Thread Tools
Old March 4, 2000, 00:04   #1
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
United Nations and the Democratic Peace?? Inaccurate Modeling
I was reading through the suggestions list in the "Diplomacy" part of that list, and I noticed that much of the Diplomacy suggestions were inspired by the Wilsonian conception of the democratic peace enforced by a "League of Nations" or "United Nations". Although there is good late historical merit to these ideas, the understanding of democratic peace and the exaltation of democracy as a peaceful institution is simply not verified by long-term empirical evidence. Competing theories like Hegemonic Stability as well as the classical realism bandwagoning theory also account for the late term of peace among the democratic nations (nations allying with the United States and bandwagoning to the hegemonic power). Therefore I would urge the designers and the people on this forum to rethink such an avid promotion of the United Nations within the game. Instead of there being a United Nations only, I would find it more historically viable (more long term historical support) to reject the late liberal understanding and instead have the most powerful nation, ie the hegemon, be given added diplomatic abilities. This would include abitrating disputes between nations, policing nations, imperalizing and colonizating nations, and imposing specialized sanctions on nations. This ability to have additional diplomatic power and options would be given to the most powerful or two most powerful of the civilizations in the game and could change throughout history. It would not rest on who is democratic, but simply on who is the hegemonic power and thereby commands the most respect in the world system at this time. This is MUCH MORE supported by the evidence.
CivNation is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 03:01   #2
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Do you know how difficult that would be to program? Add new dip choices for the hegemon?

And the Democratic Peace is the closest thing to a fact in IR. Maybe Wilsonian ideas are flawed (and flawed they are), but Classic Realism isn't always correct as well. In fact all theories have some flaws. Perhaps the closest to reality is Power Transition, but that would be increadibly hard to model in the game. It would be impossible to see if the rising nation was satisfied in its position, etc.

However, the Democratic Peace is fact. Democracies simply don't fight each other! There is a good case of this in the Falkland Islands War. When both side had a democracy, they tried to talk it out, however, when a dictatorship took over Argentina, that is when the hostile words began.
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 07:00   #3
colossus
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 141
IMO the UN can be easily modelled to include the 'most powerful' nation appropriately.

Those civs that have the largest military should have a greater say in world politics.
Just as in real world, your say is backed by your muscle. Maybe the top 5 most militarily powerful civ should have double power in the UN.
colossus is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 14:47   #4
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
Imran,

The fact is that you are simply wrong. The democratic peace is no where near fact. There are numerous examples prior to the 20th Century where democracies went to war against each other. In fact the "dp theororists" are very vague with their definitions, defining democracy and war very narrowly in their definitions.
In fact, many would argue that this "democratic peace" is nothing more than hegemonic stability theory. The evidence simply is not there, and to call it fact Imran is very presumptuous and unscholarly.
[This message has been edited by CivNation (edited March 04, 2000).]
CivNation is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 17:38   #5
pauli
Prince
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: herndon, va, usa
Posts: 436
this debate is quite interesting...

colossus: why just the most powerful military states? base it on civ score! after all, that's how the computer traditionally decides who to hate

------------------
it's just my opinion. can you dig it?
[This message has been edited by pauli (edited March 05, 2000).]
pauli is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 19:00   #6
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
quote:

Originally posted by CivNation on 03-04-2000 01:47 PM
Imran,

The fact is that you are simply wrong. The democratic peace is no where near fact. There are numerous examples prior to the 20th Century where democracies went to war against each other. In fact the "dp theororists" are very vague with their definitions, defining democracy and war very narrowly in their definitions.
In fact, many would argue that this "democratic peace" is nothing more than hegemonic stability theory. The evidence simply is not there, and to call it fact Imran is very presumptuous and unscholarly.
[This message has been edited by CivNation (edited March 04, 2000).]


Really? Presumptuous and unscholarly? Well let's see. I hope this little exercise might teach you something and perhaps some manners.

quote:

In fact the "dp theororists" are very vague with their definitions, defining democracy and war very narrowly in their definitions.


