error. All the information you needed was in my post.
You are right. I was incorrect for stating that you didn't provide the correct answer in your post. I withdraw that statement and apologize.

And if nobody corrected him and he repeated the error again and again?
Straw man, since I had not made that error more than once. You chose not to give me the benefit of the doubt and we've now derailed what was otherwise a polite discussion with this tangent.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Even intelligent people make innocent mistakes. For example, I think you are an intelligent person who made the mistake of posting a message contributing nothing of substance to the thread.

And I think you made a stupid mistake but for some reason wish to blame me for pointing that out. Maybe you should ask the families of the Welsh Guards killed during the conflict how they feel about it being described as an English war?


You are right. I was incorrect for stating that you didn't provide the correct answer in your post. I withdraw that statement and apologize.

Thank you


Straw man, since I had not made that error more than once. You chose not to give me the benefit of the doubt and we've now derailed what was otherwise a polite discussion with this tangent.

Nope, I chose to try and stop you repeating an error by pointing out that you had made one. Do you think the best way to avoid repeating errors is to ignore them?

[marksman]

And I think you made a stupid mistake but for some reason wish to blame me for pointing that out. Maybe you should ask the families of the Welsh Guards killed during the conflict how they feel about it being described as an English war?
Why shoiuld I do that? It was a simple mistake. Are you now attributing moral ramifactions to my error? I have no problem acknowledging error, as I did in the prior post. So your ascribed motivations for me are contrary to the evidence.

Nope, I chose to try and stop you repeating an error by pointing out that you had made one. Do you think the best way to avoid repeating errors is to ignore them?
I think the best way to encourage a forum conducive to honest discussion is to give people the benefit of the doubt. Do you think our discussion here is accomplishing that goal?

More importantly, have you anything productive to contribute to the primary discussion?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Why shoiuld I do that? It was a simple mistake. Are you now attributing moral ramifactions to my error? I have no problem acknowledging error, as I did in the prior post. So your ascribed motivations for me are contrary to the evidence.

I am not attributing moral ramifications at all. I am pointing out why it is important to get things like that correct and therefore why I corrected you. Which you seem to think I should not have done.


I think the best way to encourage a forum conducive to honest discussion is to give people the benefit of the doubt. Do you think our discussion here is accomplishing that goal?

I think it is important that mistakes are corrected. Do you think your reaction to me pointing out your error is helping to accomplish that goal?

More importantly, have you anything productive to contribute to the primary discussion?

Do you? Given your grasp of geography, I can only assume not. Do you really think the military junta in Argentina that was quite happy to "disappear" thousands of its citizens qualifies as a democracy?

[marksman]

I think it is important that mistakes are corrected. Do you think your reaction to me pointing out your error is helping to accomplish that goal?
Only if you can accept the idea that creating useless tangents is not conducive to productive discussion. I am beginning to think perhaps you cannot accept that idea.

Given your grasp of geography, I can only assume not.So one innocent error and suddenly my entire grasp of geography is in question?!

Do you really think the military junta in Argentina that was quite happy to "disappear" thousands of its citizens qualifies as a democracy?
Did I ever state they were? I stated quite clearly that Argentina considered itself a democracy at the time, not that I did. Presumably, since you've now made a single error in reading comprehension, we can all assume that you have little grasp of reading English. (I don't actually believe that; I am merely showing you the flaw in your judging my knowledge of geography from a single error.)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Only if you can accept the idea that creating useless tangents is not conducive to productive discussion. I am beginning to think perhaps you cannot accept that idea.

So one innocent error and suddenly my entire grasp of geography is in question?!

You are the one who wants to go off at a tangent, complaining when your errors, which are directly relevant to the subject at hand, are corrected.

Your inability to grasp that the distinction between England and the UK is pretty ***** important when talking about a war in which a large percentage of the UK personnel involved and the casualties suffered were not from England. Trying to belittle it as an innocent error is pathetic.


Did I ever state they were? I stated quite clearly that Argentina considered itself a democracy at the time, not that I did. Presumably, since you've now made a single error in reading comprehension, we can all assume that you have little grasp of reading English. (I don't actually believe that; I am merely showing you the flaw in your judging my knowledge of geography from a single error.)

And your evidence for Argentina believing itself to be a democracy is what precisely?

Are you talking about the military junta who ceased power by force? Of whom wikipedia says:

"The regime shut down the legislative branch and abolished freedom of the press and freedom of speech, adopting a severe media censorship."

Do you think they thought they were democratic?

Or are you talking about the Argentinian people, subjected to random arrests, beatings and disappearances? Do you think they thought it was a democracy?

[marksman]

Trying to belittle it as an innocent error is pathetic.
So you think I deliberately wrote "England" rather than the UK? You actually dispute that my error was "innocent"? Do you have any basis for that assertion?

And your evidence for Argentina believing itself to be a democracy is what precisely?
The fact that at the time of the Falklands War I was in the region when the junta was claiming that the coup was needed to restore democracy from Peronista control and that they had every intention of holding elections as soon as the war ended. Did I believe their justifications for tyranny? no. Did the government of Argentina claim that it was still democratic despite all evidence to the contrary? Yes.

Sadly, as the Falklands War was in 1982, and I know of no internet news archives that go that far back, I am unable to give you a citation. However, if you are truly interested, I would suggest seeking out news articles from the New York Times.

If you do not accept that the Argentinian junta called itself a democracy, I will happily withdraw that hypothetical and we can get to the actual topic of conversation, which is whether it would be accurate to state that "There has never been a war between two genuine democracies"

Do you have an opinion on the actual topic of the thread. I admit it might be quaint to ask it (again), as there doesn't seem to have been an on-topic post on this thread since yesterday.

[marksman]

I will also note that Argentina continued to call itslef a "republic" throughout the Falklands War. now, so did the USSR and its satellite states. But I'm not saying that Argentina was a democracy, or that its citizens considered themselves in a democratic regime. But the government certainly represented itself, however incredibly, as a republic.

I also submit the following from theInter-American Commission on Human Rights (http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Argentina80eng/chap.9.htm): "From the time that the Military Junta assumed complete power, it announced its aims to 'assure the later restoration of a republican, representative and federal democracy, in accordance with the reality and demands for a solution, and to achieve progress for the Argentine people.'"

"The President, Lt. General (Ret.) Jorge Rafael Videla, in turn, during the audience granted to the Commission during its on-site observation, declared that “there will have to be a flow towards authentic democracy, when circumstances allow”; and one member of the Military Junta, Lt. General Roberto Eduardo Viola, during the audience that the Junta granted to the IACHR, expressed, in general terms, the program to re-establish democracy that will be conducted—he said—in three phases."

Again, I am not saying the junta was an actual democracy. It wasn't. But it represented itself to be a democratic institution, seeking to transform Argnetina from Peronism to full democracy. It was a load of horsepucky, but what I wrote was not untrue.

[gumboot]

It's a list of military actions, I've never claimed it was a list of wars. Now, if you'll kindly show me where and when Congress declared war against Vietnam, please, since it's apparantly so easy to distinguish between wars and miltiary actions, as the line between them is in no way vague. . .


Your list was used to demonstrate the US has not been relatively peaceful. So let's take a closer examination of your list.

The list includes 113 items

22 are evacuations of American personnel/Embassies, or increased security in US Embassies in unstable regions

9 are post-WW2 occupation duties

22 involve minor military operations in which the US was invited to be involved by the hosting nation

13 involved localised or non-combat counter-terrorism operations

5 involve non-combat UN coalition activities

5 are additional non-conflict activities

7 are one off incidents (all of which were either accidents or instigated by other threats)

6 Involve UN or unilateral operations in support of democratic nations under threat from internal forces

3 involve non-military interference in governments of sovereign nations (or intention to do so)

1 involves direct military interference in governments of sovereign nations

2 involve the Korean War (sanctioned by UN and involved international coalition)

1 involved Vietnam War (initially in support of UN resolutions, later coalition under SEATO)

2 involve actions in Cambodia as carry-on from Vietnam War

3 involve the invasion of Panama

4 involve operations in relation to UN sanction operations against Iraq as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

3 involve UN and NATO operations in the Balkans

1 involves the US invasion of Afghanistan, UN sanctioned, in response to the 9/11 Terrorist attacks

1 involves the unilateral invasion of Iraq against the wishes of the UN


So. In conclusion, of your enormous lists of examples that the US is not peaceful, only 7 events indicate US aggression - 3 of those being non-military operations by the CIA (one of which was not carried out), two being minor military operations (Grenada and Panama) and two being significant military operations (Vietnam/Cambodia and Iraq).

Hence my assertation that your "list" is a joke.

