In Oslo, Obama said, "America has never fought a war against a democracy."
I'm thinking this isn't quite right.
If we exclude states with rigged voting and dubious election practices, however, are there any instances?
LMNO
-Military history fail.
Mexico? Maybe it was during the Empire do...
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 04:34:23 PM
In Oslo, Obama said, "America has never fought a war against a democracy."
I'm thinking this isn't quite right.
If we exclude states with rigged voting and dubious election practices, however, are there any instances?
LMNO
-Military history fail.
Well, I suppose the Civil War would fall into that category. But otherwise, I don't think we have.
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm (http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm)
^^^ Give a timeline and the countries the US has fought against.....
[diffident cough] er -no taxation without representation . . .
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 04:34:23 PM
In Oslo, Obama said, "America has never fought a war against a democracy."
I'm thinking this isn't quite right.
If we exclude states with rigged voting and dubious election practices, however, are there any instances?
LMNO
-Military history fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
Phillipine/American war, 1899-1913
QuoteThe June 12 declaration of Philippine independence had not been recognized by either the United States or Spain, and the Spanish government ceded the Philippines to the United States in the 1898 Treaty of Paris, which was signed on December 10, 1898, in consideration for an indemnity for Spanish expenses and assets lost.
On January 1, 1899 Aguinaldo was declared President of the Philippines — the only president of what would be later called the First Philippine Republic. He later organized a Congress at Malolos, Bulacan to draft a constitution.[30]
Admiral Dewey later argued that he had promised nothing regarding the future:
"From my observation of Aguinaldo and his advisers I decided that it would be unwise to co-operate with him or his adherents in an official manner... In short, my policy was to avoid any entangling alliance with the insurgents, while I appreciated that, pending the arrival of our troops, they might be of service."[23]
The first shots were fired by the American side.
Next:
Nicaragua: 1909-1933
Costa Rica: 1965 (Technically not a democracy at the time...we intervened to
stop an army-led drive to overthrow a dictator and reinstall democracy.
Most of the rest of the "banana wars" from 1907-1934 were also against democracies who didn't want to do business with us on United Fruit's (now DelMonte) terms.
There are others, but those are the most glaring examples.
Also, the Bosnian Conflict (Serbia was a democracy in the 90s).
Would the war of 1812 count?
proof ITT:
Knowledge leads to RAGE
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 04:54:23 PM
Would the war of 1812 count?
George III was king of the UK.
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 04:54:23 PM
Would the war of 1812 count?
No, at the time, Canada was part of England, and was as such a constitutional monarchy.
Gotcha.
Didn't we bomb Panama at some point?
Quote from: Regret on December 11, 2009, 04:57:04 PM
proof ITT:
Knowledge leads to RAGE
Want MORE rage?
Google "Phillipine-American war" and read.
Good thing we didn't make Milosovich look like an angel, or anything.
"Shoot everyone over the age of 10."
- order from General Jacob H Smith, 1902.
Also, moar torture, pls:
QuoteUnited States attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure) and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones" (concentration camps). Many of the civilian casualties resulted from disease and famine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillipine_American_war
Doesn't that make you want to eat stars and shit stripes?
What? You want MORE Slack™?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 11, 2009, 05:05:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 04:54:23 PM
Would the war of 1812 count?
No, at the time, Canada and England, were part of Britain and as such were part of a constitutional monarchy.
fixed to fit the thread title
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 05:14:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 11, 2009, 05:05:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 04:54:23 PM
Would the war of 1812 count?
No, at the time, Canada and England, were part of Britain and as such were part of a constitutional monarchy.
fixed to fit the thread title
I didn't realize the thread title was "PEDANTIC PRICKS ITT".
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 05:07:13 PM
Gotcha.
Didn't we bomb Panama at some point?
We invaded Panama in 1989 to throw out a dictator we installed.
As for the CREATION of Panama, see "Invasion of Nicaragua", above.
Ah. Gotcha.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 11, 2009, 05:15:18 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 05:14:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 11, 2009, 05:05:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 04:54:23 PM
Would the war of 1812 count?
No, at the time, Canada and England, were part of Britain and as such were part of a constitutional monarchy.
fixed to fit the thread title
I didn't realize the thread title was "PEDANTIC PRICKS ITT".
