Why do so many people believe Democratic peace theory?

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Even though it's not the only thing that makes me angry, isn't democratic peace theory dangerous to liberty?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the first democracies at war with each other? Weren't the beligerents in the Punic wars both democrats? Wasn't the War to Preserve Government Revenue and to Protect American Industry between two democracies? Aren't Hamas and Israel both democracies?

Wouldn't there be no international wars if there was no majority rule?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Wouldn't there be no international wars if there was no majority rule?

The rich would just force locals/their own workers/wageslaves to go to war for their resource allocation then. Same as the rest of the history of humanity before democracy.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Aren't Hamas and Israel both democracies?

Your kidding about Hamas correct?

here is the problem with Hamas -- Democracy in the middle east is a stirring and noble idea. More freedom equals less terrorism. But the Democracy antidote looks increasingly like bad medicine in the middle east. Hamas won the last election among the Palestinians,
Hezbollah gained seats in Lebanon and the Muslim Brotherhood will probably win in Egypt. They all operate on the theory -- one man, one vote, one time. After they get power thats the end of democracy. --- Michael Goodwin, Spokesman Review


As far as Israel goes many would say Israel is as close to a true democracy in the middle east as there is. Others will claim that Israel is more of a theocracy...it all depends on your point of view.
 
Last edited:

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
doesn't matter what system states use, there will still be war... it's just human nature

Agreed, even if you remove nationalism and religion, we would still have armed conflicts over something. Mostly, just boils down to money with a social / moral reason tacked on to help the belligerents sleep better at night.

People want money and power at the basic level, they are willing to fight (or have others fight) for it.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
People want money and power at the basic level, they are willing to fight (or have others fight) for it.

Dying for your cash is a bad investment, which is why you don't see the rich fighting their own wars, much easier to get on talk radio or fox and convince the poor and working class to sacrifice while they sit in their cushy chairs railing about "lazy people on the take".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Dying for your cash is a bad investment, which is why you don't see the rich fighting their own wars, much easier to get on talk radio or fox and convince the poor and working class to sacrifice while they sit in their cushy chairs railing about "lazy people on the take".

And you would rather take from the rich rather than make your own.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
In terms of the anarchist420 questions, after an unbiased read of world history, all forms of government seem equally likely to engage in warfare for fun or profit IMHO.

But regarding the JEDIY statement about Hamas and terrorism, maybe JEDIY needs to read the pre- 1948 history of the Israeli state, where the Jews the most prevalent and violent terrorists in the mid-east. And card carrying Israeli terrorists like Begin and Golda Mier later became PM's of Israel. And even Tippi Lizini parents were both bank robbers for the Israeli State. And when it comes to Israel, how can we call it a democracy when it disfranchise at least 30% of its residents from having a vote or due process of law?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
doesn't matter what system states use, there will still be war... it's just human nature

No, actually, it's not. Do you want to kill your neighbors? Very likely not.

Interestingly, history shows that in shooting wars, soldiers have shot to kill at a very low rate - there's a natural aversion to it.

In fact, we've modified military training to concentrate on bypassing the thinking parts of the brain to get ignored in battle and shoot reactively.

Some speculate that this has contributed to the increase of PTSD as soldiers come later to deal with the violence.

Actually, war is an organizational problem. Much as one person might like another person's belongings and could use violence to take them, but hopefully decides not to do that, nations are incented to pursue power and wealth at the expense of others, but you hope to find ways to have them not do so. The US could technically profit by conquering Canada and taking its resources, killing or enslaving its citizens, but we don't want to do so.

But there are times war gets a momentum going for various reasons - sometimes for little more than an opportunistic gaining power by stirring the flames. Often it's because of concerns about shifts of power going on. I could provide a long list of examples, but will defer that for now, hopefully it's not needed.

That's not a 'human' issue, it's an organizational problem, much the way any group of people can have 'organizational' problems. Big corporations often do things bad for society because their charter is to seek profit not only by building better mousetraps, but by doing things good for them and bad for society. They're legally compelled to pursue such interests. Their top management is hired to pursue them and gain as much profit as possible, their workers hired to do as they're told for those pursuits.