-Andrew

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I will also note that Argentina continued to call itslef a "republic" throughout the Falklands War. now, so did the USSR and its satellite states. But I'm not saying that Argentina was a democracy, or that its citizens considered themselves in a democratic regime. But the government certainly represented itself, however incredibly, as a republic.

I also submit the following from theInter-American Commission on Human Rights (http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Argentina80eng/chap.9.htm): "From the time that the Military Junta assumed complete power, it announced its aims to 'assure the later restoration of a republican, representative and federal democracy, in accordance with the reality and demands for a solution, and to achieve progress for the Argentine people.'"

"The President, Lt. General (Ret.) Jorge Rafael Videla, in turn, during the audience granted to the Commission during its on-site observation, declared that “there will have to be a flow towards authentic democracy, when circumstances allow”; and one member of the Military Junta, Lt. General Roberto Eduardo Viola, during the audience that the Junta granted to the IACHR, expressed, in general terms, the program to re-establish democracy that will be conducted—he said—in three phases."

Again, I am not saying the junta was an actual democracy. It wasn't. But it represented itself to be a democratic institution, seeking to transform Argnetina from Peronism to full democracy. It was a load of horsepucky, but what I wrote was not untrue.

Look at the bits I have highlighted. They all talk, as most dictatorships do, about a future intention to restore/move to democracy.

Surely that is evidence that they do NOT consider there is currently a democracy?

[marksman]

No, as I said, they saw themselves as the waystation between Peronism (which they inaccurately though of as 'no democracy' to 'full democracy'). The junta considered itself a "partial democracy".

The junta didn't couch things in the black and white terms you use. It isn't all democracy or no democracy. Their statements were couched in a continuing stream of democracy, which was not unusual for petty dictatorships tying to curry American favor during the Cold War.

And again, do you have a position on the actual question put forth in the title of the thread?

Byt the way, in that document I cited, which said democracy would be reinstituted in three phases, the junta believed itself to be in the first phase. Thus, it was already one-third of a full and representative democracy, using its own Orwellian newspeak.

The Junta, for example, always claimed that it was following the Argentinian Contitution: "in their institutionalized intervention in the Government, will be competent to adopt decisions for the national strategic leadership, national security and the defense of the Constitution." (From the document already cited) The Argentinian Constitution stated that Argentina was a democracy.

It was a sham and a lie, but the Argentinian junta furthered the lie for its own political purposes.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, as I said, they saw themselves as the waystation between Peronism (which they inaccurately though of as 'no democracy' to 'full democracy'). The junta considered itself a "partial democracy".

The junta didn't couch things in the black and white terms you use. It isn't all democracy or no democracy. Their statements were couched in a continuing stream of democracy, which was not unusual for petty dictatorships tying to curry American favor during the Cold War.

And again, do you have a position on the actual question put forth in the title of the thread?

Yes. See my first post on this thread - two indisputable democracies at war with each other.

Byt the way, in that document I cited, which said democracy would be reinstituted in three phases, the junta believed itself to be in the first phase. Thus, it was already one-third of a full and representative democracy, using its own Orwellian newspeak.

The Junta, for example, always claimed that it was following the Argentinian Contitution: "in their institutionalized intervention in the Government, will be competent to adopt decisions for the national strategic leadership, national security and the defense of the Constitution." (From the document already cited) The Argentinian Constitution stated that Argentina was a democracy.

It was a sham and a lie, but the Argentinian junta furthered the lie for its own political purposes.

If it was a lie, then the junta did NOT believe there was really a democracy. I have no doubt they may have claimed they were part of a process to restore democracy, but that does not mean that they considered the time when a military junta was in charge to be democratic. You seem to agree with this when you point out they were lying.

[ImaginalDisc]

So. In conclusion, of your enormous lists of examples that the US is not peaceful, only 7 events indicate US aggression - 3 of those being non-military operations by the CIA (one of which was not carried out), two being minor military operations (Grenada and Panama) and two being significant military operations (Vietnam/Cambodia and Iraq).

Hence my assertation that your "list" is a joke.

-Andrew

I'm afriad you have missed the point. The fact of the matter is that American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been fighting and dying steadily since World War II. Whether the actions they have been fighting and dying in are justified or not, legal or not is irrelevant. The United States cannot be called "peaceful" when it is engaged in continuous military action, even if those actions are justified.

[Meadmaker]

I'm afriad you have missed the point. The fact of the matter is that American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been fighting and dying steadily since World War II. Whether the actions they have been fighting and dying in are justified or not, legal or not is irrelevant. The United States cannot be called "peaceful" when it is engaged in continuous military action, even if those actions are justified.

Gumboot used the phrase "relatively peaceful", and I noted the same thing. To make a valid comparison, you would have to compare a similar time frame of a dictatorship.


Could you make a similar list of militar activities for the Soviet Union, which would be the only comparable dictatorship of the era? If you did so, I suspect you would find just as much military activity, and more aggression.

Furthermore, in analyzing Gumboot's list of aggressive operations, you would find that for the US, some of those nations who were the target of the aggression had populations that welcomed it. In Grenada, the operation was wildly popular. When Reagan visited a few years later, he was welcomed and hailed as "Papa Reagan". In Panama, our military restored the elected leader. I believe, but I haven't really looked into it, that the Panamanians would be generally supportive, though not so much as the people of Grenada. In Vietnam/Cambodia, we were not popular, but it was an existing war that we joined, not a war we started. In Iraq, the first gulf war was also a war we joined, and it was hugely popular among the people of Kuwait and most other regional entities.

I don't think you would find any population that said, "Thank goodness the Soviet Army came to save us!"

The Iraq war was a mixed bag. In my opinion, it was bungled badly, but that's just my opinion. I think even it had a fair amount of support among the people of Iraq, at first.

[Meadmaker]

Here's an experiment. I'll pick a random year in the twentieth century. Maybe we could look and see what military activity there was that year, and see how it stacks up against the premise that democracies tend not to fight wars against each other, and the related premise that democracies tend not to start wars of aggression.

I'll roll some virtual dice right now.

The year is 1903. Oh, I'm not actually going to do the reseach to see what was happening in 1903, at least not right away, but if someone is interested, I think that kind of experiment is the right way to make a fair comparison. A better test would involve the whole century, but that seems a lot of work, and much less fun.

[marksman]

Yes. See my first post on this thread - two indisputable democracies at war with each other.

No True Scotsman, eh? What is an "indisputable" democracy? I imagine the sample of "indisuputable democracies" to be so small that the fact they haven't commenced many wars against one another is do to their rarity not necessarily their inherent peacefulness.

If it was a lie, then the junta did NOT believe there was really a democracy. I have no doubt they may have claimed they were part of a process to restore democracy, but that does not mean that they considered the time when a military junta was in charge to be democratic.
Wehn I wrote "lie" I meant that the statement was untrue. I am unable to read minds, so I cannot claim to know if the junta believed they were on the road to further democracy liked they claimed or if they were intentionally lying. The point is that they represented themselves as a democracy, which arguably qualifies them for the analysis, if you use an exceedingly broad definition of "democracy."

But that's the point, isn't it? The truthfulness of the title of this thread entirely depends on definitions and one can fine-tune the definition to fit the criteria. It's not a helpful axiom.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes. See my first post on this thread - two indisputable democracies at war with each other.
How many indisputable democracies are there in history?

I am sure you can find people who would dispute that america is now or ever was a democracy or if it was always controled more by political parties and such.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I am unable to read minds, so I cannot claim to know if the junta believed they were on the road to further democracy liked they claimed or if they were intentionally lying.

Yet in an earlier post:

Argentina considered itself a democracy at the time

So you can't read the minds of the junta, but you can make a statement about whether a country considers itself (NB - NOT claimed to be) to be a democracy?

And what do you mean by "further democracy"? Are you trying to suggest that there was partial democracy under the military junta?

[Meadmaker]

1903 - Military events.

The British attacked Kano, an emirate, now part of Nigeria.
The British moved into Tibet.
The Macedonians rose (unsuccessfully) against Turkey.
Panglima Polim surrendered (I don't know who this was, but he was on the Island of Sumatra.)
Panama declares independence from Colombia.

Let's consider the countries involved:

Britain: Democratic form of government, but the House of Lords and the King both still had considerable power, so they were a marginal democracy.
Kano - Kingdom.
Tibet- Kingdom.
Turkey - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was still a monarchy. Macedonia - Part of Turkey, so ruled by a monarchy. I don't know if it was a part of Turkey, or a colony, protectorate, client state, or what.
Sumatra - Don't know. I think a Dutch colony at the time, but I don't know the state of Dutch democracy at the time, either.
Colombia - Republican form of government, with a strong central government, and very little in the way of equal rights Furthermore, the leader in 1903 had seized power in a military coup a couple of years earlier.
US- Democracy. (In my opinion, a "true democracy", although I'm sure someone would quibble.)