Vague and narrow? Well, I wonder how that can be? It has to be one no?

Let's see these definitions.

War: 1000 battle deaths

Democracy:
1)fair, regular, multiparty elections
2)voting francise for substantial amount of the population
3)vote for executive or have strong parliament
4)peaceful transfer of power
5)stability and longevity (at least 3 years).

Under these definition, which I think are very fair, there are few democracies before the 20th Century. I can only think of Athens, US, and Britain (after 1850). So the exeptions that are stated (War of 1812, US Civil War) don't fit the criteria. In The War of 1812, the King has too much power for the UK to be considered a democracy, and in the US Civil War, was there even an election?

quote:

There are numerous examples prior to the 20th Century where democracies went to war against each other.


Interesting seeing above. The number of democracies before 1900 was VERY few. Perhaps you have examples?

quote:

In fact, many would argue that this "democratic peace" is nothing more than hegemonic stability theory.


Well, I've never heard this. Back in ancient Rome, barbarians (the Goths, etc.) fought many times with the hegemon. Spain in the 1500s had many wars in Europe, same with Britain. In fact, most of the time before WW1, Balance of Power was the accepted international goal, which is totally at odds with hegemonic stability. Whenever anyone got too strong, the others joined against it, so how could the Hegemonic Stability Theory account for this?

I don't see Russia and China paying much attention to the so-called hegemonic stability theory! In fact, I think it is overstated and that Power Transition is much more apt.

The fact is that most political scientists believe in Democratic Peace. In the 70s, A political scientist named Babst showed that democracies haven't fought from 1789-1941.

I do have more facts, but I've run out of time it seems. I hope that you can give me some examples and be less rude when you have little backing you up.


Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 20:03   #7
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
Imran,

Once again your entire post is presumptuous and unscholarly. You seem like the kind of person who basically used Russett's SINGLE book about the democratic peace, including his definition of conflict and democracy, and made it into an historical fact. Whether you like to hear it or not it is VERY presumptuous. Russett is essentially the only individual that I know of who has produced an entire book on this subject, and boy you ate it up like a little disciple without examining the full weight of the evidence? Do you think I'm some kind of ignoramous who doesn't know where you received your information? Did you even care to think that your definition of war and democracy is so ABSOLUTELY NARROW that no scholar outside of Russett has been able to take his claims seriously? Lets see wars must be over 1000 men, do you know how many conflicts between democracies this excludes?
As for a modern day example to refute your hypothesis, all we have to do is look at Norway in WWII as the last clearcut example that refutes the ridiculous thesis.
Your definition of democracy only characterizes nations from the past 30 years and LESS, even only since the end of the Cold War! HARDLY TIME to start making these kinds of exhorbitant theories that the VERY SPECIFIC type of democracy you mentioned will always make peace. How much more narrow does your definition of democracy have to become for your theory to work even within the past 50 years? How many scholars refute your thesis? Lets see...
McDougall... pulitzer prize winning historian and scholar at the University of Pennsylvania
Trachtenburg... another big name who refutes the theory with soundness in many of his works

If you have never heard of Hegemonic Stability theory as a sound, much more supported theory than the few proponents of the democratic peace theory... I suggest you start reading political science a bit more. There are many many scholars who have argued that hegemons like Britain and America, when they have taken the global stage, provided for greatly enhanced free trade as well as an era of societal peace. Your mention of the Roman Empire not promoting peace among the barbarians has nothing pertinent to offer as a rebuttal, because the fact is at that point the Roman Empire was a declining Hegemon, precisely the time when things become unstable... just like WWI was to Britain and eventually the end of its great imperalist regime.

