PDA

View Full Version : Should all countries follow Japan's limited military?


Nancy Allen``
03-13-2007, 08:12 PM
After the end of World War II treaties were put into place that prevented Japan from growing it's military to the point that it can strike from beyond it's boarders. With weapons of mass destruction, calls for rogue states to disarm and the invasion of other countries, should this be a model for us to follow?

DarthSion101
03-13-2007, 08:36 PM
Absolutely......we have all been put here on this planet together, and instead of spending money on things like medical advancements, and helping eachother out, all we do is p--- away countless billions on making war and bringing death. The year is 2007, and man still is fighting tribal wars, only our tribes are now called countries.

Achilles
03-13-2007, 08:44 PM
Nancy, those treaties were imposed by us to ensure that Japan wouldn't be able to militarize again. They currently are allowed a civil defense force, but their military is ours.

From that perspective, your question sounds like: "should all the world's nation's be forced to give up their militaries and accept the U.S. as the only militarized super-power?"

Most of the world would say no and many Americans feel that isn't our place, however it's been our foreign policy for about 75 years to do exactly that.

For those of you that haven't seen it, I highly recommend the documentary Why We Fight (http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/).

Fish.Stapler
03-13-2007, 08:45 PM
First you'd need a body capable of enforcing this law. Until then, it's impractical since it'd be leaving yourself open to get quashed by a deviant nation. I'm all for it though.

Emperor Devon
03-13-2007, 09:44 PM
Would it be nice? Yes. Will it happen? No.

SilentScope001
03-13-2007, 10:08 PM
After the end of World War II treaties were put into place that prevented Japan from growing it's military to the point that it can strike from beyond it's boarders. With weapons of mass destruction, calls for rogue states to disarm and the invasion of other countries, should this be a model for us to follow?

Hey, let have everyone have only 500,000 troops!

All Countries, Including USA: Okay.

Every country disarms.

China: Hey, USA, while you're disarming, can you please evacuate from Taiwan, please? Thanks!

USA: No way, otherwise we would nuke you and destroy your nation!

China: Actually you won't. Since all of us have equal military, for every damage you do to me, I'll do an equal amount of damage to you. You're screwed. Give me Taiwan.

Pakistan: Hey, China. Give me the part of Kashmir that you stole from India!

China: We gave lives to go and steal that desert! We'll never let you have it!

World War ensures between all the nations...

Er...let not have that. :) There should at least be one nation who's the most powerful who can manitan order. Of course, it doesn't have to be the USA, it could be China. But we need a military superpower who can threaten people and get them to obey, without causing a big global conflict.

Achilles
03-13-2007, 10:21 PM
First you'd need a body capable of enforcing this law. Until then, it's impractical since it'd be leaving yourself open to get quashed by a deviant nation. I'm all for it though. Think of this in the context of the Nuclear Age. You either need a body capable of enforcing this law or you need to be the world's sole possessor of nuclear weapons.

The Non Proliferation Treaty basically states that all nuclear member countries will stop building weapons, disarm the ones that they have, and stick to energy creation only. Except the U.S. has (not so) secret clauses in the treaty that allow it to continue building and transporting weapons under the pretense of "just in case". Inherently evil? Not at all. But it certainly shows that if we are the sole country with nuclear weapons, then our grasp could exceed our reach as "the world's police".

btw, I'm not a New World Order conspiracy nut :D

Nancy Allen``
03-13-2007, 10:43 PM
I'd be including America in not having forces capeable of striking other countries, in fact America would be the worst offender in this regard with nuclear subs armed with ICBMs capeable of what everyone feared Kin Jong of being capeable of. Do I think it should happen? War is mostly bringing troops to a country to either defend or invade it anyway. Almost never to my knowledge has any one aggressor striked against another from beyond it's boarders, certainly nothing like a missile being launched from say North Korea to a target in Europe or America. And in the event that such a threat did exist there have been countermeasures put into place such as the Patriot Missile Defense System.

For that matter, what are people's thoughts on the Star Wars defense proposal?

SilentScope001
03-13-2007, 10:52 PM
For that matter, what are people's thoughts on the Star Wars defense proposal?

Judging from the fact that Russia threatened to nuke Poland over it (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=175889), not highly. :)

Achilles
03-13-2007, 10:59 PM
I'd be including America in not having forces capeable of striking other countries, in fact America would be the worst offender in this regard with nuclear subs armed with ICBMs capeable of what everyone feared Kin Jong of being capeable of. Well, we are a signed member, however we have some special powers that other countries don't. Those other countries accurately point out that those special powers are violations of sections I and II, but we're the U.S. so we're going to play by our own rules anyway.
Almost never to my knowledge has any one aggressor striked against another from beyond it's boarders, certainly nothing like a missile being launched from say North Korea to a target in Europe or America. Do you mean with a nuclear weapon? No, there has never been a nuclear weapon launched from one country into another. As far as conventional warfare, it happens all the time. Especially in the Middle East where the countries are so small and usually opposing nations are very close to each other.

And in the event that such a threat did exist there have been countermeasures put into place such as the Patriot Missile Defense System.

For that matter, what are people's thoughts on the Star Wars defense proposal? I think Bush is about *this* close to reigniting the Cold War. Considering that he's alienated a great many of our former allies, I think that would be a bad idea.

Nancy Allen``
03-13-2007, 11:02 PM
I'd agree with that, how Bush has alienated a great many people. We were working with Russia, Germany and Britain before Iraq. Now look. The question is how much of the incitement will remain when Bush is gone? Hopefully not a lot at all.

Achilles
03-13-2007, 11:30 PM
Depends on whether or not we elect another Rapture Cowboy.

Maybe voting for Romney is the answer.

Nancy Allen``
03-13-2007, 11:43 PM
I'm worried less about the Rapture and more about the cowboy, but as I said I think Barack or Hilary is the way to go.

Achilles
03-13-2007, 11:48 PM
I think electing a multi-racial citizen into our nation's top public service position would win us a lot of goodwill.

I think similar thoughts about Hillary, but it seems that she alienated her base by supporting the war in Iraq even after apologizing for her vote. I don't hold it against her, but I know a lot of others do.

CountVerilucus
03-14-2007, 01:11 AM
Hell no we should not model this, the United States military is what keeps the world in check. Yes, the US uses it to coerce sometimes to their benefit. But I would rather that then any full scale wars.

Ambrose
03-14-2007, 02:11 AM
There is absolutely no way the nations of the world would collectively agree to disarm. There's way too much trust involved, and that trust just isn't there (in many cases, rightfully so).

Japan disarmed while on its knees and at gunpoint.

The last time the world as a whole attempted to disarm was right after WWI, and we all know how well that worked...

Darth InSidious
03-14-2007, 05:44 AM
Hell no we should not model this, the United States military is what keeps the world in check. Yes, the US uses it to coerce sometimes to their benefit. But I would rather that then any full scale wars.
I'd say that this attitude is about half the reason a lot of the world really, really dislikes the USA.

Ultimately, I think all nations should disarm. But I don't see it happening, since it would leave them vulnerable, and someone would take advantage.

So what's the answer? I'd like to think we could simply (though it would inevitably be prohibitively difficult) put together a much, much bigger (possibly global?) free trade agreement. Of the sort the EU started out as, but without the baggage of corruption, incompatible legislation and white elephant projects...

Achilles
03-14-2007, 05:50 AM
I agree that free trade is the key.

To borrow from the old adage, "money makes the world go 'round".

Economic partnerships will eventually (hopefully) lead to political partnerships. Given enough time and pressure, I think we could evolve into a single government. Of course, we'll probably kill each other off first.

Darth InSidious
03-14-2007, 02:47 PM
I think a single government is in the first place simply too big to be feasible, and secondly undesirable, as it would destroy, in my opinion, all cultural uniquenes that each country now has...which I think would be a travesty.

Achilles
03-14-2007, 03:08 PM
I'm thinking thousands of years in the future.:D

Besides, I don't think one unified government precludes cultural diversity. Look at the U.S.

Darth InSidious
03-14-2007, 04:36 PM
Quite.

JediMaster12
03-14-2007, 04:41 PM
You are speaking of world disarmament and a unified govt. Anybody catch this? This is what is predicted throughout Revelation. The Antichrist arrives on a with horse wielding a bow meaning that he will wage war against those that oppose him. I am not jumping off the deep end and saying that the world is near the end but some of what you are saying keeps drawing this idea closer. A lot of things make you stop and think how close are we towards realizing that maybe Judgment Day is coming. That said and done I'll leave it at that. I am not seeking argument over this since this treads dangerously to the whole religion thing.

The Sith'ari
03-14-2007, 04:49 PM
There should at least be one nation who's the most powerful who can manitan order. Of course, it doesn't have to be the USA, it could be China. But we need a military superpower who can threaten people and get them to obey, without causing a big global conflict.

I find this idea repulsive. So uncivilized for human beings to have to rely on "threats" to maintain peace and sanity. Why won't we learn from history, and stop indulging in our greed and start dealing with bigger problems, like global warming, energy shortage, etc? Yeah yeah, in the end someone wins, just in time when the Earth falls apart and human beings are destined for their demise.

I'd say that this attitude is about half the reason a lot of the world really, really dislikes the USA.

Ultimately, I think all nations should disarm. But I don't see it happening, since it would leave them vulnerable, and someone would take advantage.


I agree. It's pathetic how human beings never learn. And it's even more pathetic how someone could think that it's ok to exploit others and rage war against others because he's "maintaining peace by superior military force".

SilentScope001
03-14-2007, 04:51 PM
JediMaster, The world will end only when the Sun decides to gobble up the Earth. :p

I'm actually more interested in having a last genocidcal war between all superpowers before the last remaining superpower (and the last suriviors) surive. If say, everyone but 100 people surivied this hypotethical "War to End All Wars", and those 100 people follow the same belief systems and are the same patriots...and they form a new nation...Congrats! We got world peace and a world government. :)

EDIT:Do we really need a military superpower who can threaten people so as to maintain peace? I don't think so. I even find this idea repulsive. So uncivilized for human beings to have to rely on "threats" to maintain peace and sanity. Why won't we learn from history, and stop indulging in our greed and start dealing with bigger problems, like global warming, energy shortage, etc? Yeah yeah, in the end someone wins, just in time when the Earth falls apart and human beings are destined for their demise.