Five warlike events. Three of them unquestionably involved at least one dictatorship. I'll let someone more knowledgeable discuss the state of Sumatran democracy.

Panamanian independence is a tricky one. Technically there was no war, but the US military was involved in supporting the move to independence, which would surely have failed without such support. If we called it a US-Colombian war, we wouldn't be too far wrong. Colombia technically had a Republican government, but was currently ruled by someone who had seized power in a military coup.

So, there are several clear wars that did not involve two democracies, and one case which wasn't really a war, that involved one country that wasn't really a democracy. I think the original assertion held up pretty well in 1903.

What about democracies and wars of aggression? The British were certainly aggressive in Tibet and Kano, but were they a democracy? Sort of, but with a hereditary oligarchy still holding a great deal of power. It's worth noting that as the House of Lords and the King gave up their power, aggressive acts like the one in question became less and less. The US support of Panamanian independence could be called an act of aggression, creating a puppet state and eventually annexing the territory from Colombia. But note that this is a case where the "war" involved no casualties. Would US popular opinion have allowed Rooseveldt to support the act if a real war would have been necessary? We'll never know. 1903 was an inconclusive year for cases demonstating the non-aggressiveness of democracies.

ETA:http://din-timelines.com/1903.q1_timeline.shtml

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But that's the point, isn't it? The truthfulness of the title of this thread entirely depends on definitions and one can fine-tune the definition to fit the criteria. It's not a helpful axiom.

If you define the term to exclude Finland and the UK in 1941 then it is very easy to see why no two democracies have ever gone to war, as I doubt that you could find two in total.

[marksman]

Yet in an earlier post:

"Considered" itself a democracy because of its public statements, not because of what was in their craniums. Yeesh. It's as if you have no capacity to read thing in context or when confronted with a choice of reasing what I right so that it makes sense or doesn't make sense, you choose to read it nonsensically.

So you can't read the minds of the junta, but you can make a statement about whether a country considers itself (NB - NOT claimed to be) to be a democracy?
Based on its statements, yes. The same way I believe that John McCain considers himself a Republican because he says he's a Republican and runs for office under the Republican ticket. I do not have the ability to read John McCain's mind, and yet I think the statement "John McCain considers himself to be a Republican" can be true without resorting to psychic powers.

And what do you mean by "further democracy"? Are you trying to suggest that there was partial democracy under the military junta?No. I suggest the junta claimed to be a partial democracy by virtue of the fact that it stated it was in transition between Peronism (which it claimed ot be a total lack of democracy) and "full democracy". So the junta is claiming there is such a thing that is partial democracy and that it's government was such a thing.

Of course, I have explained the difference between what I believe and what the junta has stated it believes several times now. Before we only had a single instance of you lacking reading comprehension. Now we have a pattern of it.

And I notice that you failed to answer my question defining "indisputable democracies". I have answered all of your questions. It would appear to me to be only civil of you to answer mine. Particularly, since I am simply asking you to define your own term and because my question, unlike yours, is directly relevant to the main topic of the thread.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

"Considered" itself a democracy because of its public statements, not because of what was in their craniums. Yeesh. It's as if you have no capacity to read thing in context or when confronted with a choice of reasing what I right so that it makes sense or doesn't make sense, you choose to read it nonsensically.

Based on its statements, yes. The same way I believe that John McCain considers himself a Republican because he says he's a Republican and runs for office under the Republican ticket. I do not have the ability to read John McCain's mind, and yet I think the statement "John McCain considers himself to be a Republican" can be true without resorting to psychic powers.

Terrible analogy. To try and make it remotely analagous to the junta's position, what if John McCain said he was a Republican but voted with the Democrats every time and publically supported Democrat policies and candidates? Would you still say he considered himself a Republican?

The junta in Argentina's actions were very, very clearly undemocratic, so to compare them with McCain's clearly republican actions is simply nonsensical. The whole point is that the junta's actions contradict their claims, unlike in your supposed analogy - a pretty important distinction.

Of course, I have explained the difference between what I believe and what the junta has stated it believes several times now. Before we only had a single instance of you lacking reading comprehension. Now we have a pattern of it.

When you post stuff like "reasing what I right". don't be surprised if people struggle to understand what you mean.

If you mean that the junta CLAIMED to be a democracy, then say so. It is not that difficult. If you choose to say something different, then don't whine when I point out what you did write instead of what you now claim you meant.

And I notice that you failed to answer my question defining "indisputable democracies". I have answered all of your questions. It would appear to me to be only civil of you to answer mine. Particularly, since I am simply asking you to define your own term and because my question, unlike yours, is directly relevant to the main topic of the thread.

BS - you are trying to pointscore, nothing more, nothing less.

My definition of indisputable democracy, free, fair and frequent elections the results of which directly determine those running the country and having the power to change the way the country is run.

[gumboot]

I'm afriad you have missed the point. The fact of the matter is that American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been fighting and dying steadily since World War II.


With all due respect, I think you missed my point. Most of the items on that list of "military action" did not involve any form of combat by American Forces.

Hence the flaw in your claim that the list is evidence that the US is not peaceful. It would be more accurate to claim that the list demonstrates that many other countries, in which America had some form of presence, are not peaceful.




Whether the actions they have been fighting and dying in are justified or not, legal or not is irrelevant. The United States cannot be called "peaceful" when it is engaged in continuous military action, even if those actions are justified.


I never tried to claim all their actions were "justified". Most of their actions are simply non-combat related.

Furthermore, consider the path of logic in this discussion (paraphrasing):

Marksman:
The US is frequently an aggressor, and calls for war all the time.

Meadmaker:
You have to compare the US with a relevant dictatorship. I assert the US is rather peaceful.

ImaginalDisc:
Claims this is false, and lists US military actions post WW2.

Gumboot:
Points out that the vast majority of actions on the list are non-combat related (refuting ImaginalDisc's assertion) and secondly pointing out that only a very small percentage constituted US Aggression (refuting Marksman's original assertion).

The US, post World War Two, has a track record of using its forces to protect its own assets, and of leading the way in international security efforts. It has also, on occasion, got militarily involved in things it shouldn't have, and has frequently intervened on behalf of various friendly governments in internal disputes.

Both of these indicate, to me, that the US is relatively peaceful and non aggressive.

Perhaps for comparison we should compare it with another democracy through a period of 60 years while it was the world power?

So... United Kingdom, 1815 to 1875... more or less aggressive than the United States? More or less wars?

I'll start the bidding and propose the British Empire was significantly more aggressive and war-like than the United States. (Both in the "First Empire" stage and the "Pax Britannica" stage).

-Andrew

[marksman]

pointing out that only a very small percentage constituted US Aggression (refuting Marksman's original assertion).
Only after we compare it to a dictatorship using the same standards over the same time.

What are a list of USSR acts of aggression after WWII? Other than Afghanistan, and the use of force in Hungary. I'm hard-pressed to come up with one.

[marksman]

Terrible analogy. To try and make it remotely analagous to the junta's position, what if John McCain said he was a Republican but voted with the Democrats every time and publically supported Democrat policies and candidates? Would you still say he considered himself a Republican?
If he claimed to be a Republican? Yes, I would.

When you post stuff like "reasing what I right". don't be surprised if people struggle to understand what you mean.
I'm sorry you are incapable of seeing past other people's (specifically, my) typos. I think that reflects more on your reading comprehension than my communication skills.

If you mean that the junta CLAIMED to be a democracy, then say so. It is not that difficult.
I did and it's not difficult. You just don't seem to have a capacity to read in context and understand that "considered itself" and "claimed" are the same thing in context.

BS - you are trying to pointscore, nothing more, nothing less.
No, I'm trying to keep the post on topic.

My definition of indisputable democracy, free, fair and frequent elections the results of which directly determine those running the country and having the power to change the way the country is run.
See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Now, could you answer the second half of the question? How many such democracies have there been in history? And is this sample large enough to make any conclusions about the frequency at which they go to war?

[ponderingturtle]

And I notice that you failed to answer my question defining "indisputable democracies". I have answered all of your questions. It would appear to me to be only civil of you to answer mine. Particularly, since I am simply asking you to define your own term and because my question, unlike yours, is directly relevant to the main topic of the thread.
You failed to come up with a list of "Indisputable Democracies" that I asked for. If you can challange the civil war by useing slavery to invalidate democracy, why can't overly strong political parties also invalidate a democracy? So we need to find at least one of these indisputable democracies and start from there.

