Thread Tools
Old March 9, 2000, 01:51   #31
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Hi Jon! Thanks for joining the thread o' fun . I realize that I was a bit harsh, but he got under my collar. Unacceptable, I know, but hey...

Now, to answer whether Indians were democratic, we must first look at the definition (which I think is a good one).

quote:

Democracy:
1)fair, regular, multiparty elections
2)voting francise for substantial amount of the population
3)vote for executive or have strong parliament
4)peaceful transfer of power
5)stability and longevity (at least 3 years).


I don't remember a parliament or much voting for that matter. I could be wrong, correct me if I am.

Your point #4 is true, but there seems to be agreement that democratic nations resort to diplomacy first. They usually don't go pell-mell into wars, because of the attacks the opposition could launch.

Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 9, 2000, 02:13   #32
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
Ladies and Gentlemen,

You're falling for Imran's propoganda. I did NOT SAY that the democratic peace theory was wholly invalid, but I DID SAY IT WAS FAR FROM PROVEN. When is your "evidence" that democracies don't declare war on each other? Only in the last 30 years, when the world has actually even had democracies. This is hardly enough time to prove such a silly theory, especially in light of the hegemonic stability theory and the superpower of the United States providing a single defense umbrella throughout the world... and of course we all know the pax Romana.

Put simply, Imran is spewing out gibberish.

And if I dare say so, the only way you're ever going to get peace in the world is not thorugh some silly human devised system, but by the blessings of Jesus Christ upon those nations that choose to follow Him: they will prosper and be peaceful. Those nations that reject Him will face incredible wrath, prolonged disasters, and anguish for resisting the true God.


CivNation is offline  
Old March 9, 2000, 06:30   #33
horseman
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8
Gosh, guess we non-Christians are going to get it now!
horseman is offline  
Old March 9, 2000, 09:21   #34
Stefu
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Stefu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Posts: 5,301
Imran, about democracies fighting, in 1941 UK (and US, I believe) declared war to Finland, which was democratic at that time. UK even made few bombing runs to Finland. Explain that.
Stefu is offline  
Old March 9, 2000, 09:49   #35
horseman
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8
Stefu,

I think that can be explained by the Finns unfortunate alliance with the Germans due to the Finns troubles with the Soviet Union. The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
horseman is offline  
Old March 9, 2000, 17:24   #36
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Propaganda and gibberish? LOL! You actually believe that? Oh man, are you sad.

Anyway, Stefu, Are you not sure that Finland didn't fall under the same example as Norway? Perhaps the Nazi's actually controlled the nation as they did in Norway. I'll have to take a look. Although the Democratic Peace Project hasn't said anything about this.

Oh and spewing Christian belief isn't going to get you far in this forum, either!
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited March 09, 2000).]
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 9, 2000, 17:29   #37
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Stefu... so far I've found this:

quote:

Despite Finland's contributions to the German cause, the Western Allies had ambivalent feelings, torn between their residual goodwill for Finland and the need to support their vital ally, the Soviet Union. As a result, Britain declared war against Finland, but the United States did not; there were no hostilities between these countries and Finland. In the United States, Finland was highly regarded, because it had continued to make payments on its World War I debt faithfully throughout the interwar period. Finland also earned respect in the West for its refusal to allow the extension of Nazi anti-Semitic practices in Finland. Jews were not only tolerated in Finland, but Jewish refugees also were allowed asylum there. In a strange paradox, Finnish Jews fought in the Finnish army on the side of Hitler.


However, I haven't seen anything on Finland's government. I'll keep searching.
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 9, 2000, 17:51   #38
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
I found this on the government:

quote:

THE WAR YEARS 1939-1945
Emergency powers legislation reduced the role of Parliament in wartime decision-making. As was the case in the other democracies at war, decisions concerning the political and military running of the country were taken by a small war cabinet, which was, however, politically representative. Elections were postponed twice during the so-called Continuation War (June 1941-September 1944). The Parliament elected in 1939 continued to sit until 1945 and has gone into the history books as "the Long Assembly". The wartime majority governments were founded on broadly-based political co-operation, and Parliament's support for the running of the war economy was unstinting.