As you can see, you need to take all sides into consideration. Stop reading just Russett and his tiny book, and start looking at it from all sides. Russett at least is humble enough to concede that if you are to support the theory there is still much research to be done, and A LOT of process tracing to uncover potential defects in your proposed independent variable.
CivNation is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 21:15   #8
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
well how about this

the top two nations in term of civ score are considered the backbone of power blocks...and all of the other civs will try to either sign a treaty with one or the other or try to stay neutral, these two superpowers both get a wider range of diplomatic options

korn469
korn469 is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 21:33   #9
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Listen, you little ****. I've tried being civil, but I see that doesn't work work with you.

I've Never read Russell, in fact I don't know who the Hell he is. Way to go for being presumptous! Actually, I'd say just about all of the faculty of my university (Rutgers, one of the best Political Science schools in the nation) believe in the democratic peace. In fact one of the faculty, Jack Levy came up with the famously quoted, "Democratic Peace is the closest thing to an empirical law in International Relations".

Just because you've started to learn IR and have read this Russell guy and your teacher disagrees with him doesn't mean that YOU ARE IN THE MAJORITY! Most poly scientists are FOR the Democratic Peace. I recommend you go to a International Relations conference at some time.

And let's see.. Norway (under Nazi German rule) against democratic Britain.

quote:

There are many many scholars who have argued that hegemons like Britain and America, when they have taken the global stage, provided for greatly enhanced free trade as well as an era of societal peace.


So now free-trade leads to peace? Sorry, the Manchester Liberal have been proven wrong. More trade does not lead to peace! Example: France and Germany in 1914 were the other's greatest trading partner.

And, I do assure you that the Democratic Peace guys greatly outnumber the Hegemonic Stability guys these days. In fact, most Hegemonic Stabilty guys are now like Organsky and Power Transitionists.
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited March 04, 2000).]
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 21:40   #10
NoviceCEO
Warlord
 
NoviceCEO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Criciúma, SC, Brazil
Posts: 185
For what it seems, I haven't stutied as much as you guys, but I would like to add my comments.

Imram, I was agreeing with you, until you defined democracy.

Athens had numerous wars. But obviously, there wasn't any other democrat nation to fight with, as I can understand from your post.

We don't have many means to discuss this, as only in the last few years the number of "democratic" nations became relevant and the probability of having a war between democracies is greater. In this short period though, wasn't the WWII a good example? Wasn't Hitler elected by the people, had strong political support and longevity?

You named the example of the Falkland's. Why don't you mention the example of the Paraguaian War? It happened after the British democracy was consolidated, according to you. In that case, the British only used words to incite a war. If you haven't studied it yet, I strongly advice you to do so. But I don't think you'll be able to read (because no books contain that) the bottom lines. If so, please email me, I'll be glad.

Imram is also wrong when he says it would be difficult to program. You don't actually need new diplomatic options, but they would only make sense on powerful nations. For example, who gives a **** if Cuba declares economical santions over the US?

The idea is good and the discussion, so far, is high level.
NoviceCEO is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 22:30   #11
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
IMRAN,

Your language is UNCIVIL and INEXCUSABLE. The lack of quality in your conversation betrays your inability to process knowledge of quality. I go to the University of Pennsylvania and am a junior. Therefore the chances are you are probably younger than me. I'd watch who I'd call little. The University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy League University with some of the best professors in the nation. MOST of the professors at this University are realists who REJECT the democratic peace theory, as do most professors at the top Universities. I suggest, ONCE AGAIN, you think twice before you speak: both to the level of your knowledge, as well as to the quality of your civility.
CivNation is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 22:33   #12
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
HAHAHA,

Imran first of all you don't know a thing about the Manchester school of economics and how their theories have advanced since the early part of the century.

Secondly, Norway was NOT under Nazi rule but AS A DEMOCRACY declared war on the Western Powers.