Hey, I'm being realistic. Energy shortages and global warming are part of politics too: Rich countries and poor countries want to both stop global warming, but want the other side to do it (becuase if they in fact do it, they lose money). Energy shortages are related to the idea of energy superpowers (OPEC, Russia), and well, the military superpower of the USA dislike them.

Listen, if we want selfless governments, if we don't want to induldge our greed, then we do need this military superpower, who can maintain order but can also not be greedy. A benevolenat dictatorship. But before you can start getting people to cooperate, you must first beat them to a bloddy pulp. Nobody really want to make the scarfices necessary to stop these problems, and for good reason, we'll suffer for the better of the whole. So, we just need more intelligent and alustirc superpowers.

The Sith'ari
03-14-2007, 05:13 PM
Listen, if we want selfless governments, if we don't want to induldge our greed, then we do need this military superpower, who can maintain order but can also not be greedy. A benevolenat dictatorship. But before you can start getting people to cooperate, you must first beat them to a bloddy pulp. Nobody really want to make the scarfices necessary to stop these problems, and for good reason, we'll suffer for the better of the whole. So, we just need more intelligent and alustirc superpowers.
I knew what you meant, but I too, am trying to be realistic. Reality is, there's NO ONE who will be noble enough to perform this role the way you said it should- it's a downside of human nature that when one gets powerful, one become greedy and tries to exploit the weak. At least so far I don't think the US is what you would call "altrustic".

Should this "altrustic superpower" exist, it'd have to be an angel sent by God or something like that.

SilentScope001
03-14-2007, 05:18 PM
I knew what you meant, but I too, am trying to be realistic. Reality is, there's NO ONE who will be noble enough to perform this role the way you said it should- it's a downside of human nature that when one gets powerful, one become greedy and tries to exploit the weak. At least so far I don't think the US is what you would call "altrustic".

Should this "altrustic superpower" exist, it'd have to be an angel sent by God or something like that.

True, but it's the best of all possible worlds.

But for non-angelic superpowers, we could add in some "bonsuses" to motivate the less alustritic of the superpowers of today.

"Al-Qadiah is using global warming in order to destroy America. We must stop Al-Qadaih and win the War on Terrorism by cutting emissions." :)

lukeiamyourdad
03-14-2007, 05:29 PM
So funny :p I was actually writing a paper on liberals and realists just yesterday.

To put you in the context and provide a short definition, realists are people who believe brute force and power rule international politics. Liberals are those who believe that it's the individuals and the economy.

Realism and neorealism has long been used to justify American hegemony, saying that a unipolar world, a world where one nation dominates all, is a stable world and profits everyone under it. A question is raised. Does it profit anyone but the more powerful nations? Do smaller nations with less power somehow find the same advantages?

Americans seem to believe that the world is stable because they keep it in check. Arguable position I suppose, but one that is arrogant and insulting to everyone else or anyone who simply doesn't agree. I suppose that if you really like the USA, no matter where you live, you'd accept that.

However, another perspective exists within the liberal and neoliberal communities. Basically, world order is kept in check and peace is developed only through democracy and capitalism. With the current globalization, it seems imposing democracy is a non-factor. Multinational corporation do it for everyone. As an example, foreign corporations in China have pushed the government into "getting" out of their judicial system. It is no longer controlled by the party. China's judicial system is independent because free trade requires a neutral arbiter. Officially at least, but it's a big step towards the liberalization of China. People, especially during the Iraq conflict, believe that liberalization is a process that takes seconds to mend. It actually varies. South Korea developed a stable democracy in less then a year. The Philippines are having a lot of trouble with theirs and China is only "on the way". Oops, went a bit too far.

Basically, my point is that free and fair trade helps the world work towards peace through institutions like the WTO or UN (if you're a liberal) or simply through trading (if you're a neoliberal).

Me? I'm more liberal. Realism is a simplist theory that doesn't take into account non-state actors like multinational corporations and the economy. The stato-centric theories are taking into account only unitarian states that speak for their people, which is not the case anymore. Realism and neorealism are fun to use when analyzing events, at least it's funny for me, even if I don't really believe in it. Oh and it's more simple.

SilentScope001
03-14-2007, 05:37 PM
Americans seem to believe that the world is stable because they keep it in check. Arguable position I suppose, but one that is arrogant and insulting to everyone else or anyone who simply doesn't agree. I suppose that if you really like the USA, no matter where you live, you'd accept that.

It's not America. It's a superpower.

Frankly, if USA caved in and the Soviet Union is the winner, they get the superpower, they contorl. America is not really needed, it's just a superpower that needs to run the world.

Basically, world order is kept in check and peace is developed only through democracy and capitalism.

...Bah. Democracy and capitalism are far too overrated. What you call realism, I think most people would just term it "Idealism"...and Idealism has no proof whatsoever to back their "democratic peace theory".

What's the point of democracy anyway? The people run the nation. So what? People can be idiots and wage total war. Democratic societies can still hate each other and can still wage war. Iraq sent troops to battle Israel in the War for Independece in 1948, and both Iraq and Israel were democracies.

I don't understand. Capitalism is supposed to be about "conflict". It's about corproations battling each other to get money. How is that peace?

You can argue, "Oh, if everyone believed in the same thing as America does, then it would be great." ...True, but then again, why not have everyone believe in Communism? :)

The Sith'ari
03-14-2007, 06:11 PM
In my humble view, captalism or not, democracy or not, all doesn't matter. What matters after all is US, we ourselves. A golden heart is all we need to work out peace.

lukeiamyourdad
03-14-2007, 06:20 PM
It's not America. It's a superpower.

Frankly, if USA caved in and the Soviet Union is the winner, they get the superpower, they contorl. America is not really needed, it's just a superpower that needs to run the world.

Hegemonic power. Currently, or at least a few years ago after the fall of the Soviet Union, America became the sole world power. We lived in a unipolar world. Or so realists say.

It remains realist ideology.

...Bah. Democracy and capitalism are far too overrated. What you call realism, I think most people would just term it "Idealism"...and Idealism has no proof whatsoever to back their "democratic peace theory".

I was talking about liberalism. Realism is about power, liberalism, about individuals and the economy.

What's the point of democracy anyway? The people run the nation. So what? People can be idiots and wage total war. Democratic societies can still hate each other and can still wage war. Iraq sent troops to battle Israel in the War for Independece in 1948, and both Iraq and Israel were democracies.

Actually, the democratic peace saying is irrefutable up to now if you consider the western definition of liberal democracy. According to Diane Éthier, the definition of western liberal democracy is: " System where those who govern are chosen in honest elections, just and regular, that gives the right to vote to any adult citizen, that allows any party to competition freely and respects the fundamental rights."

The definition is debatable, but it's largely like that in the western world. The fact that it's debatable means that democratic peace is an unscientific saying. Which is a problem.

What you're saying is interesting though. Since capitalism doesn't always come with democracy. Singapore is an authoritarian state with pseudo-elections yet has a very neoliberal economic model alongside a humongous welfare state. China is going that way too.


I don't understand. Capitalism is supposed to be about "conflict". It's about corproations battling each other to get money. How is that peace?

In theory, capitalism is not about "conflict" but about open and fair competition. It's not always the case in practice, but for the most part, it is. Basically, capitalism requires peace to properly function. Constant warfare stops trade among nations or makes it more difficult. As such, liberals believe that a capitalist world will tend towards peace.



You can argue, "Oh, if everyone believed in the same thing as America does, then it would be great." ...True, but then again, why not have everyone believe in Communism? :)

If you're a marxist, sure. It's actually another branch of international relations along with other theories like constructivism. I'm sure wikipedia can enlighten you about those as it's not exactly fresh in my mind and I don't feel like grabbing my notes and making a summary right now :p

By the way, capitalism isn't exclusive to America. It's spread is reaching far beyond the North American continent.

By the way, feel free to criticize realist and liberal theories, none is really perfect.

Jediphile
03-14-2007, 06:35 PM
So uncivilized for human beings to have to rely on "threats" to maintain peace and sanity. Why won't we learn from history, and stop indulging in our greed and start dealing with bigger problems, like global warming, energy shortage, etc? Yeah yeah, in the end someone wins, just in time when the Earth falls apart and human beings are destined for their demise.

The problem isn't that we can't figure out what should be done. The problem is that we can't trust each other to do our part of the job to solve our problems. Because history also inevitably teaches us that someone will always try to exploit the situation, and that lesson we have learned only too well...

What's the point of democracy anyway? The people run the nation. So what? People can be idiots and wage total war. Democratic societies can still hate each other and can still wage war. Iraq sent troops to battle Israel in the War for Independece in 1948, and both Iraq and Israel were democracies.

People can indeed be idiots (and frequently are IMHO), but then what's the alternative? Personally I think Churchills said it best:

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried from time to time."

Democracy is not perfect. It's flawed and unwielding, encouring politicians to lie to the people in order to get elected and the bureaucracy to build unceasingly to preposterous levels.

But even with all its flaws, it's still better than the alternative. I don't support democracy because it's good. I support it because we have no better alternative.

SilentScope001
03-14-2007, 07:03 PM
It remains realist ideology.

I'm just saying that not every realist has to be a supporter of USA.

Actually, the democratic peace saying is irrefutable up to now if you consider the western definition of liberal democracy. According to Diane Éthier, the definition of western liberal democracy is: " System where those who govern are chosen in honest elections, just and regular, that gives the right to vote to any adult citizen, that allows any party to competition freely and respects the fundamental rights."

Ah, redefine democracy.

Well, then, I would basically argue that a "Liberal Democracy" is just a democracy that conforms to what America wants it to be. Of course there will be no war between Liberal Democratic nations...America won't invade Grat Britian. :) I'm believing that Ideologies are becoming uber-states now, and people who believe in the same ideology won't attack each other and see each other as friends.

The problem is that there are nations that has left the "Liberal Democratic" fold, at least, according to liberal democratic activists. Venuzeula and Russia are seen as not liberal democarcies...except, in Venuzeula and Russia. After all, in both nations, their leaders do get elected. There is voting and represenation. But to outsiders, it really isn't liberal...so we got ourselves a little problem...

If war erupts between Russia and USA, then the definition of liberal democracy becomes a bit strained. Is Russia a liberal democracy? Well, according to Russians, yes. According to Americans, no. But if Russia is a liberal democracy, and America is a liberal democracy...then democratic peace fails.

One may argue why did Communist nations like Vietnam and China fought each other in the Third Vietnam War. I'll respond that is because Vietnam drifted towards Stalinism, and China was Maoist. Communists spilt up into two factions, Stalinism (USSR) and Maoism (China), and since Stalinism and Maoism hates each other, the Third Vietnam War ensured.