Now it depends on whether you believe Finland stopped being a democracy because of the lack of elections after the attacks by the USSR and alling with Germany. What can be asserted that there were no elections during the war..
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 9, 2000, 23:29   #39
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
Imran,

Criticizing the LORD Jesus Christ and His belief won't get you far period.

All of these arguments of yours are deplorably weak. You have absolutely no evidence to support your case. There were practically no democracies ante WWII and those after WWII formed in the last 30 years, during the period of the most powerful country the world has ever known, and at its hegemonic pinnacle. Its no wonder all the nations are bowing peacefully to the 600 pound gorilla of the United States. The democratic peace simply doesn't stand up.

PS- The person who you model yourself after on this theory, Woodrow Wilson, was a Calvinist so I suggest you understand that you are getting all of these theories from a Christian.
In fact, all of the ideas of civilization your learn in your school were most likely begun in a Protestant Christian nation. I'd rethink your rash commentary.

[This message has been edited by CivNation (edited March 09, 2000).]
CivNation is offline  
Old March 10, 2000, 01:09   #40
Dienstag
Warlord
 
Dienstag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Brea, CA, USA
Posts: 243
Hi Jon Miller,
Sorry if it appeared I was speaking for all physics students everywhere. That was never my intention, and it's nice to know I'm not alone. To paraphrase Imran, "welcome to the thread o'fun." I don't know any democratic Indian tribes, but then they never had political parties did they? (or do elections really have to be party based?)

Everyone,
Does anyone here know someone from Finland? Getting the first-person perspective might be helpful for this most recent challenge to the democratic peace theory. Still, it seems the most important part is what we chose to define as a democracy. I'm not touching that one.

CivNation,
Please read the following with an open mind. I don't think you're helping yourself with the religious references. Criticizing you for "spewing Christian belief" is not the same as "criticizing the LORD Jesus Christ and His belief." You're dealing with people from a wide range of backgrounds, and such comments could be interpretted as offensive. Not that it's always wrong to offend people, but I see no reason for it at this particular time. We're trying to have a productive discussion, and you seem to have some valuable experience in this field which would be very helpful to the rest of us. All I ask is that you remember Matthew 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

-Dienstag
Dienstag is offline  
Old March 10, 2000, 02:47   #41
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Heh, I've been quoted .

Well, I believe that suspending elections would not make you a democracy. I mean if Yetsin instead of handing of to Putin, decided to declare emergency and postponed elections indefinetly, I don't think that we'd call Russia a democracy anymore (I don't know if we would have before for that matter ).

Oh, btw, I'm a Muslim, and a Realist. I despise Woodrow Wilson, and actually the first time this theory was stated, it was by Immanuel Kant.
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 10, 2000, 06:43   #42
horseman
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8
Imran-

Congratulations on not falling for CivNation's religious baiting. CivNation probably assumed you weren't Christian by your name and tried to go after you that way.

Religious bigotry seems to be on the march again here in the USA. It's very sad and disturbing.

"In fact, all of the ideas of civilization your learn in your school were most likely begun in a Protestant Christian nation." - CivNation

You don't really believe this do you, CivNation? Your're just trying to offend people with this stuff, right?

I'm with Dienstag, get back to the topic and contribute and drop the innuendoes and implied slurs.
horseman is offline  
Old March 10, 2000, 10:44   #43
Stefu
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Stefu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Posts: 5,301
quote:


Now it depends on whether you believe Finland stopped being a democracy because of
the lack of elections after the attacks by the USSR and alling with Germany. What can
be asserted that there were no elections during the war..


Hmm, in that way, you could say Finland wasn't a democracy - strictly speaking. However, in practise this didn't cancel the democratic process, and those men elected to parliament knew that there would be another election by people coming. Also, when Britain delcared war to Finland, Finland was a democracy, since by then there had been no postponements, and parliament had been elected in manner it had always been.

quote:

there were no hostilities between these countries and Finland.