Enough is enough Imran, educate yourself in Western Civilization PLEASE. Maybe the your eastern name has something to do with it, but your disgusting language coupled with lack of knowledge makes you quite unsavory indeed.
CivNation is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 22:35   #13
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
all i got to say is before anyone really gets worked up over this thread is this

quote:

In Civ, you are an immortal totalitarian communist dictator who oversees an empire that will last forever unless it is conquered

summary: civ is completely inaccurate...look for solutions that are fun, that is all that matters



korn469
korn469 is offline  
Old March 4, 2000, 23:57   #14
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Blah blah blah...

I'm a junior at Rutgers University, which probably (I'm sure) has a better political science department than UPenn does.

And Hell, I'm the not the one that said someone was presumptuous and unscholarly. I didn't say someone was SIMPLY WRONG. I have every right to curse and be less than civil with arrogant sons of *****es who think they are always right. I never assumed anything about the other person now did I? Who's uncivil now?

quote:

Wasn't Hitler elected by the people, had strong political support and longevity?


Ah, but Hitler banned all parties. So there weren't any fair, multiparty elections. Also there really wasn't any vote for the executive after Hitler took over. But it is a good point and I thank you for your reply.

And lets see... Norway joined the Nazis and almost immediatly began to be a tool of Hitler. They ceised to be a democracy after the Nazi's turned around the nation.

And what have I read? Rhodes, Morganthau, Allison, and these fellas have influenced be enough that I am a Realist in IR. However, I also know that no structural theory (ie. one that states that the international system is in a fixed structure) can be always true. However, I do think that Power Transition by Organsky holds weight as does Balance of Power (which rememeber was not to prevent war, but to protect soveriegnty).

quote:

Lets see wars must be over 1000 men, do you know how many conflicts between democracies this excludes?


So wars can be under 1000 people? HA! I guess the US has been in a Civil War for years! Imagine that!

NoviceCEO, I never heard about the Paraguayan War, but I shall look it up. All that I know is that Hegemonic Stability is shaky at best. The Hegemon is never that power to enforce its norms and wills. This has been validated by history.

I do think that it might be difficult to program. Maybe only given to the major nations, it could work; however, I don't know about picking among the major nations. However, I like your idea about only making sense on powerful nations.

Perhaps we can continue this on email? Or the OT, or perhaps even here?
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 5, 2000, 03:48   #15
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
I NEVER claimed that democratic peace theory was simply wrong. I said your claim that it is proven is simply wrong.

As for democratic peace theory... it requires a lot more years of analysis before it can be proven correct, as well as longer historical example. It is my conviction it will not stand up to the test.

Thats all there is to argue on this anymore.
CivNation is offline  
Old March 5, 2000, 20:48   #16
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
quote:

I NEVER claimed that democratic peace theory was simply wrong. I said your claim that it is proven is simply wrong.


quote:

The fact is that you are simply wrong. The democratic peace is no where near fact. There are numerous examples prior to the 20th Century where democracies went to war against each other.


Don't seem to match, eh?

Well, I received this in my email today (thanks to Co_Sinus):

quote:

*This e-mail was sent to CIVNet, but I thought maybe you could find
interest in it too*

Hello.

Pardon my English, since it’s not my native language.

I was just reading your post on Apolyton Net, where you stated the
following:
“Norway was NOT under Nazi rule but AS A DEMOCRACY declared war on the
Western Powers.”
Since this is somewhat different from my education (I’m Norwegian by the
way), I’d like to tell you what we learn in school.
8. April: Norway was a monarchy under king Haakon 7. The king had chosen a
Prime Minister (I dont remember his name), witch had support in Stortinget
(The Norwegian parliament). In this way you could say that Norway was
democratic.
9. April: Nazi-Germany attacks Norway. In the morning the nazi ship
“Blücher” is sunk. Onboard Blücher, there were Nazi special forces, who
should secure the royal family and the cabinet. However as the ship was
sunk. An emissary from the Nazi-Germany negotiates about surrender with the
foreign minister. He declines after a consultation with the rest of the
cabinet. The royal family, the cabinet and the parliament escapes to Elverