Can anybody disprove this:
>The democratic peace theory posits that democracies are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies. Among proponents of the democratic peace theory, several factors are held as motivating peace between democratic states.
Can anybody name a time when two democracies went to war with one another? I don't mean a democracy in name only. I mean a real democracy at war with another real democracy.
Bump. Prove it wrong (but you won't)
If you only consider democracies that collaborate with each other true democracies you'll always be right because you have set a condition that will always make you right.
Lol name a democracy that's a hermit country. What are you on about?
youtu.be
bitchute.com
bitchute.com
youtu.be
Jew rat Zelensky: no, I want make WW3, I don’t care about goyim at all, I am a jew.
youtube.com
there. end of thread
>Posts a lecture POSITING (not proving) realism as a better theory than liberalism
>The lecturer is the main modern proponent for realism in international relations
LMAO post some real evidence not just jibber jabber
>Can anybody name a time when two democracies went to war with one another?
Every war that didn't directly involve a country in red.
He says it all. How many shitshows did democracies start versus how many did China and Russia do? The US did like 3x wars. Also hesitant to engage in conflict? what are you talking about? The west is the most brutal, ruthless, bloodthirsty empire ever. The west can't function without an advisory. Remember 911? And all the rest.
Hesitant to engage in conflict WITH OTHER DEMOCRACIES. Democracies don't go to war with one another. That means if you make every country a functioning democracy you will have no wars.
Also, yeah I said not democracy in name only. Everybody knows the DRC or Gabon aren't democracies.
Democracy is the gayest and stupidest ideology ever.
>Also, yeah I said not democracy in name only. Everybody knows the DRC or Gabon aren't democracies.
No true Scotsman fallacy. There is no empirically verifiable definition of "true democracy", so either you accept all self-proclaimed democracies as valid or none of them.
Lol you're a retard if you think there's no middle ground between "Yes the border between non-democracy and democracy can be hazy but for most democracies they are far enough on the democracy side you can easily and safely call them a democracy." and "Well Equatorial Guinea said they're a democracy so what now?"
aha. Men will go to war just out of spite. If you want to eliminate war you have to eliminate men first. Also many people don't want democracies. What are you going to do about that?
>Also many people don't want democracies. What are you going to do about that?
Continue to fight for democracies so we can be done with war for once and for all.
That is not an answer. If a country rejects democracy for in favor another system. Because they like that better. What are you going to do about it?
There is no objective criteria for what determines a "middle ground", either.
Invade and install a democracy
Exactly... but when does green become blue? You focus on that which can be easily categorized instead of nitpicking edge cases.
>You focus on that which can be easily categorized instead of nitpicking edge cases.
Easily categorized according to what and who? You keep acting as if there is an inviolable self-evident definition of "true democracy" but you haven't even defined it.
And you keep acting as if there is an inviolable self-evident definition of "blue" but you haven't even defined it.
People who have no thoughts can only deconstruct.
>And you keep acting as if there is an inviolable self-evident definition of "blue" but you haven't even defined it.
There is. When a country claims to be democratic.
that produces insurgency(right fully so). And a radical move towards anything that is not a democracy. If you think that a military occupation can do highly sophisticated nation building you are a retard. You see that is why I hate the west. We can't just be neutral and be left alone. NOOO. you must have the hecking democracy. Democracy is an abject failure. We need constitutional monarchies.
it would work... if democracy was truly a democracy and not just a dictatorship with the illusion of choice.
it would work if international organisations were not run by greed of personal gain but rather for the betterment of the common folk.
on paper these are good but in reality these need to be kept in check TO work. but chances are the ones that are supposed to be kept in check will also be in on it for personal gain therefore they would also need someone to keep them in check. it is a potential circle of nothing but corruption.
besides. when was the last time there was a true democracy?
>By democracy is meant liberal democracy, where those who hold power are elected in competitive elections with a secret ballot and wide franchise (loosely understood as including at least 2/3 of adult males); where there is freedom of speech, religion, and organization; and a constitutional framework of law to which the government is subordinate and that guarantees equal rights.
I'm not a Westerner I'm a Chinese studying in the USA and even this is self-evident to me.