Three questions for GuruJane

[GuruJane]

USA V England - 1812.

That's an interesting one. Refresh me again. It probably doesn't strictly qualify because there was no universal suffrage in Britain then, and the women did not have the vote (dunno about USA) but it's not a bad try.

 

[CharlieG]

Jane, the - deliberately - narrow definition that you use in order to defend the 'democracies don't declare war on each other' contention renders the argument worthless.

We are talking only about less than 100 years. In those very few years, the very few countries that meet your definition have ended up on the same side for economic and cultural reasons, rather than some unifying force of democracy.

The only countries that strictly meet your criteria for more than a token few years - during which the fact that they haven't fought against democracies is mooted by the fact that they haven't fought at all - are Western Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan. I will NOT call Israel a 'liberal democracy' while they simultaneously deprive the Palestinians of their sovereignty and participation in government.

All of those countries have been, since WW2, under the umbrella of the Pax Americana, for economic and cultural reasons. The peace hasn't been caused democracy, it's been caused by hegemony.

 

[Hawkforce]

I will NOT call Israel a 'liberal democracy' while they simultaneously deprive the Palestinians of their sovereignty and participation in government.

.

Well, they are a liberal democracy, Charlie, whatever your feelings on the matter.

Israeli Arabs have, and have always had full democratic rights under Israeli law. As have all people who are citizens in Israel.

"Palestinians" have never had a nation to be sovereign nor a government to particpate in. This is nothing to do with Israel nor should it be.

Then again, perhaps you are unaware that it was Egypt and Jordan who occupied those parts of Palestine which should have become a sovereign nation in 1948. But war was chosen by their neighbours who then subsequently occupied what land was left after the 48 war.

Perhaps a better understanding of the region, let alone basic politics, would behoove you.

 

[CharlieG]

Well, they are a liberal democracy, Charlie, whatever your feelings on the matter.

Israeli Arabs have, and have always had full democratic rights under Israeli law. As have all people who are citizens in Israel.

"Palestinians" have never had a nation to be sovereign nor a government to particpate in. This is nothing to do with Israel nor should it be.

Then again, perhaps you are unaware that it was Egypt and Jordan who occupied those parts of Palestine which should have become a sovereign nation in 1948. But war was chosen by their neighbours who then subsequently occupied what land was left after the 48 war.

Perhaps a better understanding of the region, let alone basic politics, would behoove you.

Oh, hello Hawk. Popped up again, I see. How long are you planning to stick around this time?

I'm not particularly concerned about who started it. Israel is occupying Palestine, has done since 1967, and is thus depriving the Palestinians of their sovereignty. The state of Israel has people under its power that it is depriving of rights that we who live in 'liberal democracies' regard as the fundamental, basic tenet of democracy; the right to choose the government. Therefore, they are no more a 'liberal democracy' than Australia was before 1967.

Perhaps a better comprehension of the argument, let alone basic concepts such as 'sovereignty', would behoove you.

 

[dan warna]

MightyFighting could have added that it was a vicious dictatorship that literally murdered thousands upon thousands of people and lasted until Margaret Thatcher threw them out of the Falklands whereupon Argentina shortly after that became a democracy.

ps the pseudo left opposed that war too.

funny thing about that, was up until the invasion Argentina had a defence alliance with the US and was considered an ally of the brits.

they had US, french and british jets, british warships (their 'carrier' was an only majestic class escort carrier, they had sheffield class destroyers, agusta subs and assorted US handmedowns, as well as Brit and US radar systems etc etc.)

basically argentina was a right wing pretty much oppressive regime with a tinpot loser backed by the US who slaughtered his own people.

It was only the invasion of british sovereign terrority that forced the Americans to breach their treaty with the Argentinians, they didn't actively help the Brits with military aid, but supplied them with satellite data, and given the time the US technology was state of the art, and far superior to any tech the brits, or even NATO had access too.

the subsequent humiliation, spiral inflation and depressed economy resulted in the destruction of the military junta.

 

[O'Brien]

The maxim that liberal democracies don’t go to war against each other is one that has been promoted by Fukuyama (neoconservative) in his book “The End of History and the Last Man.” If I recall correctly Fukuyama contends that the US was a liberal democracy from 1790 and Britain 1848. According to Fukuyama, in order to be classified as a liberal democracy nations must have a market economy, representative government and maintain judicial rights.

The notion that the US was a liberal democracy from 1790 is a little perplexing, since the 15th amendment that established the voting rights of African American males wasn’t introduced until 1870. Women weren’t given the right to vote until much later.

