26-05-2003 05:13									#181
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Imran:

You are making what is essentially a contructivist arguemnt, sicne it releis ont eh ntoion of a self-internalization of the notion of dmeocratic ideals to an extent that makes them such a powerfull belief that some sort of bond is created, a solidarity (just as Communist believed the common solidarity of workers would make them refuse to fight each other) that will lead to a desire to work peaceable the conflict between to democracies. And I don;t buy it!

You say people won;t fight each other cause they repect the right of others to self-rule. Well, fine and dandy, if the notion, the problem was one side wanting to conqure and annex the other side. But what if the issue is smaller? what if the issue is land? What if two states think they are the rightfull owner of some piece of land, some Island that may hold lots of oil? Fine, the other poeple have the right to make for themselves whatever laws they want, but obviosuly not the right to make laws OVER YOU, nor YOUR LAND (and assume the other side believes the same). Under such a ciscumstance, that the other side is democratic, well, what difference does it make? What if they don;t want to give the island up, it full of oil, they might as well use the money, no? So they elected the guy rulling them...what difference does that make to a land dispute (as Fashoda was)? Once we kcik their asses out of OUR land, well, they will still be dmeocratic, electing thier own rulers, so, no damage to the democratic ideals has been done, all that was done was that a land dspute was solved, if only by force.

That to me is the basic theoretical porblem with this argument: you (or any proponets) ahve shown me that democracy and democratic values somehow become so internalized, above and beyond other values, like, lets say, Nationalism, that people will feel the kind of solidarity Communist believed the working classes would build towards one another.

	26-05-2003 05:17									#182
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui But it is .

Tsk. Even Bangladesh is taller than a sea mountain

	26-05-2003 05:35									#183
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: But what if the issue is smaller? what if the issue is land? What if two states think they are the rightfull owner of some piece of land, some Island that may hold lots of oil?

Then you negotiate. It is harder to paint the other guy has a despot trying to steal your land, when it is a democratic government on the otherside. You talk and talk and come to a solution. If it is a dictatorship, it is easy to paint them as a land grabbing evil ruler. There is an easier moral argument to be made.

Hell, for an example look at Kashmir with Pakistan and India. India has been a democracy, but Pakistan has been a dictatorship and democracy about half of the time each. In EVERY WAR fought between the two, Pakistan was a dictatorship. And with the recent craziness, it started when Musharraf came to power. It seems strange that three wars were fought when the country was a dictatorship and none fought when both countries were democracies even though it's been half dictatorship and half democracy. What can explain that?

	26-05-2003 05:41									#184
	Support Apolyton

Pakistan was not a dictatorship in 1947-48, anymore than India was at the time. And yet they fought.

Oh, and India was not higly dmeocratic in 1971 either, with good ol" indira in power (get your definitons correct)

Why does the other side have to be painted as despots? Why isnt it "they (the other people) are trying to take what is ours!" You are correct to say that it is easeir to sell a war if one side isn't. democratic But your task is not to prove that it is easier to sell a war if you can more effectively dehumanize the enemy. Your task is to explain why it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a leader to take his state into war against another democraticaly elected leader, because THAT is what you are claiming.

	26-05-2003 05:44									#185
	Remove this text

I'm somewhat curious how the 1999 conflict between India & Pakistan is explained.

	26-05-2003 05:46									#186
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I asusme that somehow, akistan is disqualified from being a democracy at the time, given that the country was not so "stable" at the time, if you remember back to Imran's "accepted definition".

	26-05-2003 05:55									#187
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Pakistan was not a dictatorship in 1947-48, anymore than India was at the time. And yet they fought.

It definetly wasn't a democracy. Not under ole Jinnah

quote: I'm somewhat curious how the 1999 conflict between India & Pakistan is explained.

It wasn't a war, was it?

quote: Your task is to explain why it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a leader to take his state into war against another democraticaly elected leader, because THAT is what you are claiming.

Because it's a much, much harder sell. Especially when you have a transparent country you are trying to demonsize as 'stealing land'. It isn't sealed up, so you can't say all their claims are lies. A transparent democracy will have freeflow of information in government. It will be very, very difficult to paint these reasons as made up because you have a transparent country next to you, not some closed society.

The difficulty to dehumanize the enemy is SO great that it is akin to impossible.

	26-05-2003 05:57									#188
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It wasn't a war, was it?

The death toll for the conflict was 1100. The cut off point for being considered a war is 1000.

	26-05-2003 06:01									#189
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: The death toll for the conflict was 1100. The cut off point for being considered a war is 1000.

You serious? Cite?

I think you would have heard more of it, if that were the case.

