Hmmm, this all reminds me of something Rhett Butler said in Gone With the Wind. I will paraphrase
“There’s a lot of money to be made in the destruction of a nation.”
Then Scarlett figured out
“There’s also a lot of money to be made in the rebuilding of one.”
[hijack]
The US did invade the Philippines in 1948. We call this charming example of American imperialism the “Philippine Insurrection.” Apparently the Philippinos weren’t happy with our puppet government and tried to get rid of it. The US didn’t take that little bit of self-determination very kindly.
I remember my 8th grade history teacher telling my class that the .45 became the official sidearm of the army in the '48 insurrection. Apparently soldiers were using weapons of a lower caliber with less stopping power. So even though a soldier might shoot a gurkha knife-wielding native fighter at close range, he would still get vivisected by the dead man’s blade as he fell forward. A stronger impact and a larger exit wound were required. Hence the .45.
[/hijack]
MR
Pepperlandgirl and I seem to be largely on the same side. I do want to add a few points though.
Pepper, I think you are wrong in pointing to FDR as the man who wanted WW2 and would have caused it. I think if history teaches us anything it’s that US presidents are largely dependent on the forces around them. I think it would be more accurate to say that the US needed a war. The US would have found a way to get involved. The US benefited tremendously from WW2. And yes, there was quite a bit of opposition even after the war started. Of course it was supressed by the government. but, that’s another issue.
I also want to take this time to clarify my position. I’m a materialist, I believe that everything is rooted in the environment around us. People don’t just up and start wars for no reason. Sure, there might be idealogical grounds. But, those idealogical grounds don’t spring up for no reason either. Wars in prehistory were fought to aquire slaves and land. Economics. People who had been concured might develop a hatred of their oppressors and fight back (very reasonable). The reason they would fight back would be because of the econmics of the oppressor country. The same goes for rebellions against imperialism today. Not every single fistfight can be traced to economic grounds. But, if you look at what causes war it is competition. I tend to link economics and competition together somewhat. There were also civil wars about who would lead.
In the 20th century, war has certainly evolved. But, it still boils down to the large countries trying to aquire more rescources, land, what have you. There really is no ideology involved anymore. Now, the people who are having things taken from them will have idealogical reasons for fighting. But, the war itself is not caused by those. There are other elements involved. Now this doesn’t cover every little invasion or action. I mean what did Grenada have to do with economics. But, in the larger sense they fit together. USA is the big country in the world, needs to be respectable, needs to be able to tell small countries what to do, every now and then bullies a small country to try and keep the rest in line.
Hmm… Nobody seems to be willing to touch my MAD scenario. OK. How about Vietnam? Do you folks have any real evidence that economic interests got the US into Vietnam? IIRC, the major reason was the ‘Domino Theory’.
While I’m sure Bubba would have liked to shrimp the waters and others would have had similar thoughts, do any of you think the real cause was economic?
Well, you have the gist of the matter, but either your memory or your 8th grade history teacher is a bit off on the details.
The .45 entered service for the US Army in 1911, hence the military nomenclature M-1911A1.
The need for a higher caliber weapon was demonstrated during the Phillipine Insurrection, but that conlfict ended in 1902, long befor ethe .45 became standard issue.
The Phillipine tribesmen involved were the Moros (a catch all for several tribal groups). They used blades of various tpes but the bolo (barung) and the kris were particularly common/distinctive. The gurkhas are nepalese and their traditional knife is the khukri.
oldscratch] - Forgive me for getting out of my chair on this but how the FUCK do you equate South Africa under apartheid with democracy. How does that work – if 95% of the population don’t have any civil rights, including the right to vote, it’s OK because 5% do ?
And you want to stick by the idea that Russia was democratic in 1918 – keep taking the pills.
Putting forward a coherent argument is one thing: mind boggling ignorance and 5th grade history knowledge is another.
Well. Considering that after the Civil War most southern blacks couldn’t vote. It’s not that hard. Please refrain from insults. thanks. I never stated that South Africa was a democracy. I stated that it wasn’t slavery. Equating slavery with apartheid indicates mind boggling ignorance in my book. It’s like calling Pat Buchanan a nazi, he may be a right wing looney but, he’s no nazi.
Also if you noticed my post, I indicated that South Africa invaded after apartheid was over.
And yes, I’m sorry you don’t want to believe it, but Russia had a democraticly elected government in 1918. If you don’t want to read about the history of the time that’s your problem, but don’t inflict your ignorance on the rest of the board.
Well. Considering that after the Civil War most southern blacks couldn’t vote. It’s not that hard. Please refrain from insults. thanks. I never stated that South Africa was a democracy. I stated that it wasn’t slavery. Equating slavery with apartheid indicates mind boggling ignorance in my book. It’s like calling Pat Buchanan a nazi, he may be a right wing looney but, he’s no nazi.