Personally I find such statements as “liberal democracies don’t go to war against each other” to be thoroughly meaningless. As has already been indicated the term liberal democracy can be applied as broadly or as narrowly as one requires. Let us also not forget that for most of the twentieth century the world was engaged in an ideological war, cooperation amongst liberal democracies was a necessity in order for self preservation. It also worth remembering that its only been in the last 25 years or so that more and more nations have adopted the liberal democratic model, hardly enough time to make any sort of judgement.

Just out of curiosity, during the Cold War, how many communist nations went to war against each other?

 

[Hawkforce]

Just out of curiosity, during the Cold War, how many communist nations went to war against each other?

Seem to recall a few Soviet tanks rolling into Hungary...

Or would that be regarded as "internal affairs" and therefore not applicable?

 

[GuruJane]

It was only the invasion of british sovereign terrority that forced the Americans to breach their treaty with the Argentinians, they didn't actively help the Brits with military aid, but supplied them with satellite data, and given the time the US technology was state of the art, and far superior to any tech the brits, or even NATO had access too.

Exactly Odan. As have often remarked, countries do not act out of morality but only out of their own interests. Now, when their own interests happen to coincide with ridding the world of fascist dictatorships and democratic governments are the result then the Left should be supporting them, while holding their nose.

That is why the communist parties of Iraq supported and still support the US invasion.

(In the classic Marxism - the full realisation of capitalism and "democracy" is a necessary phase before the workers revolution takes over)

 

[GuruJane]

The maxim that liberal democracies don’t go to war against each other is one that has been promoted by Fukuyama (neoconservative) in his book “The End of History and the Last Man.” If I recall correctly Fukuyama contends that the US was a liberal democracy from 1790 and Britain 1848. According to Fukuyama, in order to be classified as a liberal democracy nations must have a market economy, representative government and maintain judicial rights.

The notion that the US was a liberal democracy from 1790 is a little perplexing, since the 15th amendment that established the voting rights of African American males wasn’t introduced until 1870. Women weren’t given the right to vote until much later.

Personally I find such statements as “liberal democracies don’t go to war against each other” to be thoroughly meaningless. As has already been indicated the term liberal democracy can be applied as broadly or as narrowly as one requires. Let us also not forget that for most of the twentieth century the world was engaged in an ideological war, cooperation amongst liberal democracies was a necessity in order for self preservation. It also worth remembering that its only been in the last 25 years or so that more and more nations have adopted the liberal democratic model, hardly enough time to make any sort of judgement.

Even on the broadest meaning of the term, people still struggle to find examples.

Just out of curiosity, during the Cold War, how many communist nations went to war against each other?

Russia/China, Vietnam/Cambodia?

 

[jim boy]

The whole problem with this liberal democracy theory is that it misses an important adjective, 'wealthy'. It may or may not be true that liberal democracies go to war, but one thing is certain is that liberal democracies in poorer countries frequently slip in and out democracy. This is initiated by social disquiet, often due to economics, that results in civil unrest leading to opportunities for democracy to be suspended, either through the imposition of martial law or other draconian measures (eg Phillipines under Marcos) or through military coups(Chile under Pinochet).

Impoversihing or enforcing impoverishment, such as in Iraq, can never lead to a peaceful, stable country.

 

[GuruJane]

The whole problem with this liberal democracy theory is that it misses an important adjective, 'wealthy'. It may or may not be true that liberal democracies go to war, but one thing is certain is that liberal democracies in poorer countries frequently slip in and out democracy. This is initiated by social disquiet, often due to economics, that results in civil unrest leading to opportunities for democracy to be suspended, either through the imposition of martial law or other draconian measures (eg Phillipines under Marcos) or through military coups(Chile under Pinochet).

Exactly. Which is why the advent of globalisation, free market economies and the revolution in info technology has changed the geo political landscape.

Evidence: the tiger economies of Asia boosting their fledgling democaries.

Ditto: South America.

The one exception to this 1990s revolution was the Middle East, where the economies remained stagnant despite the oil riches and where the combined GNP of these countries doesn't even reach that of Spain.

Impoversihing or enforcing impoverishment, such as in Iraq, can never lead to a peaceful, stable country.

True. But the reverse is happening in Iraq. Far from impoverishing or enforcing impoverishment, the Americans immediately introduced a free market economy. Info technology is booming. Salaries of public servants were tripled, leading to a consumer boom. The new currency is stable and worth far more than the old. The Kurdish economy, not inflicted with Odan's freedom fighters, is booming along.