In theory, capitalism is not about "conflict" but about open and fair competition. It's not always the case in practice, but for the most part, it is. Basically, capitalism requires peace to properly function. Constant warfare stops trade among nations or makes it more difficult. As such, liberals believe that a capitalist world will tend towards peace.

Free trade, huh? Okay. I could see that being possible...somewhat. Not all the time though. I think the world is much more complex than that...big multi-national corporations do support some nations or another. For example, capitalists would love to invest in Sudan's oil fields...but can't, you know, due to Sudan being declared a terrorist state and waging a brutal counter-insurgency in Darfur.

If you're a marxist, sure. It's actually another branch of international relations along with other theories like constructivism. I'm sure wikipedia can enlighten you about those as it's not exactly fresh in my mind and I don't feel like grabbing my notes and making a summary right now

What I mean is that if everyone believed in the same Idea, then there would be no conflict. If everyone loves each other, then there would be no war. If everyone was a liberal Democrat or if everyone is a Communist, then there would be no war.

The world is not that idealistic a place. :p


By the way, feel free to criticize realist and liberal theories, none is really perfect.


I agree. They are all systems, to explain the world, but all has their faults.

People can indeed be idiots (and frequently are IMHO), but then what's the alternative? Personally I think Churchills said it best:

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried from time to time."

Maybe. But would it really be pratical? Is it really the "least bad of all governments" I'm more a supporter of Cicero's view of how the world politics run:

There is a King who runs the government. The King starts off nice, but his descendants become idiots and run the country to the ground. So, he gets overthrown and a new government is formed...that of Aristocracy (a military junta). They rule the country nice, but their descendants become idiots and run the country to the ground. So the people get angry and overthrow the Aristorcracy and form a new government...that of Democracy.

Obivously, someone must lead the Democracy, so a private citizen with absoulte power (but democrtically elected) is chosen to run the country. This private citizen becomes King in all but name. :)

So, instead, Cicero is a fan of the Republic, that is, of having the three branches of government (Democracy, Aristocracy, and King) combined into one. The Democracy were the the Tribunes that were elected and had veto power. The Aristocracy was the Senate. The King is the Consuls. The Republic is actually all three governments, rolled into one. :) Cicero said that would be the best form of government, but he was an idiot, as it turned out the Senate dominated the Roman Republic. The Senate was overthrown by the "democractic" movement of the Ghraccus brothers who used the tribunes to get propsals passed, and the ensuring chaos led to the rise of Julius Ceaser and Augstus who created the EMpire.

We keep this same system today in the US, and I believe in other liberal democracies as well: Winston Churchill, ironically enough, can be considered the King of this 'democracy' that he so promotes. But to me, the Republic is not that stable. Who will dominate? The King branch (executive branch), the Aristoricracy branch (the judical branch [they interpert the laws...which make them contorl the laws]), or the Democracy branch (the Legastive Branch). If one dominates, and run the country straight to the ground, then they'll get overthrown, by one of the other branches...who will then promptly run it to the ground.

What I am saying is that democracy has its faults. Sure, it might be the least bad, but that does not mean we should not experiment and find other forms of governments. Anarachism sounds like a pretty good solution to all the problems we have today. Why not try that form of government? :)

The Sith'ari
03-15-2007, 06:25 AM
The problem isn't that we can't figure out what should be done. The problem is that we can't trust each other to do our part of the job to solve our problems. Because history also inevitably teaches us that someone will always try to exploit the situation, and that lesson we have learned only too well...
That's the problem: we chose the wrong things to learn from history because we still are just indulged in our own interests. If we can't trust each other, work it out together why not? Make an agreement or something. Try to make it work. Unfortunately, it's not gonna work out as long as we embrace our ugly greed.

lukeiamyourdad
03-15-2007, 11:17 AM
I'm just saying that not every realist has to be a supporter of USA.

Of course. It's not actually supporting anything rather then the belief that one hegemonic power makes the world more stable. After the Cold War, realist theories were used by many to justify US domination and hegemony.


Ah, redefine democracy.

Well, then, I would basically argue that a "Liberal Democracy" is just a democracy that conforms to what America wants it to be. Of course there will be no war between Liberal Democratic nations...America won't invade Grat Britian. :) I'm believing that Ideologies are becoming uber-states now, and people who believe in the same ideology won't attack each other and see each other as friends.

Your attempts at anti-americanism are frankly unjust. Liberal democracy is not an American principle, it's a western principle. What we consider the western nations all apply to this idea, from France to the Scandinavians, passing by Canada and the United States. Simply because the US happens to be the most obvious representative of the liberal democratic model does not mean that other countries following the same model don't want it to be what "democracy" is.

The problem is that there are nations that has left the "Liberal Democratic" fold, at least, according to liberal democratic activists. Venuzeula and Russia are seen as not liberal democarcies...except, in Venuzeula and Russia. After all, in both nations, their leaders do get elected. There is voting and represenation. But to outsiders, it really isn't liberal...so we got ourselves a little problem...

If war erupts between Russia and USA, then the definition of liberal democracy becomes a bit strained. Is Russia a liberal democracy? Well, according to Russians, yes. According to Americans, no. But if Russia is a liberal democracy, and America is a liberal democracy...then democratic peace fails.

The problem is that you assume that two elements:

-That Russians themselves and Venezuelans consider themselves living in a liberal democracy.
-That somehow the United States defines everything for the rest of the world.

The case of Russia is a special one. They do have a capitalist system and their people are starting to get better living standards but censorship and political assassination still happen. Questions can be asked. Do the people of Russia all accept their current political situation? Do they even consider themselves as part of a "liberal democracy"? The same questions come up with Venezuela. They might call themselves "democracy", but as long as they don't fit the definition I have provided, analysts will consider Russia as an emerging "imperfect" democracy. It's not about what they claim to be, it's about what they actually are.

Even Vietnam has a voting and representative system. You can read about it in an article by Martin Gainsborough, Party Control: Electoral Campaigning in Vietnam in the Run-up to the May 2002 National Assembly Elections, in Pacific Affairs. Yet, can anyone actually call it a democracy? "Officially", the people are fully happy with it, but in a country in the process of liberalization, where there is still censorship, is it possible to conclude that they like the system? They might accept it simply because they have too.

One may argue why did Communist nations like Vietnam and China fought each other in the Third Vietnam War. I'll respond that is because Vietnam drifted towards Stalinism, and China was Maoist. Communists spilt up into two factions, Stalinism (USSR) and Maoism (China), and since Stalinism and Maoism hates each other, the Third Vietnam War ensured.

China attacked Vietnam because Vietnam attacked Cambodia after Pol Pot went crazy and decided to "cleanse" the Vietnamese living in Cambodia and threaten Vietnam with invasion if it didn't give back to Cambodia the Mekong Delta, Vietnamese territory for centuries. The only ideological split was the alliance between Vietnam and the USSR and Cambodia and China forming two blocks in the regions. The conflict, in itself, had almost no ideological roots, more a question of strategy and alliances.



Free trade, huh? Okay. I could see that being possible...somewhat. Not all the time though. I think the world is much more complex than that...big multi-national corporations do support some nations or another. For example, capitalists would love to invest in Sudan's oil fields...but can't, you know, due to Sudan being declared a terrorist state and waging a brutal counter-insurgency in Darfur.

In a way, yes. The ITT corporation did support Pinochet the Chilean dictator. Sudan's case is not contradictory to liberal theories. It never said that peace comes overnight, this means that, according to those theories, Sudan will eventually reach peace through pressures by said multinational corporation and other peace loving organizations in order to exploit those oil fields.



What I mean is that if everyone believed in the same Idea, then there would be no conflict. If everyone loves each other, then there would be no war. If everyone was a liberal Democrat or if everyone is a Communist, then there would be no war.

The world is not that idealistic a place. :p

In theory, that's what they believe. The problem is that even if everyone had the same "ideology", you'd have to think the absolute exact same way about all thinkable issues. Democratic peace or communism, alone, doesn't negate regionalism. It's also arguable if it would be an idealistic place, if it's an ideal so to speak. In my opinion, the world would be a rather boring place.

JediMaster12
03-15-2007, 01:26 PM
SilentScope001: I made that point out because we are at a time when there are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around about the end of the world. I am only giving you the Christian version but in order for that to happen, Israel must be at peace for some time and with the way things are going now, that is unlikely.

I'm actually more interested in having a last genocidcal war between all superpowers before the last remaining superpower (and the last suriviors) surive. If say, everyone but 100 people surivied this hypotethical "War to End All Wars", and those 100 people follow the same belief systems and are the same patriots...and they form a new nation...Congrats! We got world peace and a world government.
Either this is a bad joke or you actually believe it. People believed that 1914 was the war to end all wars but heck even that idea flew out the window with the age of Industrialization. This little bit is farfetched and idealistic. People don't always agree on the same thigs. Unless your 100 or so people were clones with not thought of their own except what the supreme being says is so then we've got a problem already.

SilentScope001
03-15-2007, 08:36 PM
Your attempts at anti-americanism are frankly unjust. Liberal democracy is not an American principle, it's a western principle. What we consider the western nations all apply to this idea, from France to the Scandinavians, passing by Canada and the United States. Simply because the US happens to be the most obvious representative of the liberal democratic model does not mean that other countries following the same model don't want it to be what "democracy" is.

Alright, fine. "Western civilization". I used America because it seems to be the "most obivous reprenstive". Still, it is an ideology, and countries inside of "western civilization" won't attack each other, because they belong to the same civilization. That doesn't mean that democracy is good or bad...

The problem is that you assume that two elements:

-That Russians themselves and Venezuelans consider themselves living in a liberal democracy.
-That somehow the United States defines everything for the rest of the world.

The case of Russia is a special one. They do have a capitalist system and their people are starting to get better living standards but censorship and political assassination still happen. Questions can be asked. Do the people of Russia all accept their current political situation? Do they even consider themselves as part of a "liberal democracy"?

Around 70-80% popularity rating for Putin. :)

So, yes, they do accept their political situation, not rebelling or such. Call it a tyranny by majority, but the people did choose. And I do think they consider themselves a democracy.

The same questions come up with Venezuela. They might call themselves "democracy", but as long as they don't fit the definition I have provided, analysts will consider Russia as an emerging "imperfect" democracy. It's not about what they claim to be, it's about what they actually are.