And a constitutional monarchy can also be a democracy. Hence the whole having a Parliament thing.
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 05:22:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 11, 2009, 05:15:18 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 05:14:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 11, 2009, 05:05:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 04:54:23 PM
Would the war of 1812 count?
No, at the time, Canada and England, were part of Britain and as such were part of a constitutional monarchy.
fixed to fit the thread title
I didn't realize the thread title was "PEDANTIC PRICKS ITT".
And a constitutional monarchy can also be a democracy. Hence the whole having a Parliament thing.
MMIX, go play in traffic. Fuckweasel.
Boy you get tetchy when someone points out that you are as just fallible as the rest of us.
MMIX laughing at you
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 05:30:37 PM
Boy you get tetchy when someone points out that you are as just fallible as the rest of us.
MMIX laughing at you
No, actually, I'm just annoyed when pedantic fuckwads have to prove how smart they are, no matter how badly it derails the thread. I have been wrong on this board many times, and I have owned up to it (ask Nigel, she has called me on several errors this month alone). It's just that I hate you, and I don't feel the need to engage in civil conversation with you, as I do with her and others.
You're a fucking moron. Please die in a burn ward.
I'm not smart and I don't claim to be - I think I might have been for a while I think, but I gave it up for Lent one year and, after 40 days without it it never seemed that important any more. Boringly I was actually providing "facts" as per the thread title - you did Engineering and physics or whatever I was doing History. I stand by my first post - The American War of Independence was against a democracy - the franchise might have been extended but Gt Britain was a constitutional monarchy even back then which by definition is a democracy.
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:07:29 PM
I'm not smart and I don't claim to be - I think I might have been for a while I think, but I gave it up for Lent one year and, after 40 days without it it never seemed that important any more. Boringly I was actually providing "facts" as per the thread title - you did Engineering and physics or whatever I was doing History. I stand by my first post - The American War of Independence was against a democracy - the franchise might have been extended but Gt Britain was a constitutional monarchy even back then which by definition is a democracy.
It's possible to correct facts without being a prick about it, if you try.
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:07:29 PM
I'm not smart and I don't claim to be - I think I might have been for a while I think, but I gave it up for Lent one year and, after 40 days without it it never seemed that important any more. Boringly I was actually providing "facts" as per the thread title - you did Engineering and physics or whatever I was doing History. I stand by my first post - The American War of Independence was against a democracy - the franchise might have been extended but Gt Britain was a constitutional monarchy even back then which by definition is a democracy.
WRONG. It's a monarchy.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688242/constitutional_monarchy.html
Quoteconstitutional monarchy
con·sti·tu·tion·al mon·ar·chy (plural con·sti·tu·tion·al mon·ar·chies)
noun
Definition:
1. political system: a political system in which the head of state is a king or queen ruling to the extent allowed by a constitution
2. royal-ruled country: a country with a constitutional monarchy
You will note that the words "democracy" or "rule of the people" do not appear in that definition.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on December 11, 2009, 06:11:50 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:07:29 PM
I'm not smart and I don't claim to be - I think I might have been for a while I think, but I gave it up for Lent one year and, after 40 days without it it never seemed that important any more. Boringly I was actually providing "facts" as per the thread title - you did Engineering and physics or whatever I was doing History. I stand by my first post - The American War of Independence was against a democracy - the franchise might have been extended but Gt Britain was a constitutional monarchy even back then which by definition is a democracy.
It's possible to correct facts without being a prick about it, if you try.
Yes, but that's not what MMIX was attempting. MMIX was intending to be a prick by (incorrectly) correcting "facts".
I think the stumbling point here is that constitution =/= democracy?
LMNO
-still figuring this stuff out.
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 06:16:17 PM
I think the stumbling point here is that constitution =/= democracy?
LMNO
-still figuring this stuff out.
This is correct. England's parliament, at the time of the war of 1812, was dominated by the house of lords, who were not elected.
