How come liberal democracies never go to war with eachother ?

how come liberal democracies never go to war with eachother ?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_democracies#21st_century
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because politicians generally want to get reelected, and a decision as big as a war generally has to get past more than one of them.

>inb4 war powers act, congress still controls the purse strings

Britain declared war on Finland during WW2.

>War of 1812

but liberal democracies have participated in lots of wars, just never against eachother
and they prepared with straight faces for ww3 during the cold war

can you count anything as a 'liberal democracy' as we use the term before the 20th century?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_democracies#21st_century

Liberal democracies avoid war if they think it's even remotely possible.

If there's two of them involved, it becomes much, much easier to avoid war because they're both extremely hesitant.

Also, liberal democracies have a tendency to engage in collective defense arrangements that make them harder to attack without getting fucked in some way.

Dictatorships are often more isolated on the world stage, and less unpopular to go to war against.

>can you count anything as a 'liberal democracy' as we use the term before the 20th century?

Well that's part of the problem, isn't it. Liberal democracies only really appear when wars, at least in the classic sense, are on the way out. Most of the democracies are located in Europe, and that had, what? Two non-civil wars in the entire century?

One could make the argument that the reason the 20th was so peaceful is the proliferation of democracy, but personally I think nukes and the general cost of war are a better explanation.

>Liberal democracies avoid war if they think it's even remotely possible.
>If there's two of them involved, it becomes much, much easier to avoid war because they're both extremely hesitant.

bullshit

>Also, liberal democracies have a tendency to engage in collective defense arrangements that make them harder to attack without getting fucked in some way.

every type of government does this

there was tons of wars after the 20th century, just none between liberal democracies

its practically a century of constant warfare

...

>bullshit

Well, that's how Johnson went from having 60% of the popular vote to dropping out of the presidential race despite being an incumbent.

Unpopular wars have substantial political costs.

>every type of government does this

Yeah, but a lot of the world's most powerful countries are liberal democracies.

They favor their own strongly over dictatorships.

The communists also had collective defense, but they barely exist any more, and when they were at their prime, the US would aggressively mouthrape any nation that tried to become communist as part of the doctrine of containment.

He was obviously saying there were no wars between Europeans, not that there were no wars period.

No, thats wrong, all of it.
Most of the Liberal Democracies have engaged in almost permanent warfare since WW2, most of the Asymmetrical sort, to keep a small reserve of trained veterans.

>Also, liberal democracies have a tendency to engage in collective defense arrangements
No, thats also wrong. If this was true, post Soviet nations would have made a Anti Russia pact. Instead we get things like Russia invading their Islamic nephew over sovereignty.
Ukraina and Crim, on this side of the century.

If it was true, the Democracies of South America would most likely have made a defence pact against USA during the 1920s, and acted upon it.

They are to busy destroying themselves from within.

>Most of the Liberal Democracies have engaged in almost permanent warfare since WW2

Seems like it was pretty much exclusively Security Council members, which isn't that surprising being that having a global hegemony require effort.

>post Soviet nations would have made a Anti Russia pact

All of the ones that could joined NATO.

>If it was true, the Democracies of South America would most likely have made a defence pact against USA during the 1920s, and acted upon it.

Could you name a democracy the US attacked in the 20s? I know we attacked Nicaragua in the 80s.

1. Ubiquity of LDs is a relatively recent phenomena. Give it some time, the more of them out there the more likely they go to war with each other.
2. The definition of LD shifts constantly to better suite the speaker's agenda. Somehow Southern American countries, former Yugoslavian republics, Armenia/Azerbaijan or Russia and Chechnya/Georgia/Ukraine are both democratic and not democratic at the same time. See, if you define LD as a country what never goes to war with another LD, you can never have a war between LDs.
3. A lot of actual cases are just being ignored because they don't fit into the world view speaker is trying to construct. See the previous case.
4. Nuclear weapons, relative prosperity and American political and military dominance made war practically impossible for western nations. You might as well ask why didn't Roman client kingdoms go to war with each other as often as they did before.

Liberal democracy is code word for vassal state of America.

I want Nico to piss on me.

>not wanting to be a US vassal state

Israel, South Korea, Japan, and Germany all kick ass.

The US knows how to build good countries.

If there has been no interregional wars, and the only real neighbor you have is the one who got Panama to build a canel...
Why wouldn't you have seen Operation Condor coming?
Or lets be real: Shouldn't it be on Latin Americas interest to realize Zimmermann Telegram reactions... those would mean that they where truly never free?
Or even before that: American involvement in Mexican Revolution?
Or even before that: ANYTHING involving United Fruit Company?

So generally: Liberal Democracies have not made defence pacts. They generally get invaded, or get invaded in Proxy Warfare.