No, my friend, it's about what they claim to be. You can't just disregard someone's claim, especially if tons of people BELIEVE in it. Russia's not a small country. Not to mention that if you talk to a Venuezulan or a Russian anaylst supporting the government, he'll disagree with you.

Even Vietnam has a voting and representative system. You can read about it in an article by Martin Gainsborough, Party Control: Electoral Campaigning in Vietnam in the Run-up to the May 2002 National Assembly Elections, in Pacific Affairs. Yet, can anyone actually call it a democracy? "Officially", the people are fully happy with it, but in a country in the process of liberalization, where there is still censorship, is it possible to conclude that they like the system? They might accept it simply because they have too.

I accept your definition of "liberal democracy", but that's only because those who join up with Western Civilization have "liberal democracy", and therefore, the question of "democratic peace" is futile...western civilization won't attack each other. It is also interesting to note that people of Western Civilization define what "liberal democracy" is.

China attacked Vietnam because Vietnam attacked Cambodia after Pol Pot went crazy and decided to "cleanse" the Vietnamese living in Cambodia and threaten Vietnam with invasion if it didn't give back to Cambodia the Mekong Delta, Vietnamese territory for centuries. The only ideological split was the alliance between Vietnam and the USSR and Cambodia and China forming two blocks in the regions. The conflict, in itself, had almost no ideological roots, more a question of strategy and alliances.

Bolded for emphasis. There was an ideological spilt. And it is this ideological spilt that I believe caused the war.

Why worry about stragery and alliances...if you're all on the same side? Since China and Camobida versus USSR and Vietnam were on different sides, had different ideologies, then the strageries and the alliances come in. But you need a reason for the war...and the reason is ideology.



In a way, yes. The ITT corporation did support Pinochet the Chilean dictator. Sudan's case is not contradictory to liberal theories. It never said that peace comes overnight, this means that, according to those theories, Sudan will eventually reach peace through pressures by said multinational corporation and other peace loving organizations in order to exploit those oil fields.

...Er.

I'm saying capitalists are saying that they are losing money thanks to these sanctions. China is a big investor within Sudan, helping its oil fields out, and thereby having both sides profiting. Meanwhile, USA is locked out, thanks to disagreements that USA and Sudan had, mostly over USS Cole and Sudan.

I just don't see it pratical, really, for a nation to suddenly change its core values just to make money. There are some things that must not be killed off.

In theory, that's what they believe. The problem is that even if everyone had the same "ideology", you'd have to think the absolute exact same way about all thinkable issues. Democratic peace or communism, alone, doesn't negate regionalism. It's also arguable if it would be an idealistic place, if it's an ideal so to speak. In my opinion, the world would be a rather boring place.

Prehaps. But I would rather rot in Heaven than rot in Hell.

If everyone thinks the same, the world would be a boring place, but it really wouldn't, would it, since we all think the same.

Regionalism, I would agure, is in some cases, a form of nationalism, and in this case, it is an own seperate idea that could iginte war. Communism and Liberal Democracy, according to my knowledge, discourge regionalism, and call for unity of the masses to its cause, calling for a utopia.

What if everyone is a Liberal Democrat? Hm. If nationalism is not curbed, then it looks to me that many politicans will get elected on the platform of causing nuclear war, thereby putting this "democratic peace theory" to rest. Liberal Democracy causes for a vibrant opposition as well, no? And, by a vibrant opposition, I don't mean one political party running the show and the other political parties say, "Woo-hoo!" on the sidelines. I mean, 50% Party A and 50% Party B. This means recounts, Supreme Court descions, and 50% of the population getting really, really ANGRY.

But I usually assumed you mean that if everyone was a Liberal Democrat, then the world would be in peace. And this is the main reason I don't want Liberal Democracy, or any ideology for that matter, to trimpuh and take over the world. World peace....do you know how boring that is? Historians out of jobs, and life being so...meaingless. If I have to choose either this or total warfare, then I'll have to choose world peace, but even so, it would be better to keep this current status quo, in-between violence and happiness.

Either this is a bad joke or you actually believe it. People believed that 1914 was the war to end all wars but heck even that idea flew out the window with the age of Industrialization. This little bit is farfetched and idealistic. People don't always agree on the same thigs. Unless your 100 or so people were clones with not thought of their own except what the supreme being says is so then we've got a problem already.

A bit of both. Theoritcally, it is possible. Highly unlikely though. It's useful, ONLY as a thought experiment, to decide how society can be run, and how the problems theortically can be solved. I wanted to point this out to show prehaps a solution. I really don't want to make anyone mad.

Darth InSidious
03-16-2007, 12:31 PM
Alright, fine. "Western civilization". I used America because it seems to be the "most obivous reprenstive". Still, it is an ideology, and countries inside of "western civilization" won't attack each other, because they belong to the same civilization. That doesn't mean that democracy is good or bad...
You may know how things are in the USA, but the reason the USA hasn't been invaded by, for example, an EU coalition is that it's economically too much effort, that any such coalition would lose, because there's no particular reason right at this instant in the public consciousness, because of the economic implications, because of the difficulties of what to do afterwards, because China, Iran and North Korea would get jittery, because the USA is a nuclear power with the will to use such weapons in self-defence, and because it we're all busy keeping our eyes on Russia, which is very much the larger threat right now, to name but a few reasons.

Culture has nothing to do with it. Economics and geopolitics, on the other hand, do.

SilentScope001
03-16-2007, 12:43 PM
You may know how things are in the USA, but the reason the USA hasn't been invaded by, for example, an EU coalition is that it's economically too much effort, that any such coalition would lose, because there's no particular reason right at this instant in the public consciousness, because of the economic implications, because of the difficulties of what to do afterwards, because China, Iran and North Korea would get jittery, because the USA is a nuclear power with the will to use such weapons in self-defence, and because it we're all busy keeping our eyes on Russia, which is very much the larger threat right now, to name but a few reasons.

I would also like to point out that there is no reason why the EU would invade USA, that "particular reason" to invade. No cassi bellum, no cause for war. To me, that's the most important thing needed in order to actually start up a war between USA and EU. You can't declare war on nations just because you want them, you have to provide (or manufracture) a reason, and get at least the leaders and the troops on your side.

Once you provide that reason, then what you say matters, because if there is tension between EU and USA, then the EU won't invade the USA for these reasons. But there needs to be tension first. (Example of justification: USA invaded Iraq because of the tension after the Persian Gulf War, as well as suspicion Iraq is building WMDs.) I don't think said tension can be created if the EU and the USA have the same culture (not like the tension that "Oh, America invaded Iraq"...more like "America poses a threat to our cities and have Weapons of Mass Destruction!"), but if said tension comes up in the future, then I'll eat my words.

Culture has nothing to do with it. Economics and geopolitics, on the other hand, do.

More realist than I am. ;)

Darth InSidious
03-16-2007, 05:19 PM
I would also like to point out that there is no reason why the EU would invade USA, that "particular reason" to invade. No cassi bellum, no cause for war. To me, that's the most important thing needed in order to actually start up a war between USA and EU. You can't declare war on nations just because you want them, you have to provide (or manufracture) a reason, and get at least the leaders and the troops on your side.

Once you provide that reason, then what you say matters, because if there is tension between EU and USA, then the EU won't invade the USA for these reasons. But there needs to be tension first. (Example of justification: USA invaded Iraq because of the tension after the Persian Gulf War, as well as suspicion Iraq is building WMDs.) I don't think said tension can be created if the EU and the USA have the same culture (not like the tension that "Oh, America invaded Iraq"...more like "America poses a threat to our cities and have Weapons of Mass Destruction!"), but if said tension comes up in the future, then I'll eat my words.
There is no 'European' culture in the first place - and if you were to make such generalisations, you'd get some very annoyed looks if you were lucky ;), and there is already plenty of tension because the USA is, rightly or wrongly, perceived as meddling, interfering, arrogant and as not paying the slightest heed to any other country, and of course the usual prejudices about weight and lack of intelligence.

But to actually invade America, there is at present no reason. That was my point. Things are much the same in the USA except in reverse, I suspect.

More realist than I am. ;)
Idealism just lead to moaning :xp:

lukeiamyourdad
03-18-2007, 03:19 PM
Around 70-80% popularity rating for Putin. :)

So, yes, they do accept their political situation, not rebelling or such. Call it a tyranny by majority, but the people did choose. And I do think they consider themselves a democracy.

The question raised was actually about really accepting it, if you went and talked to the people on the street. In Vietnam, in the newspapers, people like the current representation system. All is beautiful. Is it really? Knowing that censorship exists, can we truly trust those data?



No, my friend, it's about what they claim to be. You can't just disregard someone's claim, especially if tons of people BELIEVE in it. Russia's not a small country. Not to mention that if you talk to a Venuezulan or a Russian anaylst supporting the government, he'll disagree with you.

The keyword is supporting the government. What the hell do you expect him to say? My government, the one that I love, is totally undemocratic and totalitarian?

It's about what they actually are. To use a different analogy:
I can claim to be a doctor. Some people might believe it because I'm charismatic enough. Many might. The majority of the people I come across might. Does that mean I am a doctor? Does it mean I'm qualified to diagnose a disease? Absolutely not.

I can put on black make-up and pretend to be a black guy. My facial features might make it credible enough. Does it mean I am? Am I any less Vietnamese because of what I claim to be?

No, in this, you could not be more wrong. It's about what they actually are. Anyone can claim anything. Hey, look at how the members of the Front National claim they are. "We're not racist or xenophobic, we just think that immigrants cause all the problems of France!" Yet LePen is known to be anti-Semite. Hey, even neo-nazis deny their racism. They're all nationalists, not racists. Yet, they are.



I accept your definition of "liberal democracy", but that's only because those who join up with Western Civilization have "liberal democracy", and therefore, the question of "democratic peace" is futile...western civilization won't attack each other. It is also interesting to note that people of Western Civilization define what "liberal democracy" is.

So how does that question democratic peace? It actually confirms it.

It is true that it is westerners who defined democracy. There's a debate in the far East, among scholars of countries following Confucius' traditions whether their culture can fit the "mold" of a liberal democracy. Basically, they claim that their culture "stops" the transformation and keeps their countries from becoming a westernized democracy. An interesting debate, but although it makes democratic peace an unscientific saying, from a purely philosophical perspective, it does not make it false either.



Bolded for emphasis. There was an ideological spilt. And it is this ideological spilt that I believe caused the war.