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:07:29 PM
I'm not smart and I don't claim to be - I think I might have been for a while I think, but I gave it up for Lent one year and, after 40 days without it it never seemed that important any more. Boringly I was actually providing "facts" as per the thread title - you did Engineering and physics or whatever I was doing History. I stand by my first post - The American War of Independence was against a democracy - the franchise might have been extended but Gt Britain was a constitutional monarchy even back then which by definition is a democracy.
I wouldn't extend democracy to 1700's early 1800's Britian considering middle class males didn't even get the vote till the 1830's. Extending democracy before that is one hell of a stretch.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 11, 2009, 06:25:15 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:07:29 PM
I'm not smart and I don't claim to be - I think I might have been for a while I think, but I gave it up for Lent one year and, after 40 days without it it never seemed that important any more. Boringly I was actually providing "facts" as per the thread title - you did Engineering and physics or whatever I was doing History. I stand by my first post - The American War of Independence was against a democracy - the franchise might have been extended but Gt Britain was a constitutional monarchy even back then which by definition is a democracy.
I wouldn't extend democracy to 1700's early 1800's Britian considering middle class males didn't even get the vote till the 1830's. Extending democracy before that is one hell of a stretch.
Not only that, the king could and did shut down the house of commons at will:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1812
QuoteThe fourth United Kingdom Parliament was dissolved on 29 September 1812. The new Parliament was summoned to meet on 24 November 1812, for a maximum seven year term from that date. The maximum term could be and normally was curtailed, by the monarch dissolving the Parliament, before its term expired.
The only effective check on the king was the house of lords, the members of which gained their seats through being in the peerage, not via election.
That would be the British Parliament then, and what is your support for the claim that the, unelected, House of Lords was dominant. Are you saying that because our upper house is still unelected, that contemporary Britain is not a democracy?
NB I was not trying to be a prick but I get really ansty when people call Britain "England" - its like saying that all Americans live in Washington because that's where the capital is
And The Queen technically can still send all the politicians home like naughty schoolkids if the whim takes her.
Thurnez I take your point about the limited franchise but that was what constituted democracy back then. Democracy just means "people power" and who is to be regarded as one of "the people" is wildly variable over time
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:41:17 PM
That would be the British Parliament then, and what is your support for the claim that the, unelected, House of Lords was dominant. Are you saying that because our upper house is still unelected, that contemporary Britain is not a democracy?
Already dealt with, see above.
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:41:17 PM
NB I was not trying to be a prick but I get really ansty when people call Britain "England" - its like saying that all Americans live in Washington because that's where the capital is
No, you already stated you were posting in an attempt to piss me off (to wit "LAUGHING AT YOU LOLOLOL") Don't lose your balls now, for Chrissakes.
Face it, you got owned while being a pedantic shit. Get over it.
Silly English people. :lulz:
No wonder you had to hire Germans to run your country.
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:41:17 PM
And The Queen technically can still send all the politicians home like naughty schoolkids if the whim takes her.
Yes, because that would happen.
Technically having the power to do something =/= having the power to do something.
Quote from: BDS on December 11, 2009, 06:54:38 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:41:17 PM
And The Queen technically can still send all the politicians home like naughty schoolkids if the whim takes her.
Yes, because that would happen.
Technically having the power to do something =/= having the power to do something.
Difference is, back in 1812, it not only COULD happen for real, it DID happen for real. More often than not.
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:41:17 PM
Thurnez I take your point about the limited franchise but that was what constituted democracy back then. Democracy just means "people power" and who is to be regarded as one of "the people" is wildly variable over time
I really disagree with that. By that definition everything is democracy.
The way I see it is there has be at least a small majority of power delegated to the populous, not just the ruling elite.
And Britain before the 1800's fought hard against this reorganization of power, most famous being the French democracy which threatened them far worse then any colonial power could. Now I know that wasn't the only reason but it surely was an influence in the wars against the Girondins and the Jacobins.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 11, 2009, 06:58:48 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 06:41:17 PM
Thurnez I take your point about the limited franchise but that was what constituted democracy back then. Democracy just means "people power" and who is to be regarded as one of "the people" is wildly variable over time
I really disagree with that. By that definition everything is democracy.
The way I see it is there has be at least a small majority of power delegated to the populous, not just the ruling elite.
