Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I believe so, but there has to be opposing countries' ideologies for it to work. All democratic countries can't be good.
This is not a very sensible interpretation of the theory in order to serve as a basis of critique for or against it.
The basic theory is that democratic nations do not fight each other. Therefore it doesn't matter if there are "opposing countries' ideologies" for it to "work". If democratic countries get along, the theory presumes that they will use existing institutions or alternatives to fighting each other to resolve their conflicts without wars. It says nothing about how they get along with non-democratic nations, either in defence against incursions and threats or through aggressive actions.
Better critiques have to do with the definitions of either democracy or peace or the use of binary or arbitrary definitions of either than to say that somehow "democratic countries can't be good" or that there are opposing ideologies. Opposing ideologies aren't included in the theory to begin with. It is principally concerned with only the behavior of "democratic" nations between each other.
Uh oh. I find that I am in somewhat of an agreement with SunTzu on this matter.
Unfortunately I have to disagree that all Democratic governments are essentially good. The reason being in the definition of Democratic Government.
Since it is late, and I really don't feel like posting it here, you all will just have to look that definition up for yourselves.
When I said the same thing you did: a major quibble with the theory's effectiveness is over the definition of "democracy" and how that definition is determined or measured in the real world, how is that an "unfortunate disagreement"?
Watch it SunTzu, I need to protect my reputation here. If we find that we actually agree on some things then my reputation will be ruined! o.0
So your reputation is to disagree on principle with someone because of their perceived reputation (by yourself) rather than to actually form opinions of your own….
this would ruin a reputation how exactly to give that status up?
Hmmmmm?!?
Well, then, I suppose that I should take my tongue out of my cheek.
Well, from what I have read about the father of all warfare tactics, he never did have a sense of humor . . . But then neither did Ghengis Khan.
Given that all good humor is based in truth… and in truth you have in fact strived to disagree, often without rhyme or reason….
No, I do not rhyme . . . . . But I have always had reason. B)
Actually you haven't in some cases, either because we did not actually disagree in principle (but certainly specifics) or because I asked for reasons and your reasons were factually lacking support. Platitudes and talking points are not "reason", no matter how many times they are repeated.
I don't consider it a laughing matter. My point is that you seem more than willing to disagree simply because it's me (or Jared or Andrew or anybody else you've gone out of your way at times to try to antagonize and insult by tarring them with the same brush). Rather than taking what agreements and alliances are there.
Out of anybody on this site, I'd say Jared is the least common ground I've found. I'm not sure I've agreed with him on anything yet. You at least arrive at some conclusions through some faulty logic and misapprehension of reality that are somehow or sometimes useful. If they were coached in less brutish methods or were armed with more facts rather than characterizations, you might find more people are convinced. Or at least have to think for more two seconds about your opinion before finding a quick and easy way to dismiss it.