Why worry about stragery and alliances...if you're all on the same side? Since China and Camobida versus USSR and Vietnam were on different sides, had different ideologies, then the strageries and the alliances come in. But you need a reason for the war...and the reason is ideology.

Except that what you believed caused the war is not what actually caused the war. The ideological split and alliances could have done nothing. It could have stayed at a state of diplomatic cold but no more. Had Pol Pot not "cleansed" his borders of Vietnamese people and sending troops into Vietnam itself and Vietnam replying with full invasion of Cambodia, there would have been no war between China and Vietnam. It wasn't even a proxy war since China got directly involved. I don't see how you can actually conclude that because they disagreed they suddenly had the urge to wage war on each other.




...Er.

I'm saying capitalists are saying that they are losing money thanks to these sanctions. China is a big investor within Sudan, helping its oil fields out, and thereby having both sides profiting. Meanwhile, USA is locked out, thanks to disagreements that USA and Sudan had, mostly over USS Cole and Sudan.

I just don't see it pratical, really, for a nation to suddenly change its core values just to make money. There are some things that must not be killed off.

It's not sudden either, nor does it have to change its core values. Is China any less Chinese now that it has opened up to capitalism? Is Japan any less Japanese? Is South Korea any less Korean?



Prehaps. But I would rather rot in Heaven than rot in Hell.

If everyone thinks the same, the world would be a boring place, but it really wouldn't, would it, since we all think the same.

A strange paradox I conceded, but still, would it truly be heaven? Arguable position and highly controversial. No issue, since it's about opinion more then fact.

Regionalism, I would agure, is in some cases, a form of nationalism, and in this case, it is an own seperate idea that could iginte war. Communism and Liberal Democracy, according to my knowledge, discourge regionalism, and call for unity of the masses to its cause, calling for a utopia.

It actually is nationalism, so to speak. Francis Fukuyama did speak of the triumph of liberal democracy after the end of the cold war, but his argument was quickly destroyed in the following years as new forces came to rise to take the place of communism as the "counterweight" to democracy. It's arguable, even among followers of both ideology, whether it is actually possible to truly "end history". Liberal democracy does call for a utopia, far from it. Democratic peace is not a utopia like communism. It's merely peace between the states and nations, it does not negate possible internal struggles like nationalism and regionalism.


What if everyone is a Liberal Democrat? Hm. If nationalism is not curbed, then it looks to me that many politicans will get elected on the platform of causing nuclear war, thereby putting this "democratic peace theory" to rest. Liberal Democracy causes for a vibrant opposition as well, no? And, by a vibrant opposition, I don't mean one political party running the show and the other political parties say, "Woo-hoo!" on the sidelines. I mean, 50% Party A and 50% Party B. This means recounts, Supreme Court descions, and 50% of the population getting really, really ANGRY.


Like I said, within a country, there is nothing saying that opposition and dissent will not exist with democracy. It merely says that between democratic states, there is no war. Is it even thinkable that a politician can get freely elected, with zero manipulation of the system and attack another democratic country without changing the constitution or declaring himself supreme overlord and as such transforming his country into a totalitarian state? Chances are low and until something like that happens, which it hasn't yet, democratic peace still stands.


But I usually assumed you mean that if everyone was a Liberal Democrat, then the world would be in peace. And this is the main reason I don't want Liberal Democracy, or any ideology for that matter, to trimpuh and take over the world. World peace....do you know how boring that is? Historians out of jobs, and life being so...meaingless. If I have to choose either this or total warfare, then I'll have to choose world peace, but even so, it would be better to keep this current status quo, in-between violence and happiness.

My original point was that free trade leads to peace between nations because none would unbalance the system with war due to pressures from economic actors.

Historians would still have jobs, even with the possible "end of history", ancient history still subsists. Anyway, if you want to keep the status quo, sure, it's your opinion, neither true or false.

SilentScope001
03-18-2007, 11:51 PM
The question raised was actually about really accepting it, if you went and talked to the people on the street. In Vietnam, in the newspapers, people like the current representation system. All is beautiful. Is it really? Knowing that censorship exists, can we truly trust those data?

Then why should we trust yours? Couldn't you be motivated by other factors, like biased media sources? (Oh my god, you might have seen a news show that is swayed to the Left or to the Right! Your entire testionmy suddenly becomes invalid since you are exposed only to one side? Of course not, since you can make valid arguments on either side! Don't attack the system, attack the person!)

The keyword is supporting the government. What the hell do you expect him to say? My government, the one that I love, is totally undemocratic and totalitarian?

It's about what they actually are. To use a different analogy:
I can claim to be a doctor. Some people might believe it because I'm charismatic enough. Many might. The majority of the people I come across might. Does that mean I am a doctor? Does it mean I'm qualified to diagnose a disease? Absolutely not.

Here is the thing that matters: You claim to be a doctor.

Now, do you THINK you are a doctor, or are you lying that you are a doctor.

If you think you are a doctor, then to you, you are a doctor. To your patients, you are a doctor. It's all about preception here, people perceive themselves to be differnet things, and to me, that matters...not other people's preceptions.

If you are lying, then you are not a doctor, because you personally perceive yourself to be a doctor...until you lie to yourself enough to convince yourself you are a doctor.

And, I do see this as a bad anology. Here's the thing:

Veneuzla and Russia are led by intelligent people. Leaders. People who KNOW how to run a country. The reason why someone might not trust a doctor who claims to be a doctor is because that doctor might make a mistake and kill them. But Putin and Chavez are both leaders, and they are (according to their supporters) doing a good job.

No, in this, you could not be more wrong. It's about what they actually are. Anyone can claim anything. Hey, look at how the members of the Front National claim they are. "We're not racist or xenophobic, we just think that immigrants cause all the problems of France!" Yet LePen is known to be anti-Semite. Hey, even neo-nazis deny their racism. They're all nationalists, not racists. Yet, they are.

/sigh.

I do view a logical fallacy here. We're questioning if people ARE what you claim they are.

It's up to YOU to prove to me that LePen is an anti-Semtie. It's up to you to prove that Neo-Nazis are fasicits, or that Venuezula and Russia are dictatorships. And it is obivous that all of them disagree with your sentiment. It's basically, when it comes down to it, their words versus yours. And while most of society believe your words...that DOES not mean that your words are correct.

I listen to them, I listen to what they say, because this is what they believe, and I want to know why they do what they want to do. Their words are just as important as yours, and even more so, because it explains what they are doing.

If you argue that they are wrong because society calls them wrong, then I point at Putin's poll numbers. Putin's society calls him right, and he doesn't care what the liberal democrats think of him. If you state that you are the one who decides what is liberal democracy and what is not, then it's up to you to prove to me why I should trust your definition.


So how does that question democratic peace? It actually confirms it.

No, it doesn't.

The reason is that Western Civilization nations won't attack each other. They all happen to have the government "liberal democracy" and parades it around.

BUT, here's the thing, it doesn't matter what sort of uniform government they have. They can have dictatorship, anarchy, communism, monarchy...it doesn't matter. Western civilization nations won't attack each other, since they all have a bond.

If the world was contorlled by communists, well, then, there would be "Communist Peace".

It is true that it is westerners who defined democracy. There's a debate in the far East, among scholars of countries following Confucius' traditions whether their culture can fit the "mold" of a liberal democracy. Basically, they claim that their culture "stops" the transformation and keeps their countries from becoming a westernized democracy. An interesting debate, but although it makes democratic peace an unscientific saying, from a purely philosophical perspective, it does not make it false either.

The thing is...westerners defined democracy, but the main reason is that democracy, in and of itself, is nothing. The thing that matters is "Westerners" and the fact that their civilization is powerful. Had another civilization became powerful, I think this debate over libreal democracy would render itself moot.

Except that what you believed caused the war is not what actually caused the war. The ideological split and alliances could have done nothing. It could have stayed at a state of diplomatic cold but no more. Had Pol Pot not "cleansed" his borders of Vietnamese people and sending troops into Vietnam itself and Vietnam replying with full invasion of Cambodia, there would have been no war between China and Vietnam.

Um...Cambodia, at the time, was a puppet government of China.

Cambodia is worried that Vietnam wants to take over all of Southeast Asia and form an communist empire. Cambodia, understandbly, wants to be freed. Hence, it allied with China while the spilt between Vietnam and China occured, and began attack Vietnam's settlements, as to protect itself from being invaded.

Of course, that failed. Vietnam invaded, overthrew Cambdoia, and upset China very much so. Had, however, there was no diplomatic conflict between China and Vietnam, if they were WORKING TOGETHER, China would be okay with Cambodia being smashed and taken over by Vietnam. Heh, if Cambodia was okay with being part of Vietnam's communist empire, this whole conflict would have never taken place.

Geopolitics mean nothing if Vietnam and China liked each other. If Vietnam and China had tensions, then the geopolitics get into play, with China backing Cambodia, and the USSR backing Vietnam.

It's not sudden either, nor does it have to change its core values. Is China any less Chinese now that it has opened up to capitalism? Is Japan any less Japanese? Is South Korea any less Korean?

Well, you have to ask them. But...they did lose a part of their hertiage. Japan lost some of its militratsic attiudes. South Korea will never be unified. And Mao would be rolling in his grave at the "maoism" in China. So...yes to all three. Do they care? I don't know.

A strange paradox I conceded, but still, would it truly be heaven? Arguable position and highly controversial. No issue, since it's about opinion more then fact.

Okay. I see it as Heaven, due to the fact that it is a perfect world, which I see is the definition of Heaven.

It actually is nationalism, so to speak. Francis Fukuyama did speak of the triumph of liberal democracy after the end of the cold war, but his argument was quickly destroyed in the following years as new forces came to rise to take the place of communism as the "counterweight" to democracy. It's arguable, even among followers of both ideology, whether it is actually possible to truly "end history". Liberal democracy does call for a utopia, far from it. Democratic peace is not a utopia like communism. It's merely peace between the states and nations, it does not negate possible internal struggles like nationalism and regionalism.

Is internal struggle...peace?

Turkey, a liberal democracy, is waging war against the PKK and the Kurdish terrorists. The Kurds want to be freed...and are also pro-American. Strangely, both the Kurds and Turkey are quite liberal, quite free. But the PKK do terror bombings, and Turkey pulls out some troops to hunt down and possibly do genocides.