UK most definitely did make couple of bombing runs to Finland, at least against Kirkkoniemi and few other places. In fact, those pesky Brits have been annoyment to Finns in couple other situations too: During Crimean War British Navy bombed our shores and made some amphibius assaults to our harbor cities, and after 1918 English forces sent to help White Russians engaged in combat (I think) with Finn forces sent on intent of seizing Petsamo (Pechenga.)
Stefu is offline  
Old March 10, 2000, 12:27   #44
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
i have been thinking about this and i don't know, maybe harel could help

during all of the Isreali-Arab wars was any of the arab nations ever a democracy? the only ones that might have been are lebanon and egypt...so was lebanon or egypt a democracy when they fought with isreal?

korn469
korn469 is offline  
Old March 10, 2000, 18:15   #45
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Interesting enough, that is one of vague cases, supposedly. I brought this up once to one of my professors, and then he reminded me that Egypt was under Nassar and no other Arab nations were democracies. And, after all, Israel can't really be called a democracy if it doesn't give rights to Arabs in Israel, now can it?
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 10, 2000, 18:52   #46
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
Imran,

I think Isreal could be labeled a democratic nation under some circumstances even though it doesn't give voting rights to all of it's citizns...if 51% of the eligable voting population the United States doesn't register and vote then is it not a democracy? if 16 and 17 year olds who are mentally able to grasp the election and ideas presented by the candidates then is the US not a democracy because it doesn't extend voting rights to them?

interesting questions...

could you please define what a democracy is according to the democratic peace theory, and exactly what a war is also?

could you also explain to me the mechanisms of why democracies fight wars according to this theory?

i could believe that there has never been a case of two democracies going to war yet...and i could believe that democratic nations might have a very low chance of going to war...but i personally find it reasonable that two democratic nations could and would wage war over a vital issue, but that is just my opinion i have no scientific facts to back it up

korn469
korn469 is offline  
Old March 11, 2000, 17:38   #47
NoviceCEO
Warlord
 
NoviceCEO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Criciúma, SC, Brazil
Posts: 185
quote:

Democracy:
1)fair, regular, multiparty elections
2)voting francise for substantial amount of the population
3)vote for executive or have strong parliament
4)peaceful transfer of power
5)stability and longevity (at least 3 years).

I believe Imran also said that a war involves 1000 men or more.

I also believe that what Imran (I'm not saying his the only one who does it, but who gave us the concept) considers to be a democracy doesn't leave much space for naming democracies before 30 years ago (30 years seems to be a common sense in this discussion).

2)voting francise for substantial amount of the population

Imran has considered, I believe, Athens to be a democracy. By his own rule, it couldn't, because no women or slaves voted there. Same thing should apply for Roma and U.S before this century, as only this century women were given the right to vote.

It also seems to me that has been a misunderstandind over what's a democracy. It does not opposes itself to Dictatorships. Dictatorships is in the same class of Parliamentary government, Presidencialism and Monarchy. I doubt there was a democracy ruled by a dictator (and I don't have a clear concept of what is a dictator) but it may be truely possible. It is possible on Monarchies (isn't UK an example?). It may also be possible on communist countries and anarchies, but neither one has been sucessfully implanted in any country.

Jon Miller had an excellent post, and I feel I must quote it:
quote:

4. I think democracies are government by the people. And if the people want war with a nation it will not matter if it is democratic or not. Most wars WW2 and previous were fought over resources, it has only been since then that the advanced nations have solved their resource shortfalls and wants by trade and not war. Thus wars fought by these nations since WW2 have been idealogical. Democracies have no idealogical reason to fight eachother. If there was a resource shortfall that could not be solved by trade or other methods we would start seeing a demand for war, even in democracies. Of course if there was a nonsolvable resource shortfall the democracies might fall into dictarorships anyways.

You see, it's perfectly possible the engagement in war by ideological reasons. Resource shortfalls lead to tension between countries and wars happens when tensions exceed the level a country can stand up to, either in democracies or not.

korn also made a good point over Israel, that's something that should be analised.

For last, my conclusion over this thread is that democracies usually tend to think twice before engaging in wars. As Imran said plenty of times, they usually lie on Diplomacy first, but Diplomacy can also be used to cause tensions in another countries (as I tried to prove with the Paraguayan War).