And Britain before the 1800's fought hard against this reorganization of power, most famous being the French democracy which threatened them far worse then any colonial power could. Now I know that wasn't the only reason but it surely was an influence in the wars against the Girondins and the Jacobins.
I understand your disagreement but *you can't base a definition of democracy on what seems to be an equitable sharing of power in contemporary society. I would disagree that the definition I gave means that everything is "democracy", but it does mean that you need to be aware of what kind of "democracy" you are looking at in any given situation. * that's generic "you" btw not you personally
I came across this quote when I was checking some stuff and it really rings true
"Democracy is the most valued and also the vaguest of political terms in the modern world."
Its like a colour - there are lots of different shades
I am not aware of any system where power is delegated
to the populace by a ruling elite
And yeah the French Revolution scared the living shit out of the PTB over here but I don't see how that reflects on the nature of "democracy".
The Britspags had a democracy of sorts, 'democracy lite'... America used to have the same thing. The difference between "White Male Land Owner" in the US and "Peerage" in Britain boils down to earning enough money to buy land and thus your right to vote, versus, being born in the right family, doing something special, or earning enough money to buy yourself a title.
Democracy is like a nice lullaby to sing while raping babies. :lulz:
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 11, 2009, 09:26:30 PM
Democracy is like a nice lullaby to sing while raping babies. :lulz:
Someone ought to set that fucker to music. With its haunting chorus 'If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it'
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 09:08:15 PM
I understand your disagreement but *you can't base a definition of democracy on what seems to be an equitable sharing of power in contemporary society. I would disagree that the definition I gave means that everything is "democracy", but it does mean that you need to be aware of what kind of "democracy" you are looking at in any given situation. * that's generic "you" btw not you personally
so explain to me how there was any suffrage in Britain at 1812
Democracy - some bullshit ideological pipedream invented by cavemen in togas.
Alsao, I believe most historians consider the British system to have been a 'democracy' since the English Civil War, which changed final authority from the King to the Parliament.
Not a good example of a democracy, but then given the way the US looked in 1812, I don't see much difference.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 11, 2009, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 09:08:15 PM
I understand your disagreement but *you can't base a definition of democracy on what seems to be an equitable sharing of power in contemporary society. I would disagree that the definition I gave means that everything is "democracy", but it does mean that you need to be aware of what kind of "democracy" you are looking at in any given situation. * that's generic "you" btw not you personally
so explain to me how there was any suffrage in Britain at 1812
I'm just saying that while I agree that there was nothing even remotely approaching what in the modern world would be accepted as
universal suffrage there was a class of people who were entitled to elect members to a Parliament which represented the political power in the country. That, limited or not, is suffrage.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on December 11, 2009, 10:36:12 PM
Democracy - some bullshit ideological pipedream invented by cavemen in togas.
hear, hear!!!!
Democracy is just a way to hide the power so the great unwashed can't get their hands on it
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 11, 2009, 10:46:15 PM
Alsao, I believe most historians consider the British system to have been a 'democracy' since the English Civil War, which changed final authority from the King to the Parliament.
Not a good example of a democracy, but then given the way the US looked in 1812, I don't see much difference.
the final authority was
reversed (this is the wrong word, I can't think of the right one at this moment in time) after the restoration though... I can see the parliamentary aspect though, especially it being almost joint in power at least in a technical form but for me that is still a stretch... Especially at the time in question.
Still semantics though... personally war 1812 I would say probably too tentative to list in this category, for the simple fact its a little too debatable
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 11, 2009, 10:46:15 PM
Alsao, I believe most historians consider the British system to have been a 'democracy' since the English Civil War, which changed final authority from the King to the Parliament.
Not a good example of a democracy, but then given the way the US looked in 1812, I don't see much difference.
I however, coming at this from the pov of an historian, would consider that Parliaments prior to the Civil Wars were equally "democratic" but you have to be very careful to specify what you mean by "democracy" in any given situation. The situation after the Restoration was very different than that pre-Civil Wars the Crown's powers were curtailed but in many ways nothing much had changed. As I said earlier the Monarch still has the constitutional right to throw Parliament out, and while this may not have happened a whole hell of a lot in recent times it would be foolish beyond belief to assume that it could never happen.