Is this PEACE? This cannot be. If regionalism and nationalism grows to become so powerful that the regionalists or the nationalists seize contorl over a part of the country, I call them a seperate nation. And then war will erupt. If they both happen to believe in the ideas of Liberal Democracy, then you see two liberal democaries killing each other over regionalism and nationalism.

Like I said, within a country, there is nothing saying that opposition and dissent will not exist with democracy. It merely says that between democratic states, there is no war. Is it even thinkable that a politician can get freely elected, with zero manipulation of the system and attack another democratic country without changing the constitution or declaring himself supreme overlord and as such transforming his country into a totalitarian state?

I can think that way. Would be quite simple, really. Just appeal to regionalism and nationalism. Oh, so maybe one country might call another country not a democracy, but that doesn't seem pretty helpful, since it is just properganda.

Reason? Well, after 9/11, Bush invaded Afghanistan. We hated them. Even now, we all support Bush's desicions in America. No, I'm not saying Afghanistan is a democracy. It's not. But, right after 9/11, Bush got us into war, without authorization from Congress (it's not really needed at all, thanks to the President having the title of "Commander in Chief").

Where's the censorship? I see none. I laugh at the small letter in the Arizona Tribune arguing that the invasion of Afghanistan will mire us into a quarmire (and then cry at fact the letter is right).

We got a war with another nation, with a democratically elected person at the head, elected on a position to not intervene in global society, and with no restrictions on our democracy at all. We're still liberal. All that matters is the other side. But if Bush can whip up nationalism to rally America, then what is to say that a liberal democratic nation can also whip out nationalism. If both sides can duplicate this, and curtial no liberites (or if they have to...then a few)...then, congrats. Liberal democrats shall kill each other.

My original point was that free trade leads to peace between nations because none would unbalance the system with war due to pressures from economic actors.

Yet...economic actors would pressure you to end free trade to begin with. Producers want tariffs in America to stop China from trading. Americans want to "buy American" because they don't want jobs being sent overseas. Protectionalism is a force to be reckoned with, and if they grab the regins of power in a liberal democracy (which they can, 1 man=1 vote, and if a lot of people are unemployed and nationalist, the protectionalists takes over) then so long free-trade!

Not to mention: Could free trade prop up enemy governments? Dictaorships? If you rely on Sudan to sell you oil, then you would not want instablity to happen to overthrow Sudan and send the country into destruction...especially if there is an insurgency that wants to overthrow it.

There is also the possiblity that economic actors will be unable to stop the nationalists and the regionalists from gaining power. What if these people don't profit from the current distrubition of wealth? What if they can't get their greivences to be heard in liberal democraries? Then we may have a war on our hands..

Historians would still have jobs, even with the possible "end of history", ancient history still subsists. Anyway, if you want to keep the status quo, sure, it's your opinion, neither true or false.

"Hah, let us attend a lecture by Silentscope001 where we laugh at the follies of the Roman Republic, who tried to make a republic. They failed, but they laid the groundwork for our [i]success[i]!"

...No. Historians would act only as a way to glorify the liberal democracy, to have the liberal democrats just laugh at ancient history, to make the "civlized" people feel as if they are better, when they are not. Both of them have humans, they merely have different ways of thinking.

History is revelant because we are still struggling with the past, and we are seeing that for all our efforts, it is futile. We respect the past, we will not criticize the past. The Roman Republic is a republic, and it taken over territories, but it had no other choice, and in the end, one could compare the US to the Republic, to see its trial and tribunialtion. If you are going to turn history into nothing more than a properganda piece by which you glorify the virtues of the Liberal Democratic world, then you might as well destroy what history is supposed to be, an objective view of the world, to see how the past cause the present and the future.

And, yes, it is my opinon. But you have an opinon too, that of the Libreal Democractic Peace.
---
I think it would be best not to argue, but rather to wait. Just wait, 50, 100 years later. Then we return back, and we see if Liberal Democractic Peace takes root...or if it collaspes. That's all we can really do...

lukeiamyourdad
03-22-2007, 02:26 AM
Then why should we trust yours? Couldn't you be motivated by other factors, like biased media sources? (Oh my god, you might have seen a news show that is swayed to the Left or to the Right! Your entire testionmy suddenly becomes invalid since you are exposed only to one side? Of course not, since you can make valid arguments on either side! Don't attack the system, attack the person!)

So, basically, you're telling me I can't trust my source...So technically, you can't trust yours either...Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot.



Here is the thing that matters: You claim to be a doctor.

Now, do you THINK you are a doctor, or are you lying that you are a doctor.

If you think you are a doctor, then to you, you are a doctor. To your patients, you are a doctor. It's all about preception here, people perceive themselves to be differnet things, and to me, that matters...not other people's preceptions.

If you are lying, then you are not a doctor, because you personally perceive yourself to be a doctor...until you lie to yourself enough to convince yourself you are a doctor.

Ok, I think that I'm a doctor. It doesn't mean I'm qualified to be one. Or that i'm actually one.

And, I do see this as a bad anology. Here's the thing:

Veneuzla and Russia are led by intelligent people. Leaders. People who KNOW how to run a country. The reason why someone might not trust a doctor who claims to be a doctor is because that doctor might make a mistake and kill them. But Putin and Chavez are both leaders, and they are (according to their supporters) doing a good job.

That's funny how you say:"According to their supporters".

I'd expect supporters to say that...



/sigh.

I do view a logical fallacy here. We're questioning if people ARE what you claim they are.

It's up to YOU to prove to me that LePen is an anti-Semtie. It's up to you to prove that Neo-Nazis are fasicits, or that Venuezula and Russia are dictatorships. And it is obivous that all of them disagree with your sentiment. It's basically, when it comes down to it, their words versus yours. And while most of society believe your words...that DOES not mean that your words are correct.

Ok...so if LePen says he hates Jews, he's not an anti-Semite? Neo-Nazis not fascists? I'd like to hear your definition of fascist, anti-Semite and racism.
Never did I claim that either Venezuela or Russia were dictatorships, where you got that, I do not know. They do have elections, but the question now is whether or not the fit a certain definition of democracy.
Back to Singapore, it has elections, but manipulation and media censorship is common. Even foreign newspapers or magazines who want to publish in its territory has to be "nice" with the government. The same party has been constantly re-elected since the country got its independence. Does it mean people live crappy lives? No, but it does mean that the system does not respect the right of free speech.

I listen to them, I listen to what they say, because this is what they believe, and I want to know why they do what they want to do. Their words are just as important as yours, and even more so, because it explains what they are doing.

If you argue that they are wrong because society calls them wrong, then I point at Putin's poll numbers. Putin's society calls him right, and he doesn't care what the liberal democrats think of him. If you state that you are the one who decides what is liberal democracy and what is not, then it's up to you to prove to me why I should trust your definition.

I didn't make up the definition I presented to you and if you don't want to trust it, fine. Every western country follows it relatively closely. If that's not enough proof, I don't know what is. I'm arguing that neither of them are at the head of an actual full democracy. Some basic rights are not respected. The murder of Anna Politkovskaya, a critic of the Putin administration, can make one wonder if principles if free press exists in Russia. It also makes you wonder if the poll numbers, showing the support for Putin are truly legitimate.




No, it doesn't.

The reason is that Western Civilization nations won't attack each other. They all happen to have the government "liberal democracy" and parades it around.

BUT, here's the thing, it doesn't matter what sort of uniform government they have. They can have dictatorship, anarchy, communism, monarchy...it doesn't matter. Western civilization nations won't attack each other, since they all have a bond.

If the world was contorlled by communists, well, then, there would be "Communist Peace".

Pure supposition. There is no indication that a fully communist world would have peace.

I wonder how you can conclude that western countries won't attack each other even if the government models are different. Or are you forgetting, well, the history of...well history. Period. I mean, there was never conflict between the European nations...



The thing is...westerners defined democracy, but the main reason is that democracy, in and of itself, is nothing. The thing that matters is "Westerners" and the fact that their civilization is powerful. Had another civilization became powerful, I think this debate over libreal democracy would render itself moot.

Democracy itself is nothing? What are you talking about? So any abstract concept is nothing? If you can't touch it, it's nothing?

It is true that the West currently dominates the world and has done so for quite a long time. It is perhaps true if some other civilization, like China, has been the dominant force for the last few centuries, things would be different. However, this is pointless. All you're doing is playing in an imaginary supposition. What matters is what we have now.




Um...Cambodia, at the time, was a puppet government of China.

Cambodia is worried that Vietnam wants to take over all of Southeast Asia and form an communist empire. Cambodia, understandbly, wants to be freed. Hence, it allied with China while the spilt between Vietnam and China occured, and began attack Vietnam's settlements, as to protect itself from being invaded.

Of course, that failed. Vietnam invaded, overthrew Cambdoia, and upset China very much so. Had, however, there was no diplomatic conflict between China and Vietnam, if they were WORKING TOGETHER, China would be okay with Cambodia being smashed and taken over by Vietnam. Heh, if Cambodia was okay with being part of Vietnam's communist empire, this whole conflict would have never taken place.

Geopolitics mean nothing if Vietnam and China liked each other. If Vietnam and China had tensions, then the geopolitics get into play, with China backing Cambodia, and the USSR backing Vietnam.

Ok, so Cambodia wanted to be free...as a puppet government of China? Vietnam did not want to form a communist empire. Where you got this, I have no idea.
The only country to get bullied was Laos which became some sort of vassal. In fact, the Cambodia/Vietnam confrontation was trying to be avoided by Vietnam who just came out of a war with the United States and wasn't feeling like fighting a new one. They tried a diplomatic solution until there was no other choice then sending the army to squash Cambodia, who had no serious military power.

I agree that alliances did come into play as a factor, but not the main one nor what triggered the war between Cambodia and Vietnam.




Well, you have to ask them. But...they did lose a part of their hertiage. Japan lost some of its militratsic attiudes. South Korea will never be unified. And Mao would be rolling in his grave at the "maoism" in China. So...yes to all three. Do they care? I don't know.

Ok, I'd like to see how losing a military attitude is part of culture? Did they lose their traditions and specificity? The two Koreas never unified? I did not know that you were capable of predicting the future. As for Mao, if Mao is China...then sure...but Mao is not China nor is he the incarnation of Chinese culture.

As for culture in general, it's always in movement. I fail to see how you can conclude that it changes their culture. As far as I know, Germans didn't become any less great beer makers when they became a democracy or the Japaneses be any less polite.





Is internal struggle...peace?

