By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - So my professor told me Democracies never go to war in class a few days ago

TheRealMafoo on 17 March 2010
PhoenixKing said:
TheRealMafoo said:
THe civil war started in 1861. Slavery was not outlawed until after the war, in 1868.

It has less to do with slavery, and more to do with the souther states not liking the federal government taking over there laws (that suited the north much more then the south).

Now if only there was a way to accomplish what they were trying to do, without war. That would be awesome. Time has proven them right.


There was still the fear of Lincoln abolishing slavery, which was admittedly unfounded at the time, it was also fiercely debated and was a major reason for the events that took place in 1861-1868. Buchanan's inaction may have been one of the main reasons it happened but to try and devalue the issue of slavery that was one of the main driving forces behind that decision to break away from the Union is, with all due respect, a rather naive thing to do.

Slavery was the issue of the time. It would be like if the federal government today told every state that they could no longer sell meat. The issue we would have with that is more that the federal government does not have that authority, and less to do with meat.

if in 150 years from now, the most disgusting thing those people could think we did, was eat meat, then they would feel the issue of today was far more about meat, and less about states rights.

Same thing here is all I am saying. 



Around the Network
Lostplanet22 on 17 March 2010
Samus Aran said:
Lostplanet22 said:
Samus Aran said:
Lostplanet22 said:
How would USA go to war? Hey China can you borrow us more money so we can pay our solders to fight yours;..

Anyway the only war USA should have now is the war against the high unemployed rate.

Meh, it was just a hypothetical "what if" question. Not something that's likely going to happen.

It would be funny to set all the different ethnic groups in China against each other though. Divide and massacre.

Yeah your Belgians are used to it ^_^'

And I find it really disgusting that you would consider something like that funny.

Well, I find it disgusting that a lot of Chinese people still admire Mao Zedong to this day. He killed(indirectly) what? 100million Chinese?

I just want all the different ethnic groups to be freed from the Chinese government. They have to right to be free, but that will only happen through violence and turmoil in a regime like the "People's Republic of China". All I can do is sit back and watch. Well, I could do something to help, but consider me a coward.. xD

It's hard to explain, but I've always been fascinated by wars.

You find Mao zedong disgusting still you would find it funny to see a massacre...It is hard to find a difference between you and Mao zedong at this point.

If you were following the Chinese politics and watched 'China voor beginners' in your country with Patrick Janssen and Lulu Wang.  You had seen a show were it illustrated that the chinese Government is losing powers.  The hard words lately of the government are just another example. It is even going so far that schools are stopping to teach about Mao Zedong.

I recommend you to read Lulu Wang's 'Rode feest' you can find it in every library will make you understand why some Chinese are/were fan of Mao zedong.

And last..how free do you want Etnic groups?  Free like in Belgium were Muslim women are not allowed to scarfs?



 

FaRmLaNd on 17 March 2010

Hard to differentiate between a person that hasn't directly murdered millions of people and a person who has?

You should reassess what you do and don't find disgusting I think.



halogamer1989 on 17 March 2010

It is democratic peace theory. Democracies are less likely to go to war due to lack of consensus.



Akvod on 17 March 2010

Ok, ok, fuck history and all that shit.

THEORETICALLY, is it POSSIBLE for a democracy to go to war? Of course it is. If there was a pure democracy and everyone in the state voted for war, you would have one.

If one is arguing that democratic states are well off economically, blah blah blah, and are therefore less inclined to go to war, that is simply saying that there is an association with Democracies with those qualities (Are there any simple/broad qualities that can stop a phenomenon that has recurred for thousands of years), not that Democracy actually prevents it.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 17 March 2010
Akvod said:
Ok, ok, fuck history and all that shit.

THEORETICALLY, is it POSSIBLE for a democracy to go to war? Of course it is. If there was a pure democracy and everyone in the state voted for war, you would have one.

If one is arguing that democratic states are well off economically, blah blah blah, and are therefore less inclined to go to war, that is simply saying that there is an association with Democracies with those qualities (Are there any simple/broad qualities that can stop a phenomenon that has recurred for thousands of years), not that Democracy actually prevents it.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides

 

Most of the time when a country declares war on another country, it's because the leader wants more power. In any form of government other then a democracy, that's an effective way to achieve it (if you win). In a democracy, if it's an unfavorable choice to go to war, then going to war will get you voted out of office more times then not, and thus is the best way to lose power.
If it's a war most people are for, then it does not matter what form of government you have. Most wars are not favored by the people of the respective countries however.

