View Full Version : are democracies peaceful ?
vidcc
03-02-2005, 12:43 AM
I am watching hardball right now and John Macaine is being interviewed...a man I like... and he has made a statement that I have been hearing from the present US administration quite a lot.. that is.
"Democracies do not tend attack other countries".
Is this true ? after all the US has attacked a few.. I am using the US as it is the the country saying it and the most recent example and to non democratic nations the USA probably seems very hostile indeed.
Is it also true that a country that is not a democracy will be more likely to be hostile? after all there are many that are not.
Of course there is no set rule and and every argument for has a equal argument against.
This is not a pro or anti spread of democracy thread, it is about dangerous nations based on being one or the other.
Illuminati
03-02-2005, 01:06 AM
An interesting point to think of before answering that is this: Can any country truly be called a democracy?
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines dictionary as:
government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
The bold point defines what most people consider a democracy. Now here's the clanger - Suppose the government plans to take a severly needed action (not just in the view of the government) and the people of a nation refuse said actions, what happens? Does the government stand down, letting the people's will go but possibly looking weak, or does the government stand firm and effectively make themselves a dictatorship? Welcome to the problems of democracy, ever present despite the evangelism of the ideology.
To be honest, electing representatives to make the decisions only go so far for true democracy - The only regular decision are elections for terms in office, but is so standardised it seems more of a window of democracy rather than plain democracy.
Now have another look at that question and see if you can see it in a different view. My point was that democracies may not bomb other countries (self-defence is a different matter altogether in terms of direct assault & occupation) but that there isn't really a true democracy present in the world.
TheDave
03-02-2005, 02:03 AM
"Democracies do not tend attack other countries".
no. they liberate them
vidcc
03-02-2005, 02:12 AM
no. they liberate them
Clever
You should apply for a job as a word spinner at the white house. did you send in the one where Mrs . Bush sacked the chef and it was called "allowing him the opportunity to expand into the market place"
:01:
Busyman
03-02-2005, 06:28 PM
I am watching hardball right now and John Macaine is being interviewed...a man I like... and he has made a statement that I have been hearing from the present US administration quite a lot.. that is.
"Democracies do not tend attack other countries".
Is this true ? after all the US has attacked a few.. I am using the US as it is the the country saying it and the most recent example and to non democratic nations the USA probably seems very hostile indeed.
Is it also true that a country that is not a democracy will be more likely to be hostile? after all there are many that are not.
Of course there is no set rule and and every argument for has a equal argument against.
This is not a pro or anti spread of democracy thread, it is about dangerous nations based on being one or the other.
WTF are you talking about? :blink:
We are not a democracy, we are a republic.
vidcc
03-02-2005, 06:55 PM
WTF are you talking about? :blink:
We are not a democracy, we are a republic.
:sleep1:
WTF are you talking about? :blink:
We are not a democracy, we are a republic.
Oh ok, blow them away then. :unsure:
Busyman
03-02-2005, 07:33 PM
:sleep1:
Sleep if you want but we aren't.
The people don't vote on whether we go to war, their elected officials do.
Republic.
vidcc
03-02-2005, 07:47 PM
Sleep if you want but we aren't.
The people don't vote on whether we go to war, their elected officials do.
Republic.
Congratulations .... you have knocked jpol off the spot of being ten of the most boring people i know
Busyman
03-02-2005, 07:54 PM
Congratulations .... you have knocked jpol off the spot of being ten of the most boring people i know
Thank you but you don't know me. I appreciate the sentiment though although I'm anything but boring.
Tbh dictatorships, monarchies, etc are considered more dangerous because there is a perceived unfairness to who is picked/not picked to run affairs that affect their personal lives.
A republic is considered less dangerous due to there being a balance of differing views to hopefully keep decisions in check and not of ONE VIEW.
A dictatorship, for example, suffers from the "this one guy doesn't like this country, blow it to hell". There is nothing to keep him in check.