[Meadmaker]

Only after we compare it to a dictatorship using the same standards over the same time.

What are a list of USSR acts of aggression after WWII? Other than Afghanistan, and the use of force in Hungary. I'm hard-pressed to come up with one.

There was also the use of force in Poland and Czeckoslovakia. There were border skirmishes with China. There was use of force in Lithuania in 1990, although that was technically inside the Soviet Union, for a few more months anyway.

Of course, all of Eastern Europe was occupied with puppet governments from1945 to 1989.

There was planting nuclear missiles in Cuba.

There were advisors, some in combat situations, in many African countries and in the Middle East.

I think if you searched, you could find a very busy military during that era.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If he claimed to be a Republican? Yes, I would.

You would ignore all of the other evidence and base it solely on what he claimed? What if we were talking about a murderer who all the evidence showed was guilty, who offered no alternative explanation of the death, who had no alibi but who pleaded not guilty. Would you say they considered themselves not to be a murderer?

I think this is why we have difficulty understanding each other - if you accept every statement made at face value and ignore all other evidence, then we are unlikely to see things the same way.

I did and it's not difficult. You just don't seem to have a capacity to read in context and understand that "considered itself" and "claimed" are the same thing in context.

Fundamentally disagree - many people claim to be things that they do not genuinely consider themselves to be. To try and suggest they are synonyms is simply wrong.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

More petty point scoring. Or are you going to claim that this was necessary to keep the thread on point?

Now, could you answer the second half of the question? How many such democracies have there been in history? And is this sample large enough to make any conclusions about the frequency at which they go to war?

Nope. You are the one who is making the argument that democracies are less likely to go to war, not me. You do the research.

[marksman]

You failed to come up with a list of "Indisputable Democracies" that I asked for.
It's not my term and I'm not making an argument that relies on such a term. I don't know what qualifies as an indisputable democarcy so I cannot come up with such a list. That's my point. Any such definition is either too malleable or too narrow to be useful.

If you can challange the civil war by useing slavery to invalidate democracy, why can't overly strong political parties also invalidate a democracy? So we need to find at least one of these indisputable democracies and start from there.
Right. It's too malleable to be useful.

There was also the use of force in Poland and Czeckoslovakia. There were border skirmishes with China. There was use of force in Lithuania in 1990, although that was technically inside the Soviet Union, for a few more months anyway.

Of course, all of Eastern Europe was occupied with puppet governments from1945 to 1989.

There was planting nuclear missiles in Cuba.

There were advisors, some in combat situations, in many African countries and in the Middle East.

I think if you searched, you could find a very busy military during that era.
Well, I think we already established from the criticism of the Wiki article someone posted about US military actions that not every military action is a war. "Border skirmishes" "military advisors" and "planting nuclear missiles" certainly wouldn't qualify any more than America's funding of proxy wars in Central America, "military advisors" and "planting nuclear missiles" would qualify as war.

This points out two things: 1) war isn't very common 2) definiing "war" is going to be as problematic as defining "democracy" (or "dictatorship").

You would ignore all of the other evidence and base it solely on what he claimed?
I would base a statement about what he "considered himself to be" based on what he claimed, yes. I would not base a statement of what I actually considered him to be based on what he claimed, however.

What if we were talking about a murderer who all the evidence showed was guilty, who offered no alternative explanation of the death, who had no alibi but who pleaded not guilty. Would you say they considered themselves not to be a murderer?
Yes. He'd be wrong. Probably delusional.

I think this is why we have difficulty understanding each other - if you accept every statement made at face value and ignore all other evidence, then we are unlikely to see things the same way.
I'm not accepting what is said as face value for reality. Only for the fact that they are making representations about themselves. For some reaosn you can't seem to distinguish a statement about what someone represents themselves to be and a statement about what I think that person actually to be.

Fundamentally disagree - many people claim to be things that they do not genuinely consider themselves to be. To try and suggest they are synonyms is simply wrong.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point then. I believe I used the word "consider" correctly in context.

More petty point scoring. Or are you going to claim that this was necessary to keep the thread on point?
Since you aren't responding, apparently, my efforts to keep the thread on point have been in vain.

Nope. You are the one who is making the argument that democracies are less likely to go to war, not me. You do the research.
Where did I ever claim that? I didn't. You're misrepresenting me. Show me one post in this thread where I claimed that democracies are less likely to go to war. I never wrote that.

My position has been that there is no evidence that democracies are less likely to go to war and such arguments fall victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy or result in a definition of democracy and/or war that is so narrow as to be unhelpful.

How you can conclude that this position is in support of its converse (the democracies ar eless likely to go to war) is impossible to discern.

[Meadmaker]

Well, I think we already established from the criticism of the Wiki article someone posted about US military actions that not every military action is a war. "Border skirmishes" "military advisors" and "planting nuclear missiles" certainly wouldn't qualify any more than America's funding of proxy wars in Central America, "military advisors" and "planting nuclear missiles" would qualify as war.

I agree, but not everyone would readily admit that, I suspect. If we compare apples to apples, we would find the United States and Soviet Union both had very busy militaries from the end of WWII to the end of the Soviet Union.

If a person really wanted to nitpick about the claim that no two democracies ahve ever gone to war, it's not hard. We've seen all sorts of cases where countries that were kinda sorta democratic had something that was kinda sorta warlike. Or countries that were fairly democratic had something that was very definitely warlike. Or two things that were kind of like countries had something that was unmistakably warlike. (e.g. American civil war. The CSA was kinda sorta democratic, and kinda sorta like a country.)

Now, let's see if we can find example of dictatorships going to war during the same time period. I think we can. And we don't have to think hard about it.

Try my experiment for yourself. Pick a random year in the 20th century. Find all the military activity for that year. Compare the activity for that year against the original assertion, or one of its companion assertions about democracies and war. In 1903, there was one case where one country that was kinda sorta democratic (Colombia) had something a little bit like a war (no shots were fired, but there was the threat of military force, with another country that was pretty darned democratic (the US).

Meanwhile, there were several other wars between countries that were a whole lot less democratic than the US, or Colombia. I think you would find that pattern in darned near any year of the XXth century.

[marksman]

That might be true, but it could also be a function of the fact that for history there have been many more dictatorships than there have been democracies. That means that, even if democracies and dictatorships were equally belligerent, one would expect to see many more dictator v dictator wars simply because dictatorships have been more common throughout history.

I also note as a secondary argument that even if there were a correlation between democracy and peacefulness (which hasn't been established), that doesn't mean there is causation. It may be the same factors that make democracies more possible today than in the past (assuming the increase in democracies can be attribute to factors) also bring peacefulness. One suggestion I made was that prosperity made sustainable democracy more feasible and also encouraged peacefulness. That's just an idle thought, however, for which I have little evidence.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I would base a statement about what he "considered himself to be" based on what he claimed, yes. I would not base a statement of what I actually considered him to be based on what he claimed, however.


Yes. He'd be wrong. Probably delusional.

Why do you ignore the possibility that he is well aware that he is a murderer or that the junta were well aware they were not democratic and chose to lie in their public statements?

That is the difference between claiming to be something and considering themselves to be something.

I'm not accepting what is said as face value for reality. Only for the fact that they are making representations about themselves. For some reaosn you can't seem to distinguish a statement about what someone represents themselves to be and a statement about what I think that person actually to be.

No I understand that distinction perfectly well. What you ignore is the possibility that in public statements people may not be 100% truthful. The murderer need not be delusional to plead not guilty - he might think the evidence is insufficient to obtain a conviction. However he still knows he committed the act.

Since you aren't responding, apparently, my efforts to keep the thread on point have been in vain.

Exactly what contribution did you think your condescending BS post of "See, that wasn't so hard, was it?" was making to keeping the thread on point? I can see none whatsoever so stop playing the victim.

Where did I ever claim that? I didn't. You're misrepresenting me. Show me one post in this thread where I claimed that democracies are less likely to go to war. I never wrote that.

My position has been that there is no evidence that democracies are less likely to go to war and such arguments fall victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy or result in a definition of democracy and/or war that is so narrow as to be unhelpful.

How you can conclude that this position is in support of its converse (the democracies ar eless likely to go to war) is impossible to discern.

Apologies. I think I misread a Meadmaker post as being one of yours.

[Meadmaker]

That might be true, but it could also be a function of ....

I also note as a secondary argument...


If you are looking for proof, in the logical sense, of any historical argument, you'll have a difficult time.

However, during the 20th centrury, there were plenty of democracies, and plenty of dictatorships. The democracies didn't fight each other. The dictatorships fought each other, and everyone else.