Turkey, a liberal democracy, is waging war against the PKK and the Kurdish terrorists. The Kurds want to be freed...and are also pro-American. Strangely, both the Kurds and Turkey are quite liberal, quite free. But the PKK do terror bombings, and Turkey pulls out some troops to hunt down and possibly do genocides.

Is this PEACE? This cannot be. If regionalism and nationalism grows to become so powerful that the regionalists or the nationalists seize contorl over a part of the country, I call them a seperate nation. And then war will erupt. If they both happen to believe in the ideas of Liberal Democracy, then you see two liberal democaries killing each other over regionalism and nationalism.

First, there's censorship in Turkey, so no, it's not exactly a liberal democracy. Frankly, you seem to take every country and put it under the definition of liberal democracy even though they do not fit it.

I suggest you stop using "what if" scenarios. First off, a country has to be recognized as one before it can become a seperate nation. If nationalists seize control of a territory, through undemocratic means, then it doesn't make it a democracy. In fact, your example is incredibly flawed. You made the best scenario possible to fit your argument, not taking into account every possible turn of event. As I said, there's no indication that a rebel group that successfully separates a portion of a country can actually create a recognized government and even if it did, there's no indication that it will be a liberal democracy. Furthermore, if the country was created successfully, recognized by the international community and indeed established a democracy, there's nothing that says that it would continue a war.


I can think that way. Would be quite simple, really. Just appeal to regionalism and nationalism. Oh, so maybe one country might call another country not a democracy, but that doesn't seem pretty helpful, since it is just properganda.

Reason? Well, after 9/11, Bush invaded Afghanistan. We hated them. Even now, we all support Bush's desicions in America. No, I'm not saying Afghanistan is a democracy. It's not. But, right after 9/11, Bush got us into war, without authorization from Congress (it's not really needed at all, thanks to the President having the title of "Commander in Chief").

Where's the censorship? I see none. I laugh at the small letter in the Arizona Tribune arguing that the invasion of Afghanistan will mire us into a quarmire (and then cry at fact the letter is right).

We got a war with another nation, with a democratically elected person at the head, elected on a position to not intervene in global society, and with no restrictions on our democracy at all. We're still liberal. All that matters is the other side. But if Bush can whip up nationalism to rally America, then what is to say that a liberal democratic nation can also whip out nationalism. If both sides can duplicate this, and curtial no liberites (or if they have to...then a few)...then, congrats. Liberal democrats shall kill each other.

Again, "what if" scenario. Does not at all deny anything about democratic peace. Such an event has yet to happen and there's no telling that the people might actually follow the president in a mad crusade against say Germany or France. It would require Germany and France to actually attack the United States first and then have the president use nationalist ideas to make people go to war. But even then, there must be a reason for Germany or France to attack the US and have the support of their own people in doing so. You're oversimplifying the matter.



Yet...economic actors would pressure you to end free trade to begin with. Producers want tariffs in America to stop China from trading. Americans want to "buy American" because they don't want jobs being sent overseas. Protectionalism is a force to be reckoned with, and if they grab the regins of power in a liberal democracy (which they can, 1 man=1 vote, and if a lot of people are unemployed and nationalist, the protectionalists takes over) then so long free-trade!

Except that protectionism does not mean closing the border to everything. No country, in the current context of globalization can afford such a suicidal measure, especially with pressures from organization such as the WTO, the World Bank or any multinational corporation that has any sort of overseas interests. As a matter of fact, the power of saving money is much more powerful then any nationalist motive. It's fun to be in the upper middle class and pretend that you want to "buy American" so you can sleep better at night, but the poorer masses enjoy the lower prices on Chinese products. You also assume that the country loses jobs at an incredibly fast rate, the equivalent of a depression similar to the 1929 one. There are however, systems in place to avoid such a total crash, such as government investment. That was actually part of the New Deal. Moreover, there's no indication that people losing jobs leads to serious protectionism in the current situation of the world. The closest thing is quotas on textile, but even then, it has been quickly denounced by China and the matter has yet to be resolved.

Not to mention: Could free trade prop up enemy governments? Dictaorships? If you rely on Sudan to sell you oil, then you would not want instablity to happen to overthrow Sudan and send the country into destruction...especially if there is an insurgency that wants to overthrow it.

You blindly assume that governments fall only through bloody conflict. The creation of a middle class with its own wishes can overthrow a government and push towards democracy or at least liberalization of the system (which eventually leads to democracy). The creation of the middle class is a result of free trade and there's nowhere in the world that they created by themselves.

There is also the possiblity that economic actors will be unable to stop the nationalists and the regionalists from gaining power. What if these people don't profit from the current distrubition of wealth? What if they can't get their greivences to be heard in liberal democraries? Then we may have a war on our hands..

Keyword: Free trade. Second, if their grievances can't be heard, then it is not a democracy. The government, if people are unhappy with it, without manipulation or censorship, would get defeated at the next elections in favor of a new one. It seems to me that you equate every sort of conflict with violent war. In reality, when the democratic regime is well consolidated, there should not be such violent uprising among the majority of the population.

You might use the Hitler Germany example of a democracy falling into the hands of a nationalist dictator. This negates nothing. Germany was no longer a democracy when Hitler came into power and repressed his opponents, nor was it ever a consolidated democracy.




"Hah, let us attend a lecture by Silentscope001 where we laugh at the follies of the Roman Republic, who tried to make a republic. They failed, but they laid the groundwork for our [i]success[i]!"

...No. Historians would act only as a way to glorify the liberal democracy, to have the liberal democrats just laugh at ancient history, to make the "civlized" people feel as if they are better, when they are not. Both of them have humans, they merely have different ways of thinking.

History is revelant because we are still struggling with the past, and we are seeing that for all our efforts, it is futile. We respect the past, we will not criticize the past. The Roman Republic is a republic, and it taken over territories, but it had no other choice, and in the end, one could compare the US to the Republic, to see its trial and tribunialtion. If you are going to turn history into nothing more than a properganda piece by which you glorify the virtues of the Liberal Democratic world, then you might as well destroy what history is supposed to be, an objective view of the world, to see how the past cause the present and the future.

Ok...how you can conclude something like that is beyond the scope of my understanding. So historians will somehow only glorify liberal democracy? There is no possibility of having an relatively unbiased scientist? Will it mean that he would spend his days bashing the older systems? How can it not be studied to see what causes the present? By the way, you can't predict the future, so historians can only explain the present.




I think it would be best not to argue, but rather to wait. Just wait, 50, 100 years later. Then we return back, and we see if Liberal Democractic Peace takes root...or if it collaspes. That's all we can really do...

O...k...so Democratic Peace is not true at this point in time because...?

I did mention that up to now, it hasn't be refuted and I did say that it could always be broken any day. Small possibility, but possible.

Totenkopf
04-28-2007, 06:30 PM
Well, considering that Japan's military has been restricted to funding that was <1% of GDP before finally passing that barrier not too long ago, I'm not so sure how limited it is in terms of capability (it's mere < 1% has produced military budgets that exceed the 3+/- % of European countries). If you mean should every country severely proscribe the overseas activities of their militaries, that's a very mixed bag. It might lead to less "formal" wars, but would result in countries being unable to protect their overseas interests.

@Luke: "Ok, I'd like to see how losing a military attitude is part of culture?" Well, Bushido defined a part of Japanese culture. To what degree, for better or worse do you see that as any longer relevant to modern Japanese culture? Even the Nazis militarized German culture with the Hitler Jugend, SS, etc.. Had they succeded in surviving to the present, how much would you bet that it wouldn't be a facet of modern German culture today?

lukeiamyourdad
05-02-2007, 05:33 PM
@Luke: "Ok, I'd like to see how losing a military attitude is part of culture?" Well, Bushido defined a part of Japanese culture. To what degree, for better or worse do you see that as any longer relevant to modern Japanese culture? Even the Nazis militarized German culture with the Hitler Jugend, SS, etc.. Had they succeded in surviving to the present, how much would you bet that it wouldn't be a facet of modern German culture today?

I concede that a militaristic part of a culture is possible, but it's not everything. Culture is an evolving thing and SilentScope was obviously looking at such an evolution as something inherently bad or else would not mention it. Its evolution is often an necessity or we'd still have theocracies for the sake of culture.

Nancy Allen``
05-02-2007, 05:56 PM
Interestingly a lot of Japanese games, Metal Gear and Ace Combat, are anti war and a lot of American games and films are pro war and glorify war.

lukeiamyourdad
05-02-2007, 06:16 PM
I can also mention the Gundam series which is anti-war.

A lot of Japanese movies and TV shows have to do with a huge disaster which changed the world. Many speak of it as the result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an event that scarred the Japanese people. Perhaps it also profoundly changed their vision of the world.

Seriously though, I don't think there's inherently more American movies and video games that are in some way pro-war.

Totenkopf
05-03-2007, 12:50 AM
I concede that a militaristic part of a culture is possible, but it's not everything. Culture is an evolving thing and SilentScope was obviously looking at such an evolution as something inherently bad or else would not mention it. Its evolution is often an necessity or we'd still have theocracies for the sake of culture.

I don't disagree with that assessment in your opening sentence. You just seemed to be discounting it as a factor in determining the charachter of a culture in general, which was what I was responding to in my reply. Since culture is a conglomeration of different ideas, fashions, food choices, etc.. , your question seemed a bit perplexing. Afterall, Spartan culture was very warlike in it's heydey. Sometimes the militaristic aspect of one's culture can appear to overwhelm other parts, thus defining that culture in the eyes of others.

lukeiamyourdad
05-03-2007, 06:21 PM
Mainly I wanted to discount the idea of loss of culture by losing a warlike part of it. I perhaps shot myself in the foot by trying to discount it totally from the equation of culture.

GarfieldJL
05-04-2007, 09:10 AM
This idea is completely unrealistic. You're saying that Israel should give up their military when they've been attacked several times by their neighbors. A really sad truth is that sometimes the only way to have peace is to have a superior military. However, human nature makes this necessary cause the idea that we'll all suddenly start singing Kuembayah is ridiculous.

Nancy Allen``
05-04-2007, 06:27 PM
We're not talking about not being able to defend oneself against aggression, such as Israel against Palestine. We are talking about something such as Israel firing rockets into neibouring countries, or shelling targets in other countries with artilary. Or to be more fair and pull away from Israel, a nuclear sub that is capeable of launching a missile, even a nuclear missile, from the America coast to North Korea or any target in the Middle East.