And just to poke your last point for a moment - I'm not aware of any good example of a democracy, either in 1812 or now. Historically 'democracy' was a way for those with particular social interests to drive progress in directions which they desired and which offered them and their connections advantages and in the modern world it is a smokescreen to make people feel connected and responsible for the directions which 'progress' will take while still allowing the same traditional power blocks exercise the same power as they have always done. Yes I'm a cynic. No I don't think I'm wrong on this one.
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 10:46:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 11, 2009, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 09:08:15 PM
I understand your disagreement but *you can't base a definition of democracy on what seems to be an equitable sharing of power in contemporary society. I would disagree that the definition I gave means that everything is "democracy", but it does mean that you need to be aware of what kind of "democracy" you are looking at in any given situation. * that's generic "you" btw not you personally
so explain to me how there was any suffrage in Britain at 1812
I'm just saying that while I agree that there was nothing even remotely approaching what in the modern world would be accepted as universal suffrage there was a class of people who were entitled to elect members to a Parliament which represented the political power in the country. That, limited or not, is suffrage.
I didn't say universal... just enough of the populous that you could safely say that that a good portion of the decision making progress is out of the nobility's hand, at least in theory.
The problem is MMIX is the argument is not from the point of debatable history. Obama's statement is a political argument about history... those are two different things that require two different standards
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2009, 04:34:23 PM
In Oslo, Obama said, "America has never fought a war against a democracy."
I'm thinking this isn't quite right.
If we exclude states with rigged voting and dubious election practices, however, are there any instances?
LMNO
-Military history fail.
Does subversion count as a war?
Also, define democracy. Most women didn't have the vote until this century, for example.
Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2009, 11:21:42 PM
Also, define democracy. Most women didn't have the vote until this century, for example.
my reading is media definition
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 11, 2009, 11:08:22 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 10:46:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 11, 2009, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 09:08:15 PM
I understand your disagreement but *you can't base a definition of democracy on what seems to be an equitable sharing of power in contemporary society. I would disagree that the definition I gave means that everything is "democracy", but it does mean that you need to be aware of what kind of "democracy" you are looking at in any given situation. * that's generic "you" btw not you personally
so explain to me how there was any suffrage in Britain at 1812
I'm just saying that while I agree that there was nothing even remotely approaching what in the modern world would be accepted as universal suffrage there was a class of people who were entitled to elect members to a Parliament which represented the political power in the country. That, limited or not, is suffrage.
I didn't say universal... just enough of the populous that you could safely say that that a good portion of the decision making progress is out of the nobility's hand, at least in theory.
You know what? That's not a theory I would want to try to prove . . . you know what I'm saying?
However I would also say that the nobility actually didn't have a monopoly on power
before the Civil Wars and increasingly less after the Civil Wars had decimated their numbers and bankrupted many of them. It was money and bloodlines that ran through the political classes but increasingly urban businessmen and entrepreneurs got their feet under political tables and their arses on the benches of Whitehall. They in turn represented the solid middle classes, you had to own land or have a decent income, to have a vested interest in the decisions which PArlaient took. And to a great extent their decisions were about a fairly limited range of State business. Who shall we tax/jail/declare war on, and how much/how long/ and when?
You also seem to be setting the bar rather high for what constitutes "democracy" are you related to Obama in any way, I hear his Dad may have looked towards Canada one day . . .
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 11:28:38 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 11, 2009, 11:08:22 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 10:46:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 11, 2009, 10:32:38 PM
Quote from: MMIX on December 11, 2009, 09:08:15 PM
I understand your disagreement but *you can't base a definition of democracy on what seems to be an equitable sharing of power in contemporary society. I would disagree that the definition I gave means that everything is "democracy", but it does mean that you need to be aware of what kind of "democracy" you are looking at in any given situation. * that's generic "you" btw not you personally
so explain to me how there was any suffrage in Britain at 1812
I'm just saying that while I agree that there was nothing even remotely approaching what in the modern world would be accepted as universal suffrage there was a class of people who were entitled to elect members to a Parliament which represented the political power in the country. That, limited or not, is suffrage.
I didn't say universal... just enough of the populous that you could safely say that that a good portion of the decision making progress is out of the nobility's hand, at least in theory.