Also if you noticed my post, I indicated that South Africa invaded after apartheid was over.
And yes, I’m sorry you don’t want to believe it, but Russia had a democraticly elected government in 1918. If you don’t want to read about the history of the time that’s your problem, but don’t inflict your ignorance on the rest of the board.
I hope you’re just remembering something wrong and your history teacher wasn’t so wrong. The Colt .45 was adopted as the standard sidearm for the Army before WWI started. The invasion of the Phillipine islands also occured before WWI.
Marc
oldscratch You said this about 20 posts ago in this thread:
**“You are wrong. Sorry. And if you take into accounts all the examples of democracies not actively fighting wars, but undermining democracies and replacing them with dictatorships, well then you’re really wrong. I’ll give a couple examples. The united states invasion of the phillipines. A democracy attacking another one. The invasion of Russia by th united states in 1918. The US invasion of Grenada. The falkland island war. Several examples in Africa, including South Africa’s invasion of lesotho.”
If you’re saying that Mandela “invaded” democratic Lesotho and can back that up – my belief being that it was a ‘supporting’ deal done with Lesotho’s non-democratic tribal leader/elder, Chief Buthaweizi (forgive the phonetic spelling) – then I’ll be happy to not inflict my ignorance on this board.
My understanding: The Russian ‘Government re-sat, after suspension, at the end of Feb 1917 and lasted approx 2 weeks before being dissolved. Power then sat with the ‘Provisional’ Government for less than a week before agreeing a power sharing with a socialist worker’s group who had also claimed to be the representative Government. The provisional Government of those few days was simply an Executive Committee – that is not democracy.
In March the two agreed a power sharing deal and things remained chaotic until October when Lenin and the Bolsheviks took full control. Neither of the two factions – the Exec Committee and the Socialist group was democratically representative.
France and Britain tried to prop up the Executive Committee/Cabinet by recognizing it as the Russia’s true representative but it really had no effective power in the short period (5 days, maybe) in which it lived.
Russia spent the period end February 1917 to October on the brink of a lot of things but at no time was it democratic. Lenin took control in October of that year. He was not noted for his love of elections.
Opps, sorry about the bold.
Oldscratch, maybe I was smoking crack during history class or something, but IIRC, former slaves and other black men were given the right to vote during Reconstruction, right after the Civil War. And a whole amendment guarenteed that right by 1870.
Unlike the Philippine Insurrection, I do know about Athenian democracy. Although the latest population estimates are speculative at best, the voting population of adult males, who were qualified to serve on the Boule, was a small fraction of the total population of the city-state. Women, slaves, and metioikoi (metics) comprised the vast majority of 4th century Athens. Yet no one has any objection to calling Athens a democracy. Hell, the Athenians were the first to use the word.
Although it seems foreign to us in this “enlightened” modern age, universal suffrage or even universal civil rights are not prerequisites of democracy.
And by the way, 8th grade was awhile ago for me. 
My teacher, whom we called Smokin’ Joe (on account of the giant Civil War cannon installed has on his front lawn), knew quite a bit about US military history. My memory is not so infallible.
Regards,
MR
I will forgive you for the faulty memory, but I will hold a grudge for your beating me to the punch with the Athenian example of democracy. If majority access is a requirement for democratic rule (leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that we are really talking about representative republics) then the United States didn’t qualify until 1920.
I noticed you haven’t backed down form your insulting comment about democracy, even though several people have provided evidence showing you in the wrong.
**
Well two things. I was slightly mistaken. But, not as wrong as you are. It’s really not that hard to get information on the web, you should try it sometime. Lesotho is a, according to our government, parliamentary constitutional monarchy. There is no Chief Buthaweizi, you are probably thinking of Mangosuthu Buthelezi the home afairs minister of South Africa. He ordered the invasion at the request of the ruling party of Lesotho but, against the wishes of the majority of people and the elected monarch. There had been a recent election with errors found in it. People believed the ruling party had rigged it and were rioting. Even the military was against them. SA invaded the country.
You are more or less right up until October. However you are ignoring the Congress of Soviets. It was democraticly elected. The bolsheviks, by October, held a majority, but by no means were they the only party. This was the government that was recognized by the majority of the russian population. A democraticly elected government. This was the government that signed the treaty of brest-livostk, and the government that was attacked by democracies.
“To all intents and purposes, the former British protectorate of Basutoland, which has a population of two million people, is a South African colony. Its main export is male labour for South African mines and the giant nation which encloses it has a history of interference in its affairs.
But yesterday’s intervention, which appears not to have been sanctioned by King Letsie III, is likely to swing popular opinion against South Africa. Until now, the Basotho have accepted South Africa’s influence and economic support but have been determined to remain independent so as to keep their monarchy.