GarfieldJL
05-04-2007, 07:52 PM
Oh so you're saying Israel should have just sat by and let Hezbollah fire rockets into their country. Seriously, Israel was attacked and they responded, which by the way the media showed their true colors during that conflict by reporting doctored photos as the gospel truth.

Nancy Allen``
05-04-2007, 08:32 PM
No I'm not saying that either. If you stop putting words in people's mouths for a minute what happened with Hezbollah is exactly the reason why countries shouldn't be able to strike beyond their boarders. Of course people such as Hezbollah are not going to play by the rules. Rather than retalliate the way they had (and I'm not sure if Israel did target civillians like the media have said they did) then they should have broken the idea of not striking beyond their boarders, in a sense, and brought their forces to Hezbollah. Not attack from their country into another. I don't think this is unreasonable, Mossad and Shin Bet have the intelligence to counter the terrorists acts they faced and with the American backing and forces that Israel have, if the Isayeret were allowed to kick ass and take names rather than resort to Hezbollah's tactics then Israel would not have become the object of international scorn.

GarfieldJL
05-04-2007, 09:16 PM
Nice theory cept the Lebanese Government couldn't do squat. Hundreds of rockets were being fired into Israel daily. They had to strike back.

SilentScope001
05-04-2007, 09:20 PM
I think it's just a classic case of the so-called Prisoner's Delimma, with no real solutions.

Two nations would both benieft if they both disarm. But, well, if one nation disarm, and the other nations "arms", then that second nation grows more powerful than the First Nation. Therefore, both nations are forced to arm, because they fear that if they do not spend money on troops, then the other side can. It's a never-ending arms race.

GarfieldJL
05-04-2007, 09:46 PM
So Israel should trust countries that have tried to wipe their people off the face of the earth repeatedly...

Jae Onasi
05-05-2007, 12:29 AM
Oh so you're saying....

If you word this as a question "Are you saying x?" to ask for a clarification instead of 'oh, so you're saying....', I think it'll work better and not come across as sarcastic.

Nancy, give us more than 5 minutes to do our job before you jump in. We try to get to problems quickly, but we've got lives outside LFN. :)

Note for everyone--discussing controversial issues on a forum is more difficult than in person because we don't have any facial/body language cues that tell us how someone means something when there are multiple meanings. Furthermore, there are different standards of what's considered 'polite' across the US and the world, and so tone can get misinterpreted by someone who's not from your region/country.

I've misinterpreted posts and had mine misinterpreted. It happens to all of us. Most people aren't trying to be intentionally nasty in their posts, so if something comes across as aggressive or rude, it's entirely possible that they didn't mean it as rude, they just wrote it in an unclear way or didn't realize how they were saying something was coming across in an aggressive manner. Before jumping to a wrong conclusion, ask them 'when you say x, this is what it means to me. Is that what you're trying to say?' It'll solve a lot of misunderstandings.

SilentScope001
05-05-2007, 12:33 AM
So Israel should trust countries that have tried to wipe their people off the face of the earth repeatedly...

Of course not. No, instead the other countries who have tried to wipe Israel off the face of the earth repeatedly should disarm and trust Israel's intentions. :)

Neither side will willingly disarm, due to paranoia and fear the other side will just prepare his weapons. So, basically, both sides are rationally choosing to build weapons. I was basically backing up both Nancy's and your's points at the same time...

Windu Chi
05-05-2007, 12:56 AM
After the end of World War II treaties were put into place that prevented Japan from growing it's military to the point that it can strike from beyond it's boarders. With weapons of mass destruction, calls for rogue states to disarm and the invasion of other countries, should this be a model for us to follow?
I don't think this will be a wise choice, I mean a lot of skirmishes have to be maintain to ensure peace on this planet and to ensure we don't let that damn nightmare happen again; Holocaust.
Also I think toward other unknown threats out there above the sky in the great unknown, a limited military all over the world will make our species easy pickings, Nancy for any potential foes out there. :)

Nancy Allen``
05-05-2007, 08:10 AM
Nancy, give us more than 5 minutes to do our job before you jump in. We try to get to problems quickly, but we've got lives outside LFN. :)

Ah yes, going out all night, chasing any man half decent, those were the days. :devburn:

QUOTE=windu6]I don't think this will be a wise choice, I mean a lot of skirmishes have to be maintain to ensure peace on this planet and to ensure we don't let that damn nightmare happen again; Holocaust.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if having great stockpiles of what would be deemed weapons of mass destruction would have prevented the Holocaust. In fact I think if Europe was not being taken over I think this would have recieved much less attention than it has. I'm glad it does though, but the sad fact is atrocities like this occur all the time, such as rape being used as a weapon of war and genocide (I think the rape destroys the reproductive organs) in Africa and for the most part we turn a blind eye.

Would limiting the military capeabilities of the world's military be a good thing? We live in a world where the basic premise is 'you can't have weapons of mass destruction. We can, but you can't' and for this alone the Iraq war is so wrong. But aside from that we have seen them used as weapons of threat for the most part. Perhaps the biggest act involving these weapons actually being deployed was Saddam using SCUD launchers. But weapons of mass destruction have been threatened all the time: Kim Jong Ill used them to recieve aid and the Cold War centred on the threat of using nuclear weapons to wipe each other out. Going back to such turbulant time would be a nightmare. Could this be averted without the threat of such weapons? America is the only superpower in the world, few can stand up to it in a fight and of those that would perhaps only China would. But regional conflicts such as Israel and Palestine, I'll pose something to you. Would it be right for one side to have what would be to them superweapons to keep the other in check or for both sides to have superweapons to keep each other in check?

QUOTE=windu6]I think toward other unknown threats out there above the sky in the great unknown, a limited military all over the world will make our species easy pickings, Nancy for any potential foes out there. :)[/QUOTE]

With our current military technology, and for perhaps a millennia afterwards, if an alien race developed the same technology for space exploration beyond what we possibly know as it has to go to war, then we're toast no matter what we do. And there is something else. Part of the reason America is hated is because it is seen as a big bully, it has all these weapons and all this aggression. For those weaker it both presents resentment and a target, particularly by those who want to take it down a notch or maybe like the Mandalorians a foe to test themselves against. Now consider this on a galactic scale, some alien race sees Earth as warlike and considers it a threat, or a powerful race fit for conquest and to add to it's power. That's not to say not to build defenses against such a threat, if there was no defence there'd be nothing to stop it from happening anyway. It's a very fine line to walk.

Windu Chi
05-05-2007, 05:13 PM
I'm not sure if having great stockpiles of what would be deemed weapons of mass destruction would have prevented the Holocaust. In fact I think if Europe was not being taken over I think this would have recieved much less attention than it has.
Yes, it wouldn't have recieved any notice the victims would have died in vain and the Holocaust would have been a rumor.

I'm glad it does though, but the sad fact is atrocities like this occur all the time, such as rape being used as a weapon of war and genocide (I think the rape destroys the reproductive organs) in Africa and for the most part we turn a blind eye.
Racism and greed is the cause for the lack of care for Africa, with our current officials in office.
They don't give a damn, the parts of Africa they do care about is the parts that is fill with diamonds and oil.

Would limiting the military capeabilities of the world's military be a good thing? We live in a world where the basic premise is 'you can't have weapons of mass destruction. We can, but you can't' and for this alone the Iraq war is so wrong. But aside from that we have seen them used as weapons of threat for the most part.
That is that crazy nut, Bush who ponder using tactical nukes, that is not only insane but is very stupid, using fission bombs will destroy the biosphere, by intense radiation damage, that will last a long time that in the long run will destroy all of us if those tactical nukes are used a couple times, also if those nukes get into the wrong hands, of course there will be hell to pay.
Some advances in ionizing radiation physics will have sought before we can safely use nuke's as ground attack weapons.


Would limiting the military capeabilities of the world's military be a good thing? We live in a world where the basic premise is 'you can't have weapons of mass destruction. We can, but you can't' and for this alone the Iraq war is so wrong. But aside from that we have seen them used as weapons of threat for the most part. Perhaps the biggest act involving these weapons actually being deployed was Saddam using SCUD launchers. But weapons of mass destruction have been threatened all the time: Kim Jong Ill used them to recieve aid and the Cold War centred on the threat of using nuclear weapons to wipe each other out. Going back to such turbulant time would be a nightmare.
Could this be averted without the threat of such weapons? America is the only superpower in the world, few can stand up to it in a fight and of those that would perhaps only China would. But regional conflicts such as Israel and Palestine, I'll pose something to you.
A difficult question, fear is the agent here, as we all know here fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering. :)
For example:
The fear of destruction for Kim Jong Ill with Bush axis of evil statements.
The anger for America's power and prestige, if we still have any left.
And of course the hate for all Americans.
Well, we manage to delay the suffering on us for the time being; Kim's regime has not wipe us out yet, Nancy. :)
Tick, tot, tick...


Would it be right for one side to have what would be to them superweapons to keep the other in check or for both sides to have superweapons to keep each other in check?
A difficult question to answer, but I would say both sides, I mean because we
are all still here to have this discussion, because Russia and the United States both have fission and fusion bombs, to ensure that our species won't vanish in the night, we are living on and we are surviving in the Milky Way galaxy. :)

If you are talking about nukes then yes to a degree, we should decrease them, but only to a degree.
Those unknown threats I've talked about, but I forgot to mention asteroids and comets, it will be foolish to get rid of every single fission and fusion bomb we have.
Now for military forces, I am like a warrior so I'm not very comfortable with getting rid of my weapons.
So, limited military forces is very dangerous in my opinion.


With our current military technology, and for perhaps a millennia afterwards, if an alien race developed the same technology for space exploration beyond what we possibly know as it has to go to war, then we're toast no matter what we do.
I don't give up that easy, Nancy. ;)

And there is something else. Part of the reason America is hated is because it is seen as a big bully, it has all these weapons and all this aggression. For those weaker it both presents resentment and a target, particularly by those who want to take it down a notch or maybe like the Mandalorians a foe to test themselves against.

With that nutcase still in office we are increasing that stance of being a bully.

Now consider this on a galactic scale, some alien race sees Earth as warlike and considers it a threat, or a powerful race fit for conquest and to add to it's power. That's not to say not to build defenses against such a threat, if there was no defence there'd be nothing to stop it from happening anyway. It's a very fine line to walk.
Yes, the unknowns Nancy. :)

MTV2
05-05-2007, 07:28 PM
thats pretty much the same in Germany, the German army can't attack other countries, but they can defend theres.