-T. Scandinav

Balkans.

>Israel
>vassal state of the US
It's the other way around.

Well, Operation Condor was a consortium between a bunch of friendly governments.

If anything, it's an example of the power of the democratic world; that the US could create an international secret police task force in a part of the world that hates them.

Either way, if you run your country the way the US does and imitate their culture, it generally works.

I mean, it didn't work for Liberia, but you'd be hard pressed to find a system that does work in West Africa

because they are the best systems and the good guys fighting for freedom, well being and justice.

DEATH TO FASCISTS AND COMMIES.

>russia's goons invade ukraine
>russia of all countries
>being a liberal democracy

Nico chan is my wife

Because the winner always says that the loser was not really democratic.

Because they all have the same puppet masters.

>Lists wars
>But not civil wars where other states participated
weak

vietnam was unpopular due to conscription, every other war that America has fought post 1900 has been a popular one, even with lack of perceived results (insurgencies)

democracies can go to war just fine

finland in coalition with litteral nazis

>the most noteworthy pact being nato means that liberal democracies are more likely to form pacts
*loud buzzer sounds* WRONG

west has been trying to make everyone they dont like look like a madman for the past however many years so yeah I guess

>the most noteworthy pact being NATO means that liberal democracies are more likely to form pacts

Well, it seems to be easier for coherent political ideologies to form long term defense blocs.

Democracy is a coherent ideological system.

Thus, it is more challenging to attack democracies than authoritarian states, or other states without a clear, widely used ideological standard.

We define them as those democracies that follow the basic western pattern and do not war with the existing states that use that pattern.

communist states fought and postured against eachother alot, so its not ideological conformity that does it either

why dont liberal democracies attack eachother is the question remember

Because political leaders in liberal democracies are strongly incentivized to avoid war unless necessary and the populace of a liberal democracy is highly likely to view a war against another liberal democracy as necessary.

>Because political leaders in liberal democracies are strongly incentivized to avoid war unless necessary

liberal democracies engage in more expeditionary warfare than anyone
the only unpopular wars the US ever fought was vietnam due to conscription, other liberal democracies fought for years to secure or secure transfer of colonies in brutal COIN operations

your premise falls flat on its face when faced with the facts

I can't really think of any liberal democracies that would have an interest in war with one another unless something big changes like the US recedes into isolation.

Beyond that,
This may make up a big part of it. Even toppling a regime like Saddam's was frowned upon after the fact.

why do people like to imagine war is unpopular and destroys politicians reputations
its the exact opposite, wartime causes a BOOST in popularity ratings almost universally

>unless necessary

I think you need to look carefully at those words, ponder their meaning, and then compare the number of wars European governments get into to the number that African governments get into.

your counter-argument is Africa?
I'm not even going to bother addressing this

Okay, but it's the continent with the lowest number of democracies.

You could also try the Middle East, they're well known for their advanced conflict resolution strategies.

how do I block someone from replying to my thread
mods!

>If this was true, post Soviet nations would have made a Anti Russia pact.

Many former Warsaw pact nations and former soviet states joined NATO. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have the Visegrad group.

You delete it.

I love you Nico-Chan! Nice trips btw
t. /llsifg/ fuck

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

If you like buying into bullshit

Except for all the times that they have?

idiot

Hitler and Mussolini were both elected democratically, and were given the power through democracy.

Kinda puts a marina trench size hole into the argument.

so nazi germany and fascist italy are liberal democracies in your head lmao

So your time line for Liberal Democracies exists after world war II, and ignores all the situations where they did go to war such as the countless wars in Africa, the numerous countries that the U.S has toppled, or even the fucking falkland war, the meme of a century?

you are a fucking idiot
read the thread

>Doesn't refute a single point

??

the thread is about liberal democracies going to war with EACH OTHER for one, and I don't think you even understand what people mean when they say 'liberal democracy' either

The liberal democracy in Italy never stopped functioning. The same democracy that put Mussolini in power and allowed him, is the same one that took him out of power.

just leave the thread you are inept idiot

Because its a pointless thread, since it started on a faulty premise?

ive filtered you dont bother replying

(OP)
Because they suck so bad that they have bigger fish to fry. They have a common enemy,They have to fight off the nationalist patriotic beautiful freedom fighter countries who are the true liberals. 1776 WorldWide!

>LALALA NOT HEARING
Reddit would never leave.

Where the fuck did this kid wash out from?

they do all the time it's just economic warfare and proxy wars you just never hear about on the news because that's liberal democracy for you

But ancient Greece was nothing but democracies fighting other democracies.

65535 Fishing Points 82001572 FFFF LiquidManZero
Butch rape that dual wodjoap

stop replying