	26-05-2003 06:02									#190
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Btw, when in 1999?

Musharraf took over in that year.

	26-05-2003 06:06									#191
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Musharraf took over in that year.

Musharraf came later. The Pakis were driven back to the de facto international border in July. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was deposed in October.

	26-05-2003 06:11									#192
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Btw, are those numbers for Pakistani troops or seperatist groups? (or, as I suspect a combination)

	26-05-2003 06:15									#193
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Btw, are those numbers for Pakistani troops or seperatist groups?

The seperatist groups were aided by the Pakistani military and artillery firing over the border into India. Both nations' air forces also raided each other back and forth regularly.

	26-05-2003 06:16									#194
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The seperatist groups were aided by the Pakistani military and artillery firing over the border into India.

Yeah, and Pinochet's forces were aided by the US, that doesn't mean that the US fought a war with Allende's Chile.

	26-05-2003 07:42									#195
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Dehumanization of the enemy is NOT a prerequisite for going to war, never was, never will be. And we are not talking about an issue of lack of info somehow getting to the voters: we are talking about a situation were both sides agree what the problem is: they can;t agree on who is the rightfull owner of a piece of real-estate. The average voter may know very well what the issues are. Why could they not decide that force of arms would be the best way for them to gain the advantage? Again, the issue is not conquest, it is getting "what is yours". People are wiling every day to kill fellow citizens, fellow democratic members of their own polis over that: Why on earth would they be so reticent to kill outsiders, no matter how the outsiders decide to rule themselves?

As I noted to DD in another post, what about the Ethiopia Eritrea war? both had democratically elected governments, in fact, givernments made up of individuals who had been allies against the communist dictatorship (talk about having common experiences!), and yet both states were willing to go through a war for dirt and rocks that killed 50,000 men.

	26-05-2003 07:46									#196
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Dehumanization of the enemy is NOT a prerequisite for going to war, never was, never will be.

It is in every democracy.

quote: what about the Ethiopia Eritrea war? both had democratically elected governments

Eritrea's was how old? 2 years? 1? Was there a peaceful transfer of power? There are plenty of cases of 'elections' that lead to 50 year rules by one man.

	26-05-2003 07:50									#197
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Eritrea was 5 years old (1993, IRC), and we know how old Ethiopia is. Sorry, no sale.

And no, dehumanization is not needed for a democratic state to go to war: example, Falklands war.

	26-05-2003 07:52									#198
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Eritrea was 6 years old (1994, IRC), and we know how old Ethiopia is. Sorry, no sale.

Peaceful transition?

Is Ethiopia a Democracy?

quote: And no, dehumanization is not needed for a democratic state to go to war: example, Falklands war.

The military government of Argentina was not treated too well in the British press. It was pretty close to dehumanization (ie, butchers).

	26-05-2003 07:55									#199
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The tabliod called the Argentines butchers, not all papers, and most importantly, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. What the press cares to do with itself its it's own damned business.

Ethiopia is a dmeocracy, as far as I know, and more importantly, it was in 1998. And no, i don;t think a peacefull transition is a must. That is why i think you guys are playing aroudn with the definition to make the set work.

	26-05-2003 07:56									#200
	Increase Your PM Length

re: Eritrea from the CIA Factbook:

quote: transitional government note: following a successful referendum on independence for the Autonomous Region of Eritrea on 23-25 April 1993, a National Assembly, composed entirely of the People's Front for Democracy and Justice or PFDJ, was established as a transitional legislature; a Constitutional Commission was also established to draft a constitution; Afworki ISAIAS was elected president by the transitional legislature; the constitution, ratified in May 1997, did not enter into effect, pending parliamentary and presidential elections; parliamentary elections had been scheduled to take place in December 2001, but were postponed; currently the sole legal party is the People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ), though a draft political parties law is under consideration

They haven't even had an election yet! The government is composed of revolutionaries!

	26-05-2003 07:57									#201
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: What the press cares to do with itself its it's own damned business.

If you don't think that the government helps guide the press in directions it wants them to go, you are being naive.

Btw, the Falkland Conflict only claimed 891 Lives (236 British and 655 Argentine) http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html . That ain't a war by definition (and it seemed more like a covert action than full fledged warfare anyway... nevertheless it was a ridiculous little conflict).

	26-05-2003 08:01									#202
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Hmmm, yeah. they have the same level of terrible dictatorship we had in 1785. I mean, a state full of revolutionary leaders.

I reieterate,this is why i think you guys are playing with the definitionswhich leads to you making a constuctivist argument based on internalization of democracy as a value, yet you can give any theoretical evidence of that.

