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

[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

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

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 f'ing 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.