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

[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: "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: "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.