astralis

zraver,

one problem i have with the democratic peace theory is that it's based upon a very short timeline sample, and does not account for near-misses. the US and the UK, for example, were ready to go to war in 1896, and for a short period of time in the 1920s, considered each other their main enemies.

also, there is the issue of conflation. up until the 1970s ("the third wave" of democratization), most democracies were confined to western europe and the US. was peace held because everyone was a democracy, or because there were international organizations, because the US was the superpower, or because there was an enemy superpower of the USSR? etc etc etc.

if and when china fully democratizes, well, the democratic peace will have a better test.

ah, that didn't save iran from a british-american coup in 1953.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Triple C

Oh, I see. So are we to believe that the political leaders in the Union and the Conferacy are totall cynics that ordered their troops to the grinder to resolve problems of economics, and their troops, dumb cogs of the economic structure and beasts of burden that they are, duly obeyed?

Who taught you that vulgarist Marxist history? It has been out of fashion since the sixties. Show me a single primary document that had Lincoln telling his officers that they are fighting for the economic forces of industrialization, that they are fighting to create wage labor economies. Or find me a Southern leader telling his men that they are fighting against the industiral age.

Tell me how are you ever going to be able to divorce the values of a society from its mode of economic life. Show me how are you going to prove that the values the contemporaries of the historical events under discussion--ideas that they professed that they believed in, and had shown their determination to protect those ideas by deed--are in fact insincere and adopted to conceal economic motives. And tell me how any research into the past is possible if you are going to disbelieve everything your subjects had said and done!

IMHO the idea that any political entity could engage in all-out war and to endure the unendurable year after year, without possessing a zealous citizenry willing to die for their nation's cause, is ludicrous. To say that an American government could even operate under such conditions at peacetime would be pretty far out.

We judge the intentions of Spanish Inquisitors and Communists with more charitable interpretations.

__________________
ORBIS NON SUFFICIT.

Triple C

Astralis,

Thoughtful analysis you have posted there.

But I don't think entrenched democratic states--the states that pursued democracy as a good in and of itself rather than for coincidental or utilitarian purposes are likely to fight one another. Given the alliance between democratic states during World War II, they are by far more likely to suscribe to hold notions of universal values and a legalist interpretation of international relations in common. Modern democratic states do not go to war for matters of pure economic and strategic interest, even when it is fighting against a dictatorship. Given how important it was to the people of a democracy that a war must have legally and ethically justified ends, I don't see the traditional kind of resource grabs will be likely.

Just look at the example of how the French and the British were shamed into giving up all that they had gained in the Suez War, how the Arabs got away with the energy crisis, and how much the lack of visible progress in creating viable democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan is hurting popular support for the ongoing American Wars in the ME--fifty years isn't a long time by the long scope of historians, but the fact that no major wars broke out between mature democracies after '45, the democratic peace theory certainly has something going for it.

1947

can a govt be blamed for having human rights abuse if it does not have the money to feed children or provide a lot of free education?

Zeng

In that case, we hope that govt makes faster impovement.

However, it is not India's case. India govt has the money.

Indian children suffer more malnutrition than in Ethiopia - Times Online

Please don't start another round pissing contest. I acknowledge that overall China is not necessarily better than India on the human right issue. It is just that we have different problems.

__________________
I am here for exchanging opinions.

Zeng

Here is what I said and you cited:
In order to prove that I was wrong, you need to tell us which soldier made the decision to start the war instead of the leaders.

Solider can wish for the war and start conflict. But the war decision was made by leaders.

Here is what I said and you cited:
I can prove my above point with the fact that General Lee sent his troop to Gettysburg to seal their fate.

Here is what I said and you cited:
Thanks our good American Albany Rifles. He gave us this link and I put it here again.

Top Five Causes of the Civil War

The first cause of the civil war mentioned there is related to economy.

The third cause of the civil war mentioned there is related to slavery.

Do you want to tell me that economy and slavery were not in the minds of the leaders? OR, Do you want to tell me that the information in Albany Rifles's link is wrong? In this case, you better argue with him.

Excuse for my English reading ability. It is hard for me to fully understand what you tried to say here.

Agreed and no argument here.

Even if the soliders want to go to the war but it is leaders to decide when to start it.

You can keep whatever your opinion is.


Here is what I said and you cited:
I thought that everyone understands that my above comments were sarcasm. Apparently I was wrong.

It is UnderSpin’s logic not mine. I tried to make it into sarcasm and obviously failed. I have to make an explanation here.

Shek

The invention of the cotton gin in 1793. It made the agrarian South rich.

Far from being related to the industrial revolution that you spoke of in the original post that Triple C was responding to, it relates to farming.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Indirect Fire

As Obama says "You started with a perfectly incorrect premise, and came to a perfectly incorrect conclusion."

I think it was Obama, but don't get me wrong. That's the idea I was trying to imply above. I don't see how I was venting at the Chinese government; I was venting at the Indian government. Subject and predicate, Watson. That's why you're not Sherlock.

__________________
I have no idea what I'm doing. Honestly!

Albany Rifles

Do not use my words to fit your agenda.

I posted that link for you to learn. You have totally missed what is being said in the story. Do your own research. What I said does not refute what Triple C has said. In fact the two posts mesh perfectly.

