Arab countries treat Palestinians far worse than Israel

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dehumanization of the enemy is NOT a prerequisite for going to war, never was, never will be.

It is in every democracy.

what about the Ethiopia Eritrea war? both had democratically elected governments

Eritrea's was how old? 2 years? 1? Was there a peaceful transfer of power? There are plenty of cases of 'elections' that lead to 50 year rules by one man.

[GePap]

Eritrea was 5 years old (1993, IRC), and we know how old Ethiopia is. Sorry, no sale.

And no, dehumanization is not needed for a democratic state to go to war: example, Falklands war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eritrea was 6 years old (1994, IRC), and we know how old Ethiopia is. Sorry, no sale.

Peaceful transition?

Is Ethiopia a Democracy?

And no, dehumanization is not needed for a democratic state to go to war: example, Falklands war.

The military government of Argentina was not treated too well in the British press. It was pretty close to dehumanization (ie, butchers).

[GePap]

The tabliod called the Argentines butchers, not all papers, and most importantly, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. What the press cares to do with itself its it's own damned business.

Ethiopia is a dmeocracy, as far as I know, and more importantly, it was in 1998. And no, i don;t think a peacefull transition is a must. That is why i think you guys are playing aroudn with the definition to make the set work.

[Imran Siddiqui]

re: Eritrea from the CIA Factbook:

transitional government
note: following a successful referendum on independence for the Autonomous Region of Eritrea on 23-25 April 1993, a National Assembly, composed entirely of the People's Front for Democracy and Justice or PFDJ, was established as a transitional legislature; a Constitutional Commission was also established to draft a constitution; Afworki ISAIAS was elected president by the transitional legislature; the constitution, ratified in May 1997, did not enter into effect, pending parliamentary and presidential elections; parliamentary elections had been scheduled to take place in December 2001, but were postponed; currently the sole legal party is the People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ), though a draft political parties law is under consideration

They haven't even had an election yet! The government is composed of revolutionaries!

[Imran Siddiqui]

What the press cares to do with itself its it's own damned business.

If you don't think that the government helps guide the press in directions it wants them to go, you are being naive.

Btw, the Falkland Conflict only claimed 891 Lives (236 British and 655 Argentine) http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html . That ain't a war by definition (and it seemed more like a covert action than full fledged warfare anyway... nevertheless it was a ridiculous little conflict).

[GePap]

Hmmm, yeah. they have the same level of terrible dictatorship we had in 1785. I mean, a state full of revolutionary leaders.

I reieterate,this is why i think you guys are playing with the definitionswhich leads to you making a constuctivist argument based on internalization of democracy as a value, yet you can give any theoretical evidence of that.

You want a great reason why this war is a very good example contra this war? Both peoples had shared the struggle for freedom from a dictatorship, and had worked hand and hand to frm new governments (if for Eritrea, still in infancy), yet these people, who fought toghether for freedom (what better act of internalization do you want) ended up fighting a very vicious war over rocks.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you don't think that the government helps guide the press in directions it wants them to go, you are being naive.

you mean the same freedom loving govs. that won;t harm the hair on another freedomloving people? Rather peculiar notion, no? They love democracy, so they fiddle with the free press?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm, yeah. they have the same level of terrible dictatorship we had in 1785.

Lack of democracy does NOT equal dictatorship. In fact, the greatest threat of war comes from the transitional period of becoming a democracy. It ain't black and white.

you mean the same freedom loving govs. that won;t harm the hair on another freedomloving people? Rather peculiar notion, no? They love democracy, so they fiddle with the free press?

How is fiddling with the free press have anything to do with the common values and bonds they share with other democratic nations? Democracy seems to be an internationalist goal, kind of like communist all over the world. People in power seem to identify with fellow democrats. They share common values and work to foster them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, and Pinochet's forces were aided by the US, that doesn't mean that the US fought a war with Allende's Chile.

I had hoped for something more substantive.

[GePap]

Democracy is NOT an internationalist goal. Democracy is a form of government, 3000 years old. The problem is that your side had added on, on top of democracy, a bunch of other values that are not the same as democracy (like stating that suffrage must be over 50%.)

You yourself said that European imperialism, which denies democracy to millions, could exist without some sort of fundamental conflict, with democracy in some places. the notion that democratic man wants to see a victory for his belief system seems at utter odds to me with the notion that democratic man could, without problem, enslave millions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Democracy is NOT an internationalist goal.

I must disagree.

the notion that democratic man wants to see a victory for his belief system seems at utter odds to me with the notion that democratic man could, without problem, enslave millions.

Explain Thomas Jefferson.

[GePap]

According to you, Jefferson's America was not a democracy. So it is up to YOU to figure him out, not me, as the nation he helped built was not democratic (according to that list you gave us) until at least 1865.

Let me add an even further bit: you say dehumanization is critical for democracies to fight: but does not this urge go against the very values of democratic man? To attempt to say that some humans actually aren't, isn;t that a fundamental assault on the modern, pluralistic values that you claim democratic man self-internalizes, thus making him unwilling to harm his fellow democratic man? An yet, somehow, for reasons you have yet to give any explination for, democratic man is utterly willing to ignore the humanity of others, specially if the other are suffering under a despot?! How do you explain that?

DD: do you plan to do anyting more than just pop in, you know, like join the debate?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
DD: do you plan to do anyting more than just pop in,

I'm still trying to get something more than an irrelevent snide comment from Imran wrt the 1999 India/Pakistan conflict.

[Imran Siddiqui]

According to you, Jefferson's America was not a democracy. So it is up to YOU to figure him out, not me, as the nation he helped built was not democratic (according to that list you gave us) until at least 1865.

You cannot seriously say Jefferson did not WANT democracy. After all, his original Declaration wanted to abolish slavery.

you say dehumanization is critical for democracies to fight: but does not this urge go against the very values of democratic man?

Not necessarily. The democrat dehumanizes the conduct and the man that his opposing dictator is. This is needed in order to free the dictator's people or to acheieve the goal, which would be better serving a democratic state instead of a non-democratic state.

If he attempts to dehumanize a democratic counterpart, he loses his own people because most of them won't necessarily follow that all the people are unhuman. However, they will accept that one leader is. Democracies don't leap up and chant to fight simply because of trivial things like borders or resources. They don't want their kids to die for that. However, they will send their kids to die to bring down an evil, ruthless dictator.

When we went against Iraq (both times), it was against Saddam. When we went against Germany, it was Hitler. We dehumanized the leader, not the people.

At the same time those who are considered savages (and one reason being primative forms of goverment, such as tribal governance) can easily be dehumanized and the people can be preyed up, not the leader. Because people will not protest too much to kill the savages. It isn't against the democratic mold, but simply eliminating those who people believe will never fit in to a democracy.

Democrats don't have to be pacifists, or even non-brutal. They can be plenty brutal against what they consider 'evil'. However, against those harder to paint as 'evil' (fellow democracies) they will stop because the people will be harder to convince.