That's not proof, but it's a good track record.

One suggestion I made was that prosperity made sustainable democracy more feasible and also encouraged peacefulness. That's just an idle thought, however, for which I have little evidence.

Another problem with historical arguments is that it is very difficult to separate cause and effect. Does prosperity enable democracy, or does democracy enable prosperity? I don't know how I would prove it one way or another, but they seem correlated.

[marksman]

If you are looking for proof, in the logical sense, of any historical argument, you'll have a difficult time.
I'm not looking for proof. I'm cirticizing the proof soffered by others because I agree. This is a statement that cannot be made with any certainty, and often requires fidgeting with definitions of democracy and war.

However, during the 20th centrury, there were plenty of democracies, and plenty of dictatorships. The democracies didn't fight each other. The dictatorships fought each other, and everyone else.
1) Define democracy and dictatorship. How many nation were democracies and how many were dictatorships? Than compare the number of wars each camp was involved in on a proportional basis.

2) Don't confuse causation and correlation. Even if democracies were more likely to be peaceful it may be that factors that encourage democracy also encourage peace. Forcing nations to be democratic without these other roots may not increase peace.

That's not proof, but it's a good track record.
Maybe, maybe not.

In 10,000 years of records human history, there have been wars on every continent but Antarctica. However, I doubt that if we moved all 6 billion+ humans onto Antarctica that war would end.

Another problem with historical arguments is that it is very difficult to separate cause and effect. Does prosperity enable democracy, or does democracy enable prosperity? I don't know how I would prove it one way or another, but they seem correlated.
They might be, which was exactly the point I made to which you were responding. They also might not be correlated. We've really only had less than a century of democracy in any amount to begin to make conclusions. Historically, that's not much of a sample.

[marksman]

Why do you ignore the possibility that he is well aware that he is a murderer or that the junta were well aware they were not democratic and chose to lie in their public statements?
I don't have evidence of it either way, so I take the words at face value. The idea that the junta was part of a process between Peronism (or other fascistic governments in Latin America) to full democracy was not an unusual expression of political theory among many in Latin American at the time (partilcularly in Honduras, El Salvador, Paraguay, and Chile, military dictatorships all). I thought it was a dumb theory, but I thought Marxism was a dumb theory too and a lot of people seem to earnestly belief in it.

So I'm not going to assume the junta thought they were not a part of the democratic process at the time, no matter how stupid an idea that seems to you and me, unless you can find some sort of writings from the junta in which they indicate they knew it was a front. I haven't seen such a statement, but it certainly may exist and I would not be surprised if you could dig such a statement up.

No I understand that distinction perfectly well. What you ignore is the possibility that in public statements people may not be 100% truthful.
I acknowledge the possibility, but have yet to see the evidence.

Exactly what contribution did you think your condescending BS post of "See, that wasn't so hard, was it?" was making to keeping the thread on point? I can see none whatsoever so stop playing the victim.
"Waaah, marksman responds to my condescending correction of his typo with his own condescending attitude with regard to my reluctance to actually engage in topical discussions. Now I'll falsely claim he calls himself a victim. Waah." Don't dish it out if you can't take it, Jaggy.

Apologies. I think I misread a Meadmaker post as being one of yours.

Thank you.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't have evidence of it either way, so I take the words at face value. The idea that the junta was part of a process between Peronism (or other fascistic governments in Latin America) to full democracy was not an unusual expression of political theory among many in Latin American at the time (partilcularly in Honduras, El Salvador, Paraguay, and Chile, military dictatorships all). I thought it was a dumb theory, but I thought Marxism was a dumb theory too and a lot of people seem to earnestly belief in it.

So I'm not going to assume the junta thought they were not a part of the democratic process at the time, no matter how stupid an idea that seems to you and me, unless you can find some sort of writings from the junta in which they indicate they knew it was a front. I haven't seen such a statement, but it certainly may exist and I would not be surprised if you could dig such a statement up.


I acknowledge the possibility, but have yet to see the evidence.

You don't consider the absence of elections, a free press and freedom of speech to be evidence? You don't consider random beatings, disappearances and torture evidence?

Exactly what evidence WOULD convince you that they were well aware they were not running a democracy, short of the signed confession you seem to demand in your post?

"Waaah, marksman responds to my condescending correction of his typo with his own condescending attitude with regard to my reluctance to actually engage in topical discussions. Now I'll falsely claim he calls himself a victim. Waah." Don't dish it out if you can't take it, Jaggy.

I can dish it out and take it no problem at all. You are the one who has continually whined and cried about off topic posts, yet seem to feel that this rule should only apply to others and that you should be free to post snide little shots that are nothing to do with the topic. If you are so keen on keeping the thread on topic, try acting like you demand everyone else does.

[marksman]

You don't consider the absence of elections, a free press and freedom of speech to be evidence? You don't consider random beatings, disappearances and torture evidence?
I consider it evidence that they are were not a democracy. I do not consider it evidence of what they considered themselves to be.

Exactly what evidence WOULD convince you that they were well aware they were not running a democracy, short of the signed confession you seem to demand in your post?A signed confession is not needed. A statement, either from private correspondence or public contradicting their asserted beliefs that their junta was a transitionary government in between Peronism and "full democracy" would suffice.

I can dish it out and take it no problem at all. You are the one who has continually whined and cried about off topic postsWhere? I have asked you repeatedly to keep the posts on topic. You ignore or belittle such requests. That's neither crying nor whining.

In contrast, I pointed out that your initial post to me was condescending. You then pretended that I was purposefully spitting on the memories of non-Englishment that died in the Falklands conflict on the UK-side. Later, when I respond to one of your inanities with a bit of condescension you attack me for it (and then claim you can "dish it out and take it no problem at all"). Hypocrisy, thy JREF handle is "Jaggy Burnett".

If you are so keen on keeping the thread on topic, try acting like you demand everyone else does.I do. You're the only one who seems to have a problem keeping the thread on topic.

And, so, yet again, I will attempt (probably in vain) to bring our conversation on topic. How many indisputable democracies (as defined by you) have there been in history, and what is their rate of bellicosity compared to the rate of bellicosity for all dictatorships of the same period?

[Roboramma]

1903 - Military events.

Hm. So the year is 1903. What countries would you say qaulified as democracies at that time?
If we're not including the british in our list of democractic nations, I don't imagine that many others will qualify either - democracy was pretty new at the time, after all.

Given that, would you expect that of all the countries in the world, the few ones involved in military conflict in that year would include one or more of the few democracies that you feel would qualify?

Similarly in the modern day, how many countries qualify as democracies?
Which of these have conflicting intersts that might lead to a war?

Because the argument seems to be that democratic government makes wars less likely because the people are less willing to go to war under the same circumstances that a different form of government would.
In order to actually look at that claim, the circumstances need to be the same.

The soviet union's war in afganistan is one that makes sense - an american war in canada doesn't make sense politically or economically.

So, can anyone name two democracies that might have gone to war, but for the fact that they were democracies?
Were there dangerously heated relations between the UK and Sweden during the later half of the 20th century?

On another note, before eliminating countries from the contention of democracies that went to war, let's first decide what is important about being a democracy that we feel tends to limit war.
Is it having a government that is held accountable by the people who would be fighitng in the war?
If so, the civil war US would certainly count, unless the south's armies were made up of slaves (hint, they weren't).
Point being, rather than philosophising about the nature of a true democracy, it makes more sense to talk about the aspects of democracy that are actually important to the discussion at hand, and then determine which countries do or do not have those aspects.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I consider it evidence that they are were not a democracy. I do not consider it evidence of what they considered themselves to be.

A signed confession is not needed. A statement, either from private correspondence or public contradicting their asserted beliefs that their junta was a transitionary government in between Peronism and "full democracy" would suffice.

If you are only willing to consider written evidence or public statements then you are effectively ignoring the possibility that they are lying. Why are their actions irrelevant?

Would you accept a murderer genuinely believed he was innocent (and therefore according to you delusional) because he entered a plea of not guilty? If he is delusional, does that mean he has diminshed responsibility on mental capacity grounds?

Where? I have asked you repeatedly to keep the posts on topic. You ignore or belittle such requests. That's neither crying nor whining.

Nice bit of selective editing in the bit you quoted to remove all references to YOUR off topic posts. Dishonest, of course, but why should that bother you?

In contrast, I pointed out that your initial post to me was condescending.

Pointing out that you had made an error is not condescending.

You then pretended that I was purposefully spitting on the memories of non-Englishment that died in the Falklands conflict on the UK-side.

BS - you appeared to be arguing that England and the UK could be used interchangably and that this was estabished practice. I was pointing out to you why, despite that fact that you are simply wrong in general, it was particularly important in the context of YOUR error to get it correct. You didn't like being called on your error and have been crying about it ever since.

Later, when I respond to one of your inanities with a bit of condescension you attack me for it (and then claim you can "dish it out and take it no problem at all"). Hypocrisy, thy JREF handle is "Jaggy Burnett".

You admit that you were condescending but apparently do not think that entitles me to "attack" you for it (or more accurately point out how hypocritical you are being). So you admit dishing it out, but when you get some back, the whining reaches ever louder levels.

I do. You're the only one who seems to have a problem keeping the thread on topic.

So how did the comment I asked you about contribute to keeping the thread on topic, specifically? We both know it didn't and that your above statement is simply a lie.

And, so, yet again, I will attempt (probably in vain) to bring our conversation on topic. How many indisputable democracies (as defined by you) have there been in history, and what is their rate of bellicosity compared to the rate of bellicosity for all dictatorships of the same period?

If you can show me where I have made any claim about the rate of bellicosity of indisputable democracies compared to that of dictatorships, I will answer your question. However as I have never done so I feel under no obligations to answer your question.

Maybe it would be more useful if you commented on my definition rather than then demand I support a claim that I have never made? Of course that assumes that you ARE actually interested in getting back on topic, which does not appear to be borne out by your posting record.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A signed confession is not needed. A statement, either from private correspondence or public contradicting their asserted beliefs that their junta was a transitionary government in between Peronism and "full democracy" would suffice.

To keep this one separate in the hope you will address the issue, your claim was not that they thought they were a transitionary government on the way to democracy, but that they considered themselves a democracy.

What about the fact that political parties were banned?
What about the fact that Congress was dissolved?
What about the fact that no elections took place?

Do you really think that ANYONE in such a situation believed that Argentina WAS CURRENTLY a democracy?

[marksman]

To keep this one separate in the hope you will address the issue, your claim was not that they thought they were a transitionary government on the way to democracy, but that they considered themselves a democracy.

Yes, because they didn't see democracy as black or white. They considered democracy to be a spectrum between Peronism and full democracy. So they considered anything in between to be partial democracy, which as you can see has the word "democracy" in it.

They did not consider themselves to be "full democracy", but as they did not consider themselves to be Peronism, they saw themselves as partly democratic.

I know that makes no sense to you, but that was the fashionable political theory in Latin America floating around at the time.

What about the fact that political parties were banned?
What about the fact that Congress was dissolved?
What about the fact that no elections took place?

Do you really think that ANYONE in such a situation believed that Argentina WAS CURRENTLY a democracy?

Yes, I do. I think lots of apologists for military juntas in Latin America ascribed to the spectrum of democratization, as it was used as justification throughout much of Latin America in the late 1970's and 1980's.

You and I may believe that one is either a democracy or not a democracy and there is no middle ground. But at the time, the idea was that there was a long road to democracy, particularly for Latin American countries who had known little but colonialism, neo-colonialism, socialism or a succession of dictatorships in which the democratic process was invariably swept away.

The current political theory was that a strong executive could shield the nation from Western influence and shepherd the nation towards full democracy through a gradual process of democratization.

Note that I don't agree with this process. But I do believe that many people in Latin America believed in this process and I do think that the Argentinian junta during the Falklands War could have believed in it as well.

The fact that they had many very very anti-democratic measures, such as restrictions on free speech, peacable assembly and other rights we associate with liberal democracy does not contradict their theory as they claimed to be on the beginning of a long road to "full democracy" and those rights would be introduced later.

Similarly, Leninism had many hallmarks of a society that was in many ways very anti-communistic. It had centralized control of capital. It restricted free speech. Workers had little say in how their factories were operated. How did they continue to claim to be communist? They contended that they were transforming feudal Russia into a communist utopia but to do so would require some temporary measures that would seem anti-communist. Yet I believe much of the Kremlin really believed in the ideals of Communism and that they were working onto a transition to "full communism."

The idea of a spectrum of democratization was derived from Leninst theories of communism and the idea that a strong executive could transform a society form one that was unready for political and economic freedom to one that was.

As I said, I think the theory was bunk (just as I think the theory of communism is bunk). But I also think that many who espoused it honestly believed (or hoped) it to be true.

[marksman]

If you are only willing to consider written evidence or public statements then you are effectively ignoring the possibility that they are lying. Why are their actions irrelevant?

Because their actions, as descibed in my immediately preceding post are not inconsistent with their professed belief in a long process of democratization.

Would you accept a murderer genuinely believed he was innocent (and therefore according to you delusional) because he entered a plea of not guilty? If he is delusional, does that mean he has diminshed responsibility on mental capacity grounds?
That's not analogous. There is no "process of murder".

Let me give you a better analogy. Dr. Kevorkian euthanized many patients, or appears to have assisted in their suicide. He was eventually convicted of second-degree murder. But he to this day claims not to be a murderer because he does not believe that assisting a suicide is murder. I believe that he does not consider himself a murderer even though he admits to causing the death of people. I also do not believe him to be delusional. I believe he simply has a different definition of murder than those who convicted him. I also believe the Argentinian junta had a different definition of democracy that you or I would use.

Nice bit of selective editing in the bit you quoted to remove all references to YOUR off topic posts. Dishonest, of course, but why should that bother you?
I never denied that my posts have been off-topic in that I continue to engage in this distraction about what the Argentinian junta believes. So there's no dishonesty at all. However, I appear to be the only one who, in the process of all this non sequitur mayhem, keeps trying to bring the post back on topic.

Pointing out that you had made an error is not condescending.
The manner in which you pointed it out, however, was.

BS - you appeared to be arguing that England and the UK could be used interchangablyWow. Your powers of mind-reading are astounding. Astoundingly inaccurate.

I used the word England once in a place where UK was clearly intended. My post had nothing whatsoever to do with the organization of the United Kingdom, so your surmise that I was making a statement about such is remarkably boneheaded.

You admit that you were condescending but apparently do not think that entitles me to "attack" you for it (or more accurately point out how hypocritical you are being). So you admit dishing it out, but when you get some back, the whining reaches ever louder levels.
I didn't realize your monitor has a volume control. If it does, you need to have it repaired as I am not whining and have not increased the volume. That is a delusion of your own creation.

So how did the comment I asked you about contribute to keeping the thread on topic, specifically?
The original topic about the Falklands War? I was pointing out how difficult it is to define democracy, which is directly relevant. The fact that I wrote "England" instead of "UK", however, is not.

If you can show me where I have made any claim about the rate of bellicosity of indisputable democracies compared to that of dictatorships, I will answer your question. However as I have never done so I feel under no obligations to answer your question.

Maybe it would be more useful if you commented on my definition rather than then demand I support a claim that I have never made?
Your definition is useless (within the context of this thread) if it is not to be used to support or reject the point made in the title of the thread. So please explain how you intend to use that definition in context. To what purpose is your definition of "indisputable democracy" to be put? Then we can examine whether it accomplishes that goal or does not accomplish that goal. Otherwise, the definition is floating without any context.

From your early participation in this thread, it appears you, like me, reject the notion that one could say there has never been a war between two genuine democracies. How does your definition of "indisputable democracy" inform on that point, or are you making some other point for which the definition might be helpful?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Your definition is useless (within the context of this thread) if it is not to be used to support or reject the point made in the title of the thread. So please explain how you intend to use that definition in context. To what purpose is your definition of "indisputable democracy" to be put? Then we can examine whether it accomplishes that goal or does not accomplish that goal. Otherwise, the definition is floating without any context.

You were the one who asked for th definition. Why did you do so if it was pointless?

From your early participation in this thread, it appears you, like me, reject the notion that one could say there has never been a war between two genuine democracies. How does your definition of "indisputable democracy" inform on that point, or are you making some other point for which the definition might be helpful?

Well unless anyone disputes that Finland and the UK were democracies at the time one declared war on the other, then the notion is clearly false.

Again, you wanted the definition. I presume you did this for a reason - so what was it?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Yes, because they didn't see democracy as black or white. They considered democracy to be a spectrum between Peronism and full democracy. So they considered anything in between to be partial democracy, which as you can see has the word "democracy" in it.

They did not consider themselves to be "full democracy", but as they did not consider themselves to be Peronism, they saw themselves as partly democratic.

I know that makes no sense to you, but that was the fashionable political theory in Latin America floating around at the time.



Yes, I do. I think lots of apologists for military juntas in Latin America ascribed to the spectrum of democratization, as it was used as justification throughout much of Latin America in the late 1970's and 1980's.