Any one of those people might say 'this is not right', but they can not do much about it.

This is a reason why "peace studies" make a lot of sense, and are not just candle-burning singing folk songs against guns. John Kennedy put out a collection of speeches titled "The Strategy of Peace"; he understood that as much as war, peace needs powers to make policy to try go get it and keep it. He didn't always do it himself - he was President at the height of the cold war - but he greatly reduced the risks of war.

Wars are often made up of large numbers of people who have nothing against each other put in the position of kill or be killed for the interests of leaders and the rich.

War is not human nature, but history makes clear that nations can force their people into wars for any reasons they like.

We should try to support politics against wrong war - not throw up our hands as you do.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Yea even before there were countries there were wars between tribes.

Actually, there's a variety of history - some tribes were prone to war and others got along very peacefully.

That really has little to do with today's wars, though. They're not fought for anything like the same reasons - they're creatures of the modern bureaucratic state.
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,587
3
81
No, actually, it's not. Do you want to kill your neighbors? Very likely not. I have sent one of my neighbors to the hospital before, and I'll do it again if he keep up his bullshit

Interestingly, history shows that in shooting wars, soldiers have shot to kill at a very low rate - there's a natural aversion to it.as an ex-soldier let me explain why, if you kill an enemy then that's the end of it, if you wound him then your opponent has to waste ressources on him. take the 5.56mm round, this is the most common small arms ammunition in NATO countries, the round is specifically designed to wound rather than kill (which has come back to bite us in the ass today, which is why I hope the powers that be get off their asses and make the switch to 6.8mm soon), it has nothing to do with a natural aversion to killing, in Afghanistan I always shot to kill and so did everybody else in my unit...

In fact, we've modified military training to concentrate on bypassing the thinking parts of the brain to get ignored in battle and shoot reactively.overthinking gets you killed in combat, leave that up to the officers

Some speculate that this has contributed to the increase of PTSD as soldiers come later to deal with the violence.

Actually, war is an organizational problem. Much as one person might like another person's belongings and could use violence to take them, but hopefully decides not to do that, nations are incented to pursue power and wealth at the expense of others, but you hope to find ways to have them not do so. The US could technically profit by conquering Canada and taking its resources, killing or enslaving its citizens, but we don't want to do so.it's a simply question of "is war/violence beneficial in the long run?", actually that question does not have to be asked as most of us automatically now the answer in any given situation (fight or flight instinct)

But there are times war gets a momentum going for various reasons - sometimes for little more than an opportunistic gaining power by stirring the flames. Often it's because of concerns about shifts of power going on. I could provide a long list of examples, but will defer that for now, hopefully it's not needed.

That's not a 'human' issue, it's an organizational problem, much the way any group of people can have 'organizational' problems. Big corporations often do things bad for society because their charter is to seek profit not only by building better mousetraps, but by doing things good for them and bad for society. They're legally compelled to pursue such interests. Their top management is hired to pursue them and gain as much profit as possible, their workers hired to do as they're told for those pursuits.

Any one of those people might say 'this is not right', but they can not do much about it.

This is a reason why "peace studies" make a lot of sense, and are not just candle-burning singing folk songs against guns. John Kennedy put out a collection of speeches titled "The Strategy of Peace"; he understood that as much as war, peace needs powers to make policy to try go get it and keep it. He didn't always do it himself - he was President at the height of the cold war - but he greatly reduced the risks of war.war with the Soviet union would not have been beneficial, that's the only reason he chose peace.

Wars are often made up of large numbers of people who have nothing against each other put in the position of kill or be killed for the interests of leaders and the rich.look up hooliganism, young men fight eachother for no other reason than the opposing side likes another football team, not for the interest of any leader or the rich

War is not human nature, but history makes clear that nations can force their people into wars for any reasons they like.

We should try to support politics against wrong war - not throw up our hands as you do.I fought in one of those wrong wars... not because I was forced but because I chose to do so

my replies are in bold.

http://www.economist.com/node/16422404
we are no different than animals, but we are more organized.