You are parsing what we are saying to fit what you want to say.

Respond with facts to the entire points.

I am still wondering where you went to school and how you passed a civics test. What was this prestigous school?

See how you do on this.

http://http://meritbadge.org/wiki/in..._in_the_Nation


You do not understand the causes of the ACW, you do not understand the motivations of the soldiers of the ACW, you do not understand what the politics of the time were. Stop trying to use the ACW to prove your point...which has been lost.


A great man once said, When you are in a hole, put the shovel down. Good advice.

__________________
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves." TSGT Oddball, Tank Commander

Indirect Fire

He enlisted! He knew what he was getting into.


Did you just insult the great General Lee? Get his biography and read it. Do you really think that he supported the policies of the Confederacy? Besides, he marched his army north, past the Potomac, to smash the Union Army (Reynold's Brigade) stationed near the border in order to secure a victory by forcing a peace treaty.

Besides, Lee didn't seal the fate of his soldiers; The South had lost the war anyway. If we go by your logic, then our leaders are responsible killing our troops, and thus, you're promoting pacificism. Any idea how pacificism works out in the real world?


Economy? Bah!

The South wanted to secede because it felt that the Northerners were controling it (Tariffs, etc.). Also, don't forget sectionalism, which caused glaring differences between the schools of thought about slavery and how strong the government must be (Federal vs. State). All these factors combine to form States' Rights, which was/were the key factor/factors.









Calling in Shek... Quick, light the ShekLight (Like the BatLight from the Batman series).

Albany Rifles

While I admire your energy I must try to redirect you on your history.

Lee lost, remember?

Keep on trucking, though. You have a great future!

Shek

I'm just barely old enough to remember the Batman cartoon.

Zeng

Albany Rifles,

Although you have made a graceful post #74 to announce that you will stop in this thread, I hope that you don't mind to give me a chance to make a response. Thanks and I also leant some American history from you.

I think that you paraphrased me a little bit too much here.

I said that “The outside world can never understand the Chinese people's fear for the chaos because they had experienced too much of that in recent history”.

In order to make you understand my comments more easily, let me make some explanation here.

I said outside world can not understand a certain type of Chinese people's fear, the fear for the chaos.

You generalized it to “I accuse you Americans of not knowing the Chinese”.

IMHO, even 8th grade Boy Scouts can tell the difference between my words and your paraphrase. Even they can tell you that your point is invalid.

If you read my post carefully, your understanding is incorrect. I pointed it out above.

Because your understanding of my posts is so wrong, it misleads me of thinking that you did not read my post carefully.

Hope some day you can earn the opportunity to decide whether I need to retake the class.

My professor, a great American of European descendant granted me full scholarship and a committee of experts decided that I was qualified to graduate.

Please read my comments to Triple C. I am not going to repeat them here. But thanks for providing the link to prove my points.



I thought that everyone understands that my above comments were sarcasm. Apparently I was wrong again.

Even if you want to make argument with that comments, you should argue with UnderSpin, not me. It was his logic that I don’t totally agree with. OK, UnderSpin has made some explanation for his statement in #73.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles I will not argue that some profited from the war. But for the political leaders that was not a reason to go to war. Yes, slavery was a bedrock of the Southern economy. But the "Northern Wage Slave" was easily feeding the mills of the North with all of the labor they needed, especially with the increase in European immigration during the mid century. If anything the war resulted in a labor shortage. And there was no great wave migration northward of freed slaves after the war for employment. There was during the war to gain their freedom but not after. If there was any migration, it was westward.

You are talking about personal benefits here. I was talking about national (union and Confederacy) benefits thought by their leaders.

Am I happening to be the only one here that considers that some leaders then had noble goals, such as Industrial revolution and free slave in their minds for the nation (union and Confederacy)?

Issues related unifying/breaking the nation must be in their minds too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles And yes, as Underspin has said, your statements were insulting.

I am sorry that you feel insulted.

Even if I give all credit to all Americans at that time for their effort to free the slaves, you probably should take some responsibility for having the salary system before you demolished it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles I'll rephrase my opening statment...you do not understand American history and you do not understand the American people. I know you lived and studied here. Doesn't mean you understand us.

You probably did not realize that people are so similar wherever they lived. I brought out some dark histories of America; you immediately jumped in just like the Chinese internet worriers when people reveal the dark histories of China.

Many your accusation also based on the misread of my posts.

I am not trying to insulting anyone and I never claimed that I understand American history and I understand the American people.

For me, understanding my professor is more important who happen to be a white American and happen to be very open minded and happen to be very generous. From him, I see what a great American can be and why this country can become so advanced in almost all areas.

I lived and studied in America because I love this country, because I know many Americans are open minded, because I know many Americans are more tolerant for the discussion of their problem than Chinese, because they have gone through struggle to create one of the best systems on this planet today.

Zeng

OK, I stand corrected here. I should have said economic development instead of industrial revolution. I was considering agriculture machinary belong to industry. But I should have made it more precise.

Shek

But it really wasn't even economic development in the case of the South. They wanted the status quo: Slave labor to maintain their cotton production.

Here's a picture of a hand cranked cotton gin in use from Harper's Magazine