You and I may believe that one is either a democracy or not a democracy and there is no middle ground. But at the time, the idea was that there was a long road to democracy, particularly for Latin American countries who had known little but colonialism, neo-colonialism, socialism or a succession of dictatorships in which the democratic process was invariably swept away.

The current political theory was that a strong executive could shield the nation from Western influence and shepherd the nation towards full democracy through a gradual process of democratization.

Note that I don't agree with this process. But I do believe that many people in Latin America believed in this process and I do think that the Argentinian junta during the Falklands War could have believed in it as well.

The fact that they had many very very anti-democratic measures, such as restrictions on free speech, peacable assembly and other rights we associate with liberal democracy does not contradict their theory as they claimed to be on the beginning of a long road to "full democracy" and those rights would be introduced later.

Similarly, Leninism had many hallmarks of a society that was in many ways very anti-communistic. It had centralized control of capital. It restricted free speech. Workers had little say in how their factories were operated. How did they continue to claim to be communist? They contended that they were transforming feudal Russia into a communist utopia but to do so would require some temporary measures that would seem anti-communist. Yet I believe much of the Kremlin really believed in the ideals of Communism and that they were working onto a transition to "full communism."

The idea of a spectrum of democratization was derived from Leninst theories of communism and the idea that a strong executive could transform a society form one that was unready for political and economic freedom to one that was.

As I said, I think the theory was bunk (just as I think the theory of communism is bunk). But I also think that many who espoused it honestly believed (or hoped) it to be true.

Thanks for this. It is a very different answer from the "if they claimed to be democratic, I believe they considered themselves democratic unless provided with documentary evidence to the contrary" which seemed to be your previous answer.

I still fundamentally disagree that the people running a system involving systematic torture and murder, abolition of political activity and suspension of all elected bodies and elections considered what they were doing democratic, but I can understand where you are coming from.

[Darth Rotor]

Try this on for size: a constitutional republic, or constitutional monarchy.

Now, let's imagine that some morons in Washington DC decide that it is in America's strategic interest to go to war with Iran. (It isn't.)

You would have a constitutional republic going to war with an Islamic republic.

Iran has elections, sometimes a conservative sort wins, sometimes a progressive wins. At all times, the clerics in the Revolutionary council act as a significant policy making body.

America has elections. Sometimes a conservative wins, sometimes a more liberal sort wins. At all times, the Congress and the Courts act as counterweights to executive power, and the plethora of moneyed interests remain influential in policy creation.

The differences are somewhat small in terms of form and structure, but of some significance in terms of the details.

So, the broad brush label is useless as an analytical tool, besides being at risk of True Scottich descent.

The devil is indeed in the details, as is the casus belli of any war.

DR

[marksman]

You were the one who asked for th definition. Why did you do so if it was pointless?
I said it was useless if it is not being used to support or deny the theory posited in the title of the thread. When I asked you for your definition, I assumed you were using that term to make a point about the topic being discussed.

So care to answer the question? To what purpose are you using the term "indisputable democracies"? Is it a point relevant to the topic? I had assumed it was, but perhaps I should not have given you the benefit of such doubts.

Well unless anyone disputes that Finland and the UK were democracies at the time one declared war on the other, then the notion is clearly false.
We agree that the initial post's theory is factually inaccurate. Perhaps further discussion will only dismantle the tenuous peace we have now established.

Hmmm... have two democracies ever had a flame war? :)

Again, you wanted the definition. I presume you did this for a reason - so what was it?
To discuss the topic, which was, I assumed, why you offered the term in the first place. It seems I was wrong in that assumption .

Thanks for this. It is a very different answer from the "if they claimed to be democratic, I believe they considered themselves democratic unless provided with documentary evidence to the contrary" which seemed to be your previous answer.
Actually, that was not my previous answer. My previous answer was that based on their statements, they appear to consider themselves a democracy. When I linked to those statements, they contain the very theory that you are now -- several posts later -- thanking me for. I didn't think I had to restate in excruciating detail the theory set forth generally in that link. Apparently I did. I'm glad the matter is now cleared up.

I still fundamentally disagree that the people running a system involving systematic torture and murder, abolition of political activity and suspension of all elected bodies and elections considered what they were doing democratic, but I can understand where you are coming from.
I certainly don't believe it. But people throughout history have believed all sorts of weird political theories (e.g., divine right of kings, trial by combat, absolute monarchy, communism, delphic oracular truth, empire of the sun, shariah). In context, the "spectrum of democracy" doesn't seem particularly out of place.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I said it was useless if it is not being used to support or deny the theory posited in the title of the thread. When I asked you for your definition, I assumed you were using that term to make a point about the topic being discussed.

So care to answer the question? To what purpose are you using the term "indisputable democracies"? Is it a point relevant to the topic? I had assumed it was, but perhaps I should not have given you the benefit of such doubts.

Do you never get tired of condescending little jabs?

It is relevant to the topic as I used the term in relation to the example I gave of Finland and the UK. They clearly went to war, so unless someone disputes that one or the other is a democracy, then the statement that no two democracies ever went to war is false.

You asked me to define the term and I did. You then asked me to list all of them that have ever existed and do statistical analysis, despite this being totally unrelated to the claim I had made.

To discuss the topic, which was, I assumed, why you offered the term in the first place. It seems I was wrong in that assumption .

Nope, you just wanted me to back up a claim I never made. If you want to list all the democracies that meet the definition I gave and make an argument about their relative level of warmongering compared to dictatorships, feel free. As I never claimed anything in that area, I feel under no obligation to do it for you. Oh, and good luck finding any country that considers itself a dictatorship - I'm assuming anyone who says they are not a dictatorship doesn't count?

Actually, that was not my previous answer. My previous answer was that based on their statements, they appear to consider themselves a democracy. When I linked to those statements, they contain the very theory that you are now -- several posts later -- thanking me for. I didn't think I had to restate in excruciating detail the theory set forth generally in that link. Apparently I did. I'm glad the matter is now cleared up.

Then it can't have been you who posted this:

"I would base a statement about what he "considered himself to be" based on what he claimed, yes."

You should report to the admin that someone has cracked your account and is posting things you don't belief under your name.

[drkitten]

I still fundamentally disagree that the people running a system involving systematic torture and murder, abolition of political activity and suspension of all elected bodies and elections considered what they were doing democratic, but I can understand where you are coming from.

I still think that you're putting too much into the word "democracy."

You're right -- suspension of all elected bodies and elections would be enough to make a political system nondemocratic, by definition. But systematic torture? Nothing about systematic torture is actually incompatible with a democratic political system, if enough of the electorate is willing to vote in its favor.

That's one of the things that has been brought up time and time again -- since Plato -- among opponents of democracy; the people can often be persuaded to vote in support of distasteful or outright immoral actions (hence Plato's preference for enlightened philosopher-kings, who could be counted on to rule according to moral principles). That's why the founders of the United States created a constitutional republic instead of a direct democracy, and why they explicitly provided several counterbalances to public opinion.

[marksman]

You, before: It is a very different answer from the "if they claimed to be democratic, I believe they considered themselves democratic unless provided with documentary evidence to the contrary" which seemed to be your previous answer.
I denied that was my statement
You, now: Then it can't have been you who posted this:

"I would base a statement about what he "considered himself to be" based on what he claimed, yes."

You should report to the admin that someone has cracked your account and is posting things you don't belief under your name.[/QUOTE]

Except of course that your paraphrasing of me is not an accurate rephrasing of what you quoted. I said I would "base" an opinion of what someone believed on what they said they believed. I did not say that would be the exclusive basis of such belief or even that only documentary evidence would be acceptable in all cases. In the case of the Argentinian junta, rhat would be the only evidence of which I would be aware since evidence of their behavior is consistent with their statements.

You're the one who likes to jump to conclusion and then suffer rhetorical whiplash when you realize nobody jumped with you.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You, before: It is a very different answer from the "if they claimed to be democratic, I believe they considered themselves democratic unless provided with documentary evidence to the contrary" which seemed to be your previous answer.
I denied that was my statement
You, now: Then it can't have been you who posted this:

"I would base a statement about what he "considered himself to be" based on what he claimed, yes."

You should report to the admin that someone has cracked your account and is posting things you don't belief under your name

Except of course that your paraphrasing of me is not an accurate rephrasing of what you quoted. I said I would "base" an opinion of what someone believed on what they said they believed. I did not say that would be the exclusive basis of such belief or even that only documentary evidence would be acceptable in all cases. In the case of the Argentinian junta, rhat would be the only evidence of which I would be aware since evidence of their behavior is consistent with their statements.

You're the one who likes to jump to conclusion and then suffer rhetorical whiplash when you realize nobody jumped with you.