Most of the time when a country declares war on another country, it's because the leader wants more power. In any form of government other then a democracy, that's an effective way to achieve it (if you win). In a democracy, if it's an unfavorable choice to go to war, then going to war will get you voted out of office more times then not, and thus is the best way to lose power.

If it's a war most people are for, then it does not matter what form of government you have. Most wars are not favored by the people of the respective countries however.

 



Mr Khan on 17 March 2010
Lolcislaw said:
Well there is a theory in international relations called "Democratic Peace" which means that democracies do not tend to go to war agianst each other.

But democratic countries do go to war, just look at US

Democracies tend not to go to war with each other. Key statement. Democracies fight a lot of wars, but not against one another. Think about American military action in the last 20 years: Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Taliban Afghanistan, Milosevic's Yugoslavia, al-Bashir's Sudan

 

America hasn't conducted military action against a democracy in a while. I can't even really think of an example.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Akvod on 17 March 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
Akvod said:
Ok, ok, fuck history and all that shit.

THEORETICALLY, is it POSSIBLE for a democracy to go to war? Of course it is. If there was a pure democracy and everyone in the state voted for war, you would have one.

If one is arguing that democratic states are well off economically, blah blah blah, and are therefore less inclined to go to war, that is simply saying that there is an association with Democracies with those qualities (Are there any simple/broad qualities that can stop a phenomenon that has recurred for thousands of years), not that Democracy actually prevents it.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides

 

Most of the time when a country declares war on another country, it's because the leader wants more power. In any form of government other then a democracy, that's an effective way to achieve it (if you win). In a democracy, if it's an unfavorable choice to go to war, then going to war will get you voted out of office more times then not, and thus is the best way to lose power.
If it's a war most people are for, then it does not matter what form of government you have. Most wars are not favored by the people of the respective countries however.

 

Most of the time when a country declares war on another country, it's because the leader wants more power. In any form of government other then a democracy, that's an effective way to achieve it (if you win). In a democracy, if it's an unfavorable choice to go to war, then going to war will get you voted out of office more times then not, and thus is the best way to lose power.

If it's a war most people are for, then it does not matter what form of government you have. Most wars are not favored by the people of the respective countries however.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda



Akvod on 17 March 2010

And again guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides



Kasz216 on 17 March 2010
Samus Aran said:
Kasz216 said:
Kilzoned82 said:
PhoenixKing said:
Kilzoned82 said:

Wars would not be argreed upon if it was left to a democracy to decide upon going to war or not going to war. When it comes to make a decision to go to war it is made by the leader in charge of the country.

Old men make the decisions to fight wars. The young men have to fight and die in them. War is a waste of human life.

Democracy is a lie. You have the choice of two main political parties who sell out to big businesses and make BS laws and decisions that the citizens do not want. Democracy is a total sham. I actually believe a totalitarian dicatatorship is the way to go. At least they are up front and honest about it and do not create a false sense of freedom with this democracy myth.

The war with Vietnam disagrees with you.

America would not go to war, at least for long-term, if the people didn't readily support it.

America got its ass handed to it by the North Vietnamese. The American soldiers died in vain. It was a sham war because the US government did not want Communism to expand through out South East Asia. Thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese lost their lives fighting a war that was not worth fighting for. America loves to fight wars it can not win: Iraq and Afghanistan both of those are unwinnable wars. The US troops dying in both Iraq and Afghanistan are also dying in vain. War is a waste of human life. Civilians and infantry men.  

The US got it's ass handed to it in North Vietnam?

They killed like... 850,000 North Vietnese soldiers... and lost about 60,000 troops.

 

They could of won the war.  The only problem was, they would of had to have invaded North Vietnam, and they refused to do that.  By not invading North Vietnam it let the Chinese basically fight a land war vs the US.

 

Iraq was also winnable, just poorly managed.

 

Afghanistan though... not likely to be winnable.

Numbers don't mean a thing in this case. That's like saying Germany won the war in Russia because they lost a hell of a lot less men then the Russians did. And I mean A LOT LESS.

 

USA lost the war in the sense that they didn't achief what they wanted to achieve and they had to retreat because their own people were disgusted by the war there.

Exactly.  North Vietnam didn't kick the USA's ass.  The USA kicked the USA's ass.

The germans were getting pushed back hard.

The USA could of held their position literally to this day if the people wanted to, or could have used numerous other strategies to force an end to the war.