Thanks again. ;)
Illuminati
03-02-2005, 07:58 PM
The people don't vote on whether we go to war, their elected officials do.
Republic.
Heh, cheers Busy - Guess that was what I was trying to say about no democracies :)
Democracy's the dream. Republic's the reality.
vidcc
03-02-2005, 08:03 PM
Ok lets change the words Bush and Macain etc. used
Are democratic countries less likely to attack other countries..... same reasonings apply
Busyman
03-02-2005, 08:03 PM
Heh, cheers Busy - Guess that was what I was trying to say about no democracies :)
Democracy's the dream. Republic's the reality.
I feel kinda bad because I initially didn't read your post before I posted.
I end up saying essentially the same thing. :(
Our elected leaders go about their decision making without our approval. We vote for the leader but not the decisions they make.
I, for example, did not have a vote on whether my taxes would be raised.
Washington D.C. residents can't even elect a congressman ffs. :angry:
I live in what is by name a monarchy, tho' it's most often referred to as, and works more like, a democracy.
But repooblics are in a sense democracies too, although the people are a further step removed from power I think.
As long as there are elections it's still a democracy by some definitions.
Busyman
03-02-2005, 08:08 PM
Ok lets change the words Bush and Macaine etc. used
Are democratic countries less likely to attack other countries..... same reasonings apply
Yes since there are no democratic countries that I know of.
Busyman
03-02-2005, 08:12 PM
I live in what is by name a monarchy, tho' it's most often referred to as, and works more like, a democracy.
But repooblics are in a sense democracies too, although the people are a further step removed from power I think.
As long as there are elections it's still a democracy by some definitions.
Are you in Europe? I didn't know there were any monarchies left there.
Republics have elected officials by democratic process. The decisions by those elceted officials are not up to the people unless a referendum is made, which is rare.
vidcc
03-02-2005, 08:13 PM
Yes since there are no democratic countries that I know of.
Eddie izzard had a line that suits your above comment.
MCCAIN: I mean, let‘s show a little progress.
I guess what I‘m saying, the root cause of terrorism is societies where there‘s inequality, depravation, socioeconomic, etcetera, and a lack of hope and belief in the future.
I think the way we win the war on terrorism is that if you get democracies in these countries—democracies don‘t attack other countries, you know that, generally speaking.source (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7066847/)
so you are saying that the statement is true because no democratic nations exist?
Illuminati
03-02-2005, 08:14 PM
I feel kinda bad because I initially didn't read your post before I posted.
Busyman feeling bad? :blink: Don't ever do that again - It doesn't suit ya :P ;)
(And besides, you said it better than I did - I was on a trip at the time, philosophical & chemical :D)
I live in what is by name a monarchy, tho' it's most often referred to as, and works more like, a democracy.
But repooblics are in a sense democracies too, although the people are a further step removed from power I think.
UK, yah? Britain's only a monarchy in title - The government has the power which we elect, ergo if we dropped the title we'd be calling ourselves a republic as well as acting like one :no:
Then again, I'd most likely prefer having a technocracy instead so listen to me as your own risk ;)
Busyman
03-02-2005, 08:16 PM
Eddie izzard had a line that suits your above comment.
source (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7066847/)
so you are saying that the statement is true because no democratic nations exist?
Ok then.
Busyman
03-02-2005, 08:19 PM
Busyman feeling bad? :blink: Don't ever do that again - It doesn't suit ya :P ;)
Well I try to read every one's post before I post to eliminate "piggybacking" too much. I read vid's initial post and immediately replied and further might skipped yours because it looked lengthy instead reading for substance. I used to do the same with posts from Biggles and j2k4.
It's also why I don't read many fictional novels......spend all that time for what might be a good book.
There are many here that like to get their word in when in fact they have said nothing new or remotely profound. Maybe I did offer something new to what you said.
I hope so and thank you.