You think the evidence of the behaviour of the Argentinian junta is consistent with a belief they are running a democracy?

Like suspending political parties, abolishing elected bodies, murdering political opponents and cancelling elections.

Sure.

So I ask again - what behaviour from them would you consider evidence they did not consider they were running a democracy. I find it hard to think of any antidemocratic behaviour they did NOT undertake.

[marksman]

Double post

[marksman]

You think the evidence of the behaviour of the Argentinian junta is consistent with a belief they are running a democracy?
As stated several times before. I think the evidence of their behavior is not inconsistent with their stated goal of the road from Peronism to democracy.

I do think it is actually inconsistent with democracy, which I have stated repeatedly in this thread, but which you don't seem to grasp.

I would require behavior that was inconsitent with their notion of a "road to democracy" (which is obviously different from yours or my notion of actual democracy).

For example, a return to Peronism would suffice as that would have been expressly a step backwards along their so-called road.

I explained at length what the political theory at the time was. You thanked me for explaining it to you. But now you don't seem to have understood it at all. Did you read it before you thanked me?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

As stated several times before. I think the evidence of their behavior is not inconsistent with their stated goal of the road from Peronism to democracy.

I do think it is actually inconsistent with democracy, which I have stated repeatedly in this thread, but which you don't seem to grasp.

I would require behavior that was inconsitent with their notion of a "road to democracy" (which is obviously different from yours or my notion of actual democracy).

For example, a return to Peronism would suffice as that would have been expressly a step backwards along their so-called road.

I explained at length what the political theory at the time was. You thanked me for explaining it to you. But now you don't seem to have understood it at all. Did you read it before you thanked me?

I understand it perfectly. I just disagree with your interpretation that when they were running a system that banned political parties, abolished civil rights and cancelled elections that they considered themselves to be, at that time, a democracy. They may have thought they were doing something that was necessary to reestablish a democracy at a later stage, as claimed in the various quotes you posted. I simply disagree with your interpretation that at the time of the war they considered they were CURRENTLY a democracy as I do not think that is consistent with the evidence. I think there is a difference between believing you are on a road to democracy and believing you ARE a democracy. For example in invading Iraq I have little doubt the US and UK governments genuinely believed they were on the road to establishing a democracy in Iraq. That does not mean that Iraq became a democracy as soon as they invaded. The intention to become democratic is, IMO, not the same as being a democracy.

I understand that you don't consider it a democracy - where you get the idea that I have an issue with this I have no idea.

[marksman]

I just disagree with your interpretation that when they were running a system that banned political parties, abolished civil rights and cancelled elections that they considered themselves to be, at that time, a democracy.
You're right. We disagree. I don't get why you think asking me the same question again and again is going to change my answer.

For example in invading Iraq I have little doubt the US and UK governments genuinely believed they were on the road to establishing a democracy in Iraq. That does not mean that Iraq became a democracy as soon as they invaded. The intention to become democratic is, IMO, not the same as being a democracy.

Unlike the modern-day US and UK governments (or for that matter the US and UK at any point in history), the Argentinian junta was espousing a political theory that was popular in Latin America that some dictatorship was necessary to transition nations from the neo-fascism of the 1950's and 1960's towards democracy. The theory was a hodgepodge of Marxism, cultural relativism and socialism.

I understand that you don't consider it a democracy - where you get the idea that I have an issue with this I have no idea.

When you wrote "You think the evidence of the behaviour of the Argentinian junta is consistent with a belief they are running a democracy?" I thought that by "a belief" you were referring to "my belief they were running a democracy" (which I don't ascribe to) when you were apparently referring to "the junta's belief they were running a democracy" (which I do). It was a vague sentence and I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I am sorry.

[Luciana]

Yes, because they didn't see democracy as black or white. They considered democracy to be a spectrum between Peronism and full democracy. So they considered anything in between to be partial democracy, which as you can see has the word "democracy" in it.

Dictatorships in Latin America came in many flavors, but generally speaking, you're right.

They did not consider themselves to be "full democracy", but as they did not consider themselves to be Peronism, they saw themselves as partly democratic.
I know that makes no sense to you, but that was the fashionable political theory in Latin America floating around at the time.


In Chile and Brazil the authoritarian regimes were voted out, for example.

There were two different perceptions:

The military juntas knew those were not democracies, but in some cases - Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay - they only ceased power because of their deep-seated fear of communism. Some of those truly believed that the only way to avoid the Russian and Cuban influence would be by creating strong executives, because a lenient government would not be enough.

There are many episodes where the military acted as a moderating power, that is, rising to power to normalize a chaotic political situation, call elections and step down. In many cases this was quite a positive development because the military forces were the only nation-wide force, particularly true in poor countries with isolated and impoverished areas, where no other political power could rise.

In the 60s and 70s, however, those who rose to power had access to the media, now widespread in those regions, so they could develop personality cults and propaganda. More importantly, there was Cuba in the backyard and the United States giving full support to military governments that would act as a police against communism. So they remained in power like never before.

The population also knew this was not a democracy, but they did not have access, at the time, to the full information regarding the excesses of the regime. More importantly, their support was bought with the fear factor - communists -, unprecedented economic development (GDP increased in average 10% a year in Brazil) or the existence of an enemy, like Argentina/Chile. So the dictatorship had positive support of many social classes.

The population bought some of the justifications for the dictatorships.

Elections? They could exist. But what for? The leftists would only bring chaos and start riots. Sometimes the most responsible thing is to act with prudence. Or they existed, but if a man is sent to Congress and he's a communist, the only decent thing to do is to expel him.

Torture? No evidence. Those who say they were tortured are being paid by Moscow to make the regime look bad.

Disappeared? No corpse, no evidence. Those leftists were joining guerillas, that's why they disappeared without a trace. Outrageous to suggest that the protectors of peace were killing people.

Censorship? We can't give voice to communists. Only people with loose morals, willing to cause confusion, would want to make absurd accusations against the junta.

There were rumors. But many chose not to believe it. The opposition could not raise a voice, and when it did, it was the distorted scream of radicals, who carried out bank robberies and kidnapping to advance their cause.

You and I may believe that one is either a democracy or not a democracy and there is no middle ground. But at the time, the idea was that there was a long road to democracy, particularly for Latin American countries who had known little but colonialism, neo-colonialism, socialism or a succession of dictatorships in which the democratic process was invariably swept away.

More importantly, what good did democracy do? To many people that was a legitimate question. Some countries alternated democratic periods with authoritarian ones, and they could not see much of a difference. Why not? Because in the absence of an educated middle-class, rare indeed in those impoverished countries, the vast majority were followers and voted in whoever they were told to. And nothing changed. So, considering the incredibly low educational level of voters, it did not make much of a difference whether they were living in a democracy or not. For the average worker, it did not interfere with his daily life.

The fact that they had many very very anti-democratic measures, such as restrictions on free speech, peacable assembly and other rights we associate with liberal democracy does not contradict their theory as they claimed to be on the beginning of a long road to "full democracy" and those rights would be introduced later.

Exactly. In the presence of fear, some civil rights could be left for later, for society's best interest. Well, tell that to a mother whose son was tortured for months and then thrown by helicopter into the river.

As I said, I think the theory was bunk (just as I think the theory of communism is bunk). But I also think that many who espoused it honestly believed (or hoped) it to be true.

In Brazil, this was certainly the case. From Day One the generals knew they would have to give up power, but that should only happen when Brazil was safe. They believed that so strongly that they elected between themselves presidents who would not want to perpetuate themselves in power. That was their major preoccupation at that time, and they succeeded in keeping the rotation of military presidents. In the 70s they allowed an opposition party, as long as it was moderate. They were pressured by public opinion to step down as soon as the "economic miracle" wore out (early eighties), earlier than what they expected, but there is now plenty of evidence that they saw their role as that of protectors. The military presidents died poor men, which is quite unusual when you think of dictatorships. As I said, they come in different flavors.

"I'll arrest and destroy those who oppose it"
President Figueiredo, explaining how he was going to lead the redemocratization process.

Precious. :D

[Jaggy Bunnet]

When you wrote "You think the evidence of the behaviour of the Argentinian junta is consistent with a belief they are running a democracy?" I thought that by "a belief" you were referring to "my belief they were running a democracy" (which I don't ascribe to) when you were apparently referring to "the junta's belief they were running a democracy" (which I do). It was a vague sentence and I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I am sorry.

As I often say to my girlfriend, if I say something that you can take two ways and one of them makes you mad, then I meant the other one.

No problem.

[marksman]

Thank you Luciana Nery, for your contribution. That definitley comports with my memores of the region at the time.

Thank you Jaggy Burnett for your magnaminity in our misunderstanding.