You know what? That's not a theory I would want to try to prove . . . you know what I'm saying?
However I would also say that the nobility actually didn't have a monopoly on power before the Civil Wars and increasingly less after the Civil Wars had decimated their numbers and bankrupted many of them. It was money and bloodlines that ran through the political classes but increasingly urban businessmen and entrepreneurs got their feet under political tables and their arses on the benches of Whitehall. They in turn represented the solid middle classes, you had to own land or have a decent income, to have a vested interest in the decisions which PArlaient took. And to a great extent their decisions were about a fairly limited range of State business. Who shall we tax/jail/declare war on, and how much/how long/ and when?
You also seem to be setting the bar rather high for what constitutes "democracy" are you related to Obama in any way, I hear his Dad may have looked towards Canada one day . . .
yes for reasons explained before
Also the Utah war, not terribly violent but they removed the elected governor* of Deseret (now Utah) at gunpoint in order to install one of the president's cronies.
*Also cult leader
I love how this turned from a simple question into a mad brawl.
:)
So, to sum up ,for anyone who would care to actually look at facts.
The United States has attacked other Democracies in the past, will probably do so in the future if they disagree with us, and the President has lousy fact checkers and speech writers. Oversimplification it is, but at least i am not being a pedantic whiney baby.
On another note, the good news is that everyone at the speech probably had no fucking clue about any history that either did not directly involve their country/family or self, so Smiley will get away with his attempt at belaying peoples fears that we would like to have their land for mini-malls.
There is a correlation between democracy and lack of overt war, generally.
The problem is the causes. Neoconservatives and naive liberals would have you believe it is all because democracies love each other, and when it fails, it is not a Really Real Democracy anyway. Realists (and some Marxists, what an odd combination) believe it is because democracies are usually technologically advanced, culturally similar and are economically interdependent, making war a losing proposition. Constructivists believe it is because we have built up a myth of liberal democracies versus totalitarianism of varying forms (central European monarchies, fascism, Communism, Islamist theocracies) that makes us act as if its true.
I fall somewhere between two and three, myself, because the exceptions have mostly involved covert action or have been undertaken to stop a percieved democratic shift towards those ideologies, or was done against nations too small to fight back. When you consider that the UK and USA have mostly acted in "the national interest" for the past century and a half, all pieties about ethics aside, and that most government elites believe their own propaganda, two and three make the most sense.
Quote from: Cain on December 11, 2009, 11:21:42 PM
If we exclude states with rigged voting and dubious election practices, however, are there any instances?
Of democracy, you mean?
You'd probably have to ask LMNO. Since he wrote it.
I'm going to go with the example Roger offered (the Phillipines) as a pretty clear case of Obama being wrong. That means that whether or not Britain was a Democracy in 1776 or 1812 is irrelevant.
We were also at war with the People's Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Maybe not the best example of a democracy, but they do have the word Democracy right there in their name. People's Democratic Republic of Korea too.
North Korea is a democracy now? :lulz:
Dictators are people too
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on December 13, 2009, 12:01:58 AM
Dictators are people too
you know the old joke
"One man One vote - its a great system so long as you are the one man with the vote"
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 12, 2009, 11:25:22 PM
North Korea is a democracy now? :lulz:
According to their name they are.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 12, 2009, 11:25:22 PM
North Korea is a democracy now? :lulz:
According to the "Economist Intelligence Unit" NK is listed dead last on their "Democracy Index"... ie it is a 'democracy', just a horribly run one that leaves all the power in the hands of an apparent crazy person and his party.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 15, 2009, 09:39:54 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 12, 2009, 11:25:22 PM
North Korea is a democracy now? :lulz:
According to the "Economist Intelligence Unit" NK is listed dead last on their "Democracy Index"... ie it is a 'democracy', just a horribly run one that leaves all the power in the hands of an apparent crazy person and his party.
:ohnotache: :facepalm: :x
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 15, 2009, 09:35:20 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 12, 2009, 11:25:22 PM
North Korea is a democracy now? :lulz:
According to their name they are.
Just like how the United Kingdom is a monarchy.
:x
I decided that was far too easy to poke fun at.
[/nods]
And the United States had an Emporer.
Empires don't need emperors, lol. (/obvious)