Are you in Europe? I didn't know there were any monarchies left there.
Republics have elected officials by democratic process. The decisions by those elceted officials are not up to the people unless a referendum is made, which is rare.
Yup, I am, and there are lots of so called monarchies here.
Not sure how many of them there are that aren't in effect run by elected governments tho'.
Busyman
03-02-2005, 09:27 PM
Yup, I am, and there are lots of so called monarchies here.
Not sure how many of them there are that aren't in effect run by elected governments tho'.
I think those monarchies are even less than figureheads. They hold no power and are basically all glamour.
Real life Barbie dolls.
Yeah, I agree, yet we are still listed as monarchy.
For some flukked up reason a majority voted to keep us a monarchy too. :dry:
And this is with us having the kind of quality royals that can't read properly, our king once even forgot which town he was in, while holding a speech.
Apparently the PR is too good to let go of. :rolleyes:
EDit: that doesn't apply to all the european monarchies today tho', I don't think. Some royals do have more power, I'm fairly certain of that.
You all have overlooked a country which combines the best of both ideas-it is called....
The People's Democratic Republic of (North) Korea.
Perhaps you've heard of Kim Jong Il?
He owns it. :dry:
vidcc
03-03-2005, 01:53 AM
You all have overlooked a country which combines the best of both ideas-it is called....
The People's Democratic Republic of (North) Korea.
Perhaps you've heard of Kim Jong Il?
He owns it. :dry:
Are you complaining about truth in political advertising?
Are you complaining about truth in political advertising?
Complaining?
No-I intended it as a reminder, though it actually does fit your bill of particulars as to "peacefulness".
Riots are almost non-existant, I hear.
That old democratic repression is pretty effective; or maybe Kim Jong Il is just terribly good at it-I can't be sure at this remove.
Then again, maybe you were expecting a different response from me; I can't be sure of that, either. :D
vidcc
03-03-2005, 09:58 PM
J2 the Peaceful part was about the statement that democratic nations don't tend to attack other nations. Not about domestic peace.
J2 the Peaceful part was about the statement that democratic nations don't tend to attack other nations. Not about domestic peace.
Oh.
Carry on, then. ;)
3RA1N1AC
03-04-2005, 01:16 PM
The House of Lords is mad up of various types of people including; Life Peers, Hereditary Peers and Bishops from the Church of England (the head of which is also the Monarch).
hmm. this "house of lords" sounds like a potentially messy thing, politically. it seems like it might overrepresent certain interests, by default?
Busyman
03-04-2005, 01:29 PM
It is a Constitutional Monarchy, with a democratically elected House of Commons and House of Lords,
..........
the people there are not elected.
:blink:
manker
03-04-2005, 01:40 PM
the people there are not elected...........
:blink:Quite obviously, the above was a reference to the House Of Lords :dry:
Busyman
03-04-2005, 02:15 PM
Quite obviously, the above was a reference to the House Of Lords :dry:
Not obvious...but I do "get it" now especially in context with the next sentence.
Maybe the misplaced comma made the difference.
Washington D.C. residents can't even elect a congressman ffs. :angry:Well, you know what to do about that.
No taxation without representation or some such. :whistling
hmm. this "house of lords" sounds like a potentially messy thing, politically. it seems like it might overrepresent certain interests, by default?The House of Lords is the "revising chamber", so no bills actually originate there.
It is supposedly in the process of being reformed, but the government has got to the stage where it cannot justify a wholly appointed chamber, but it does not want a second elected chamber since that would give it too much legitimate power compared to the House of Commons.
So currently the government is effectively suppressing any further changes.
vidcc
03-04-2005, 04:04 PM
The House of Lords is the "revising chamber", so no bills actually originate there.
you are correct about the main legislative work done in the lords, however bills can be initiated from the house of lords, but they do have to go through the same process as bills that start in the commons to be passed.
from the House of lords website (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofLBpRole.pdf)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.