United Nations and the Democratic Peace?? Inaccurate Modeling

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[CivNation]

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.

[horseman]

Gosh, guess we non-Christians are going to get it now!

[Stefu]

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.

[horseman]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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]

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]

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..

[CivNation]

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).]

[Dienstag]

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[horseman]

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.

[Stefu]

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.)

[korn469]

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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?