Mr Buthelezi quoted to the South African parliament two letters from Lesotho’s prime minister, Phakalitha Mosisili. ‘In essence, we have a coup on our hands. We are a government and a city under siege,’ said one letter, reflecting the Lesotho military’s support for the opposition.
The intervention - the first on foreign territory by the South African armed forces since the end of apartheid - is the latest drama in a post-independence history that has seen a king deposed and two military coups.”
(Newspaper archive)
Having read this I’m not sure exactly what is the international status of Lesotho – it could be argued it was and is independent, it is a protectorate of South Africa, it is South Africa. Who know’s. But I was wrong on the constitution. It is a tribal Kindom thing, the King is head of State – but they do have a parliamentary system. Wadda ya know !
If we assume it is an independent State and refer back to the your original point i.e. that Lesotho is an example of a democratic country being invaded by another democratic country, then I don’t see how you can continue to claim it as an example. The invasion/intervention was to resist a coup and to ensure democracy (B}prevailed**.
Not sure if you mean the First or Second Congress of Soviets but as my response applies to both, albeit in slightly different shades, it probably doesn’t matter.
The only ‘elections’ in Russia were of one committee by another committee. There were more committee’s than you, or I, could shake a stick at but the only nation-wide, people voting election’s came much later when only one party was allowed to stand. There were never free democratic elections involving the population. The committee’s were just voting for the composition of other committee’s.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm#soviet-government
As a final point, we are going to extreme length’s to prove or disprove my general proposition. In the past 200 years there have been literally thousands of wars. If Lesotho is your best shot - 600 South African troops (one Battalion) sent in to prevent a coup - I don’t believe the proposition is undermined.
Interesting. I followed my own advice about searching and entered the very simple string “war between democracies” into google. What I found was most interesting.
So you know what London Calling, you can have the point. Two democracies have not attacked each other. However, that doesn’t really prove any point. Democracies have frequently gone out of their way to supress independence movements that would become democracies or to undermine democracies and replace them with dictatorships. And there is one exception to this rule. Democracies did invade Russia. You may quibble that it was not a democracy, but, contrary to your unfounded allegations there were elections. People were elected to the Soviet. They were not elected from commities but from smaller soviets. What were soviets? They were groups made up of workers, or peasants, or soldiers. And they did have seperate political parties with very different aims. And by November a majority were Bolsheviks, and they did elect Lenin to be the head of government.
For more information I suggest you read EH Carr, a right wing catholic, yet mostly impartial observer of the revolution.
A Right Wing Catholic – Holy Smoke, I’ll be queuing outside the bookstore at dawn beating off the Harry Potter hoards. Having said that, I’m interesed to know more about this because I’m not aware of any popular elections in Russia at that time so I will look further.
OK, so in an orderly withdrawl you accept the general proposition. I accept that undermining potential democracies has happened but I made the point originally to support the view that the most proven way to avoid war in the post French Revolution world is the dynamic of:
Free markets > greater disposable income/content stock market > happy electorate > re-elected President or Party (Democracies only go to war when the stability of trade is threatened).
Spiritus Mundi
I was hesitant to bring this up in the first place. I was involved in a truly idiotic discussion on humanities.classics about democracy. Some lunatic was taking the same line: without universal suffrage (prisoners included), there is no democracy. I thought I could convince her that Athens, and by extension the US, are democracies by quoting almost every Greek thinker around from Aeschines to Aristotle. It didn’t do a damned thing.
MR
**
You do that. my positions on Russia are pretty well known. You can read any of the ask a commie or commie threads to read up.
And just in case you haven’t. No, I did not support Stalin. I believe that by around 1930 Russia was undemocratic. In the begining however, they most definetely had a popular uprising.
**
Well, I accept that democracies haven’t gone to war with each other. Now, here is where it get’s interesting. Why/
My general proposition is that it is too hard to justify attacking another democracy. If the US could have gotten away with it they would have had no qualms about invading Chile for example.
Would a case arise where two democracies would declare war? Yes.
Is it likely to happen? No.
What is likely to happen? Well, war is caused by crises, it’s often a last resort. What else happens in crises? revolts, fascism, socialism, things of that nature. What we are likely to see as competition reaches a breaking point is the rise of a fascist government in said country. It happened in Germany, Spain, Chile, it could happen here. That government as a last resort woould of course set about expanding. That would trigger war. Of course we could aslo have two democracies going to war too. Pakistan while not now a democrac has had a few occasions of it, in those occasions they have been just as war like with India. And India would probably be just as bad if Pakistan converted to democracy.
And what we see is increasing competition over shrinking rescources. If that doesn’t threaten trade, I don’t know what does.