That's the potent combination, free markets and liberal democracy that the Americans are putting their money on: the bet is Iraq will power ahead and the rest of the ME will have no choice but to follow suit.

But as long as you and others look at this from the now obviously outdated prism of the 1970s you have no chance of understanding what's being attempted there.

 

[CharlieG]

Iraq is more of a free-for-all economy. There is nothing, repeat nothing, worthy about a foreign power invading a country, installing their own puppets (nothing democratic about them yet, Jane) and then proceeding to sell to themselves the infrastructure and resources of that country. That sort of pillaging belongs in the history books.

Where are these miraculous benefits of globalisation for the Africans? The Central Americans? What have the people of Nauru got to show for their short time in the sun as a resource-rich little country?

 

[GuruJane]

Iraq is more of a free-for-all economy. There is nothing, repeat nothing, worthy about a foreign power invading a country, installing their own puppets (nothing democratic about them yet, Jane) and then proceeding to sell to themselves the infrastructure and resources of that country. That sort of pillaging belongs in the history books.

Where are these miraculous benefits of globalisation for the Africans? The Central Americans? What have the people of Nauru got to show for their short time in the sun as a resource-rich little country?

Look, can only repeat what have just posted to JimBoy:

As long as you and others look at this from the now obviously outdated prism of the 1970s you have no chance of understanding what's being attempted there.

Charlie, the 60s and 70s were finally put to rest last Tuesday. Kerry was the last hurrah. The world is moving on. Catch up or stay alseep.

 

[CharlieG]

Look, can only repeat what have just posted to JimBoy:

As long as you and others look at this from the now obviously outdated prism of the 1970s you have no chance of understanding what's being attempted there.

Charlie, the 60s and 70s were finally put to rest last Tuesday. Kerry was the last hurrah. The world is moving on. Catch up or stay alseep.

You mean embrace imperialism, get rich, ignore the world and not care?

Sorry, Jane. No can do.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Salvadore Allende was elected president of Chile and the Sandanistas were voted into power in El Salvador - I think it is wonderful the way the US respected their democratic choice

 

[GuruJane]

You mean embrace imperialism, get rich, ignore the world and not care?

Sorry, Jane. No can do.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

 

[GuruJane]

Salvadore Allende was elected president of Chile and the Sandanistas were voted into power in El Salvador - I think it is wonderful the way the US respected their democratic choice

Ah ... yes... Allende ... the days of the Kissinger Doctrine.

The Sandanistas have never been heard of since the deomcratic elections when the Contras were voted into power.

 

[CharlieG]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

Jane. Do you deny that you have embraced imperialism?

 

[O'Brien]

Seem to recall a few Soviet tanks rolling into Hungary...

Or would that be regarded as "internal affairs" and therefore not applicable?

Yes I think that would fall under the category of internal affairs, after all Hungary was essentially ruled by Moscow during the 50’s. Wasn’t Nagy’s statement that Hungary would withdraw from the Warsaw Pact a catalyst for the Soviet incursion into Budapest?

 

[Frodo]

Impoversihing or enforcing impoverishment, such as in Iraq, can never lead to a peaceful, stable country.

Which I guess is a very good reason alone for the removal of Saddam on a humanitarian basis.

 

[GuruJane]

Jane. Do you deny that you have embraced imperialism?

You are so Deep Asleep you are not even s-n-o-r-i-n-g.

 

[GuruJane]

Yes I think that would fall under the category of internal affairs, after all Hungary was essentially ruled by Moscow during the 50’s. Wasn’t Nagy’s statement that Hungary would withdraw from the Warsaw Pact a catalyst for the Soviet incursion into Budapest?

Hungary used to vote in the UN and compete in the Olympics as a sovereign state.

 

[CharlieG]

You are so Deep Asleep you are not even s-n-o-r-i-n-g.

Just answer the question, rather than blatantly dodging it.

Do you deny that you have embraced imperialism?

 

[GuruJane]

Just answer the question, rather than blatantly dodging it.

Do you deny that you have embraced imperialism?

Can't hear you, blossom. I think you're talking to yourself.

 

[CharlieG]

Can't hear you, blossom. I think you're talking to yourself.

You're an embarassment to yourself. I've given you two opportunities to answer a perfectly simple and straightforward question. Each time, you haven't even tried to mask the fact that you are avoiding answering it. What's the matter, Jane? Does telling the truth, even to yourself, hurt too much?

If you think that you don't support imperialism, say so - surely it's not that hard.