Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

MRF54 · 12-07-2006, 16:22

TK,

Guilty of accusation, I think democratic peace theory as a practiced by Rumsfeld, Bolton, Albright, and Cohen is not always in America's interest.

Name one true democracy that currently exists. Democracy is a theory. Here, we have a democratic process in a constitutional republic. Lenin (and Mao) used social democratic reform and tactics as a means to establish a Social Democracy or "Direct Democracy." How does the DPT work when applied to these types of governing if you ignore the 'individual freedom index' ?

Direct Democracy and other forms of autocratic govt have historically lead to war (empire building) when that govt has the ability to transnationally project its will through force or is under extreme duress. What about these quasi-democracies creating pariah states and/or subservient nations? How many total wars broke out between similar Socialists and/or Communists nations?

I do not believe that historically 'similar democracies' rarely go to war against each other is due to the "Democratic Peace Theory." The fact that constitutional republics (God Bless America!), constitutional monarchs (God Bless them too!), and the others rarely have full war with each other is merely a byproduct of their culture, economies, and various other similarities/parallels.

I believe that the European Monarchies had similar forms of govt but had a few wars with each other. So, what makes today's 'Western' style of govt so cooperative...?

The DPT is an attempt at understanding and defining, in tangible replicateble terms, why this occurs in modern democratically represented forms of govt.

Using the DPT as an ideology or principle to form policy, or even implement it, against hostile dissimilar forms of government (or entities) is interesting but very one dimensional and poses a threat to national security issues.

The SecDef can influence and is influenced by foreign policy (foreign and domestic)but does not author it (foreign or domestic).

I'm speaking in pro-American Nationalism here, they're speaking in ideology.
Would you please explain this to me with references. You have stimulated some old brain cells and started a train of thoughts on the topic.

12-07-2006, 16:22	#10
MRF54 Quiet Professional Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 38	TK, Guilty of accusation, I think democratic peace theory as a practiced by Rumsfeld, Bolton, Albright, and Cohen is not always in America's interest. Name one true democracy that currently exists. Democracy is a theory. Here, we have a democratic process in a constitutional republic. Lenin (and Mao) used social democratic reform and tactics as a means to establish a Social Democracy or "Direct Democracy." How does the DPT work when applied to these types of governing if you ignore the 'individual freedom index' ? Direct Democracy and other forms of autocratic govt have historically lead to war (empire building) when that govt has the ability to transnationally project its will through force or is under extreme duress. What about these quasi-democracies creating pariah states and/or subservient nations? How many total wars broke out between similar Socialists and/or Communists nations? I do not believe that historically 'similar democracies' rarely go to war against each other is due to the "Democratic Peace Theory." The fact that constitutional republics (God Bless America!), constitutional monarchs (God Bless them too!), and the others rarely have full war with each other is merely a byproduct of their culture, economies, and various other similarities/parallels. I believe that the European Monarchies had similar forms of govt but had a few wars with each other. So, what makes today's 'Western' style of govt so cooperative...? The DPT is an attempt at understanding and defining, in tangible replicateble terms, why this occurs in modern democratically represented forms of govt. Using the DPT as an ideology or principle to form policy, or even implement it, against hostile dissimilar forms of government (or entities) is interesting but very one dimensional and poses a threat to national security issues. The SecDef can influence and is influenced by foreign policy (foreign and domestic)but does not author it (foreign or domestic). I'm speaking in pro-American Nationalism here, they're speaking in ideology. Would you please explain this to me with references. You have stimulated some old brain cells and started a train of thoughts on the topic.
MRF54 is offline