I'm neither a physics student nor a History expert, so I'm expecting to be corrected.

novice

------------------
"Última flor do Lácio, inculta e bela,
És a um tempo, esplendor e sepultura."
NoviceCEO is offline  
Old March 11, 2000, 22:55   #48
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Good points all around!

quote:

i could believe that there has never been a case of two democracies going to war yet...and i could believe that democratic nations might have a very low chance of going to war...but i personally find it reasonable that two democratic nations could and would wage war over a vital issue, but that is just my opinion i have no scientific facts to back it up


Now, I don't say that two democracies WILL NEVER fight, I just say that it'll be hard to do so, and thus should be represented in Civ3. If you declare war on a democracy, either the Senate should derail it, or if it gets through, then their should be some discord (to bring it back to Civ3 ).


[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited March 11, 2000).]
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 14, 2000, 19:09   #49
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
Dienstag,

Your reference to "blessed are the peacemakers" betrays your ignorance of the scriptures. First of all, when Jesus says peacemakers He does not mean peace between people. He means people who preach the gospel and bring peace between human beings and God. In fact, Jesus said "Do not think I've come to bring peace. I have come not to bring peace but a sword" in Matthew 10. Jesus understands that the gospel will be divisive. I don't care what background you or anyone else comes from. Jesus is King of all. I am indeed a peacemaker, the real kind of peacemaker meant in that beatitude. Please don't quote scriptures if you are ignorant of them Dienstag. Jesus spoke in parables. The surface meaning, or the meaning that first comes to mind, is not what He intends. Jesus knew and proclaims that He brings a sword of division between the believers and the unbelievers. Jesus does not mean world peace when He says "peacemakers".
CivNation is offline  
Old March 14, 2000, 19:14   #50
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
Horseman,

What you call "religious bigotry" is nothing more than your propoganda to despise Jesus Christ and refuse to submit to His rightful rule. America has always been a Christian nation historically, until recently. And if we continue in our pagan methods, it will collapse- that is a guarantee.

Horseman this "bigotry" that is on the rise is nothing other than the exclusive claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ. America has always been "bigoted and exclusive" in this sense, and I'm glad it has been. The false god of tolerance and inclusiveness will lead to the destruction of the nations.

Jesus Christ did not preach that God tolerates people who don't want to respect Jesus. Jesus Christ in fact said that all who do not bow before Him will be slain by the hand of God in the parable of the judgment. Jesus Christ will not tolerate you slandering His Christian religion, His church, or His people.

CivNation is offline  
Old March 14, 2000, 19:17   #51
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
To Enlighten Those ignorant on the true meaning of "peacemakers":

If you read Ephesians 1 and 2 you will see that the peace God is truly concerned about is the restoration of peace between God and men. Outside of Christ God and men are at enmity with each other, because the sins of men outside of Christ have not been paid for. Every man is a sinner before the almighty God, and because of this, if God is going to be perfectly just, every man deserves His eternal wrath. But God has chosen some in Christ to be redeemed from before the foundation of the world, and He sent His Son Christ to pay for the sins of those people in their stead. Christ did this by suffering hell on the cross. Thus the enmity between God and man was removed, and peace was restored. "Blessed are the peacemakers"- those that preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
CivNation is offline  
Old March 14, 2000, 19:18   #52
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
Imran,

If you were a realist you would not be espousing democratic peace theory. Evidently you don't understand what realism is.
CivNation is offline  
Old March 14, 2000, 20:55   #53
Sirotnikov
DiplomacyApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization III Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Sirotnikov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,138
quote:

Oh, btw, I'm a Muslim, and a Realist.


Actually since I consider my self a realist I don't understand how can you argue that democratic nations do not fight? All examples are limited to the last 40 years or so, and all the situations are very unclear because of WWII and the cold war. But I do agree that democracies do tend to aviod wars. at least wars that don't have wide public support.

quote:

the first time this theory was stated, it was by Immanuel Kant.


I'm not sure. According to Kant there is a distinction between the "real world of phenomenas" and the world according to the pure intelligence. He was talking about guiding rules that should apply to all intelligent beings since it's the appropriate thing to do. I think he was trying to describe how should we act. In my opinion he understood these rules can never exist in reality since they describe a sort of utopia. I also despise willson's rules, but I don't think Kant mean them to be applied. I think he wanted them to be discussed and people like you and me to talk about them.