You want a great reason why this war is a very good example contra this war? Both peoples had shared the struggle for freedom from a dictatorship, and had worked hand and hand to frm new governments (if for Eritrea, still in infancy), yet these people, who fought toghether for freedom (what better act of internalization do you want) ended up fighting a very vicious war over rocks.

	26-05-2003 08:02									#203
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui If you don't think that the government helps guide the press in directions it wants them to go, you are being naive.

you mean the same freedom loving govs. that won;t harm the hair on another freedomloving people? Rather peculiar notion, no? They love democracy, so they fiddle with the free press?

	26-05-2003 08:05									#204
	Tired of ads?

quote: Hmmm, yeah. they have the same level of terrible dictatorship we had in 1785.

Lack of democracy does NOT equal dictatorship. In fact, the greatest threat of war comes from the transitional period of becoming a democracy. It ain't black and white.

quote: you mean the same freedom loving govs. that won;t harm the hair on another freedomloving people? Rather peculiar notion, no? They love democracy, so they fiddle with the free press?

How is fiddling with the free press have anything to do with the common values and bonds they share with other democratic nations? Democracy seems to be an internationalist goal, kind of like communist all over the world. People in power seem to identify with fellow democrats. They share common values and work to foster them.

	26-05-2003 08:07									#205
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yeah, and Pinochet's forces were aided by the US, that doesn't mean that the US fought a war with Allende's Chile.

I had hoped for something more substantive.

	26-05-2003 08:10									#206
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Democracy is NOT an internationalist goal. Democracy is a form of government, 3000 years old. The problem is that your side had added on, on top of democracy, a bunch of other values that are not the same as democracy (like stating that suffrage must be over 50%.)

You yourself said that European imperialism, which denies democracy to millions, could exist without some sort of fundamental conflict, with democracy in some places. the notion that democratic man wants to see a victory for his belief system seems at utter odds to me with the notion that democratic man could, without problem, enslave millions.

	26-05-2003 08:11									#207
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Democracy is NOT an internationalist goal.

I must disagree.

quote: the notion that democratic man wants to see a victory for his belief system seems at utter odds to me with the notion that democratic man could, without problem, enslave millions.

Explain Thomas Jefferson.

	26-05-2003 08:17									#208
	Suffering from ads?

According to you, Jefferson's America was not a democracy. So it is up to YOU to figure him out, not me, as the nation he helped built was not democratic (according to that list you gave us) until at least 1865.

Let me add an even further bit: you say dehumanization is critical for democracies to fight: but does not this urge go against the very values of democratic man? To attempt to say that some humans actually aren't, isn;t that a fundamental assault on the modern, pluralistic values that you claim democratic man self-internalizes, thus making him unwilling to harm his fellow democratic man? An yet, somehow, for reasons you have yet to give any explination for, democratic man is utterly willing to ignore the humanity of others, specially if the other are suffering under a despot?! How do you explain that?

DD: do you plan to do anyting more than just pop in, you know, like join the debate?

	26-05-2003 08:22									#209
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap DD: do you plan to do anyting more than just pop in,

I'm still trying to get something more than an irrelevent snide comment from Imran wrt the 1999 India/Pakistan conflict.

	26-05-2003 08:23									#210
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: According to you, Jefferson's America was not a democracy. So it is up to YOU to figure him out, not me, as the nation he helped built was not democratic (according to that list you gave us) until at least 1865.

You cannot seriously say Jefferson did not WANT democracy. After all, his original Declaration wanted to abolish slavery.

quote: you say dehumanization is critical for democracies to fight: but does not this urge go against the very values of democratic man?

Not necessarily. The democrat dehumanizes the conduct and the man that his opposing dictator is. This is needed in order to free the dictator's people or to acheieve the goal, which would be better serving a democratic state instead of a non-democratic state.

If he attempts to dehumanize a democratic counterpart, he loses his own people because most of them won't necessarily follow that all the people are unhuman. However, they will accept that one leader is. Democracies don't leap up and chant to fight simply because of trivial things like borders or resources. They don't want their kids to die for that. However, they will send their kids to die to bring down an evil, ruthless dictator.

When we went against Iraq (both times), it was against Saddam. When we went against Germany, it was Hitler. We dehumanized the leader, not the people.

At the same time those who are considered savages (and one reason being primative forms of goverment, such as tribal governance) can easily be dehumanized and the people can be preyed up, not the leader. Because people will not protest too much to kill the savages. It isn't against the democratic mold, but simply eliminating those who people believe will never fit in to a democracy.

Democrats don't have to be pacifists, or even non-brutal. They can be plenty brutal against what they consider 'evil'. However, against those harder to paint as 'evil' (fellow democracies) they will stop because the people will be harder to convince.