Subject:
|
Re: To change the tune...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Feb 2004 04:05:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
546 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> > BTW, name for me 1 war in the history or the world between 2
> > Democracies....
>
> How literally do you insist on "war" to be defined? Would you accept that
> the Vietnam conflict, for instance, was actually a war?
While we're at it, how literally do you want "democracy" defined? Would you
accept that the US, for instance, is actually a republic, not a democracy?
BTW I don't accept "The Straight Ddope" as a source, since it has been used
against ME in the past :-) but just for reference:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_328.html
(I couldn't find a better cite in 90 seconds of googling but I've seen a
better(1) refutation than that one, once.)
here's a relatively spirited defence of the idea:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PK.APPEN1.1.HTM
basically consisting of pointing out that every counter example was either not a
war (??) or one of the countries participating wasn't a democracy.
Note that this text will seem familiar if you dig around, as other sites seem to
have almost verbatim versions of it, I have no idea who did the original
writing, that's just the highest one on the google returns...
1 - more thorough, not necessarily more accurate. Me, I tend to think this is
one of those homilies that's sort of true but not quite. Democracies and
republics DO tend to be a bit less warmongering than totalitarian states
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
55 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