Anyway, we could chat about it later, in a couple of months, because I am studying Kant and his rules of ethics, and since I presume you are more educated about him than I am, I would like to finish studying before I enter a discussion.

quote:

during all of the Isreali-Arab wars was any of the arab nations ever a democracy? the only ones that might have
and egypt...so was lebanon or egypt a democracy when they fought with isreal?


Egypt never was, and still isn't a democracy. I don't know for sure, but I tend to think Lebanon was a democracy for some time. Israel, was a democracy with a military regime and had very extreme left wing tendancies until mid 70s because most new comers and founders came from the communist block of USSR and it's neighbors. And also because many arab countries such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt declared war several times. In fact the Israeli declaration of independance was in the middle of an arab-israel crisis which then got worse and became a war.

quote:

And, after all, Israel can't really be called a democracy if it doesn't give rights to Arabs in Israel, now can it?

Waht time period are you talking about Imran? Until the first peace agreement with egypt almost all arabs were considered enemies. Of course there was social injustice. Many Israeli new comers from eastern and african countries were also discriminated. But remember Israel was a very fresh and new forming country in a state of constant war \ cease fire periods.

All new democracies suffered from lack of justice. How about how americans treated african americans? and is now the discrimination totally gone? of course not.

Was Israel a democracy?
Democracy:
1)fair, regular, multiparty elections
the elections at the 50 especially weren't all fair because the left wing parties had obvious advantages and although there was an opposition with one of the most right wing people was Menahem Begin (who later was the first prime minister to sign peace with an arab nation).

2)voting francise for substantial amount of the population
All citizens were given the right to vote. Arabs in the 50s weren't considered citizens

3)vote for executive or have strong parliament
There were always elections for the parliament and the leader of state was the leader of the party that had a majority in the parliament.
4)peaceful transfer of power
Because of the constant state of war there were several governments that resigned and situations were tence, but legal elections followed and never was the power taken by force (unlike Iraq or Iran).
5)stability and longevity (at least 3 years).
As I said the political system was subject to shaking because of the war situation. If a govt. failed to perform there were new elections. When did this happened in syria or egypt?

now arabs vote and have their representatives in the parliament. This wasn't reasonable before. In the 50s or 60s to ask Israel to have arabs voting in the elections would be rediculous. Like asking the USA to let communists to vote. And if I'm not wrong, communists were put on trial and persued by the american government.

In conlusion, this long post was not written to hurt any person, nation or religion. I just wanted to show the events from my personal point of view. I do not claim to represent no person, religion or state.

I don't claim my view is the most objective or accurate. Just posting to make things clearer.
Sirotnikov is offline  
Old March 14, 2000, 21:05   #54
Sirotnikov
DiplomacyApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization III Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Sirotnikov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,138
Once again I was typing fast and since people think faster than they type (if you don't you should have that checked by a doctor) so since I was thinking way ahead some thing were typed unclear, too many "to"'s, not enough commas and some sudden subject changes.
Memo for next time: I should always make drafts first.

Peace in the middle east people.
Sirotnikov is offline  
Old March 15, 2000, 17:01   #55
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
quote:

Imran,
If you were a realist you would not be espousing democratic peace theory. Evidently you don't understand what realism is.


Well, I support the Balance of Power theory and I'm a Power Transitionist. I believe in anarchy in the international realm. However, I've done enough reading to realize that the Democratic Peace is real. Excuse me for not following blindly the premises of realism.

Siro, Israel may have been a democracy later, but by that time, Lebanon wasn't. The Civil Wars resulted in almost no government for a while.
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 15, 2000, 18:37   #56
Harel
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Ramat Hasharon, Israel
Posts: 326
Sirotnikov, your knowladge on our history makes me sad.

Israel gave voting rights to Arab since it's creation, in 48. It's in the "Megilat ha'azmaot" ( Bill of independce ) for god sake!
Only the arabs in the captured region of the six days war ( 67' ) still don't have independnce, but a few got resident status.

No country Israel thought was a TRUE democracy. Egypt "dictatorical republic" isn't really a democracy any more then Syria. Some arab countries are a TRUE democracy ( rights to all citizens, including women ), like Iran, Kuwait, Katar and Yaman.

On the original point of this thread, I still don't understand why the two points can't be used, since they are BOTH valid. Democracies DO have a hard time judstifing a war on another democracy to it's citizens. Common logic. Indeed, this should be modeled in. Just as a democracy would have a easier time declaring war on a dictatorship ( less democratic penalties ).
And the hegemon idea is also useful. Let's use my summary: the diplomatic pact ( that's the UN / high concuil ) will have one leader, hegemon style where all the power is in her hands. The power can be lost if she acts irresponisbly, and the hegemon title granted to a lower nation. Once the UN wonder is built, the power shifts to it's current use.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited March 15, 2000).]
Harel is offline  
Old March 15, 2000, 18:39   #57
Harel
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Ramat Hasharon, Israel
Posts: 326
Sorry, double post...
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited March 15, 2000).]
Harel is offline  
Old March 15, 2000, 20:05   #58
Sirotnikov
DiplomacyApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization III Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Sirotnikov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,138
Harel, "Megilat Ha'azmaut" also promises freedom of religion, but still jewish commercial centers aren't allowed work on shabbat. Also reformed jewish communities are not considered proper jews. Jewish people have no way of marrying except the religious ceremony. There are only religous burial services (except one or two kibutzes).
Also people when immigrating to Israel have to proof they are jewish in order to recieve citizenship. In fact,most of the hebrew kushim (ani lo eshtamesh ba mila ha anglit ki ze nishma giz'ani) communities who arrived here. A famous case was in 71', you can check that.
Our country is still quite national and was very national earlier. How would you feel if a person that was fighting against you and commited terrorist actions against you would have the right to choose your leader and to determine the future of your country?

Megilat Ha'azmaut also promises a "huka" to be written no later than one year or so after the declaration. We still don't have one. Not even a draft.

I hope you meant to say Iran was a democracy. It's not exactly so these days.

I'm not saying you're wrong. We just have different points of view. Although I'm left wing, I'm not a pacifist but more of realist with some national points of view.

Basically, I think your proposition for incorporating both democratic peace and hegemonic powers is a good one. I only would like to add that I feel, that in order to be the hegemonic power you don't have to own the UN, as the USSR was quite hegemonic and the UN is after all owned by USA. UN will show who the hegemonic power is, since the UN leader will usually be the hegemonic power.
Influence and international power should be decided according to:

A. Military power 50% (including alliances und stuff. or maybe it should be different things? what do you think people?)

B. Economical power 40% (amount of trade, resources, amount of stacked money etc.)

C. Science 10% (usually leading sciences are also leading in mil. power, so science is here to differenciate between top mil. powers.)

btw Harel, if you'd like we could chat about these things over ICQ. I have many friends who I often talk with about these subjects and I constantly argue with my history and social studies teacher.
Also, we may play civ 3 over the modem when it'll come out.

Peace. (I mean it, although it'll never really fully happen nor will it last very long)
Sirotnikov is offline  
Old March 16, 2000, 18:51   #59
The Mad Viking
King
 
The Mad Viking's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: of the Great White North
Posts: 1,790
CivNation
Right now, I feel really sorry for you.
If you ever get in a postion of power over anyone, I feel really sorry for them.
Your brain is so clutterred with Christian propaganda that you are incapable of rational thought.
To state the obvious, you are way OT. There must be a load of Christian forums out there where you would be far better recieved. Please go there.
The Mad Viking is offline  
Old March 17, 2000, 01:03   #60
Harel
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Ramat Hasharon, Israel
Posts: 326
Failing to have a democratic populace does not mean the state is not democratic. Many democratic nations have racism, discrimition and other non-liberal thinking, but that doesn not effect the state or it's goal. True, we don't have a constituion, and arabs do get some discrimintion from the state and people, but mostly because the people push for those matters, not because Israel is aiming toward non-democratic views.

I am very aware we don't follow everything our bill of independnce ordered, but Arabs DID get voting power in 48', so that's that.

And yes, a more realistic view to political power is in order.

BTW, i am left wing too... Hail Yosi Sarid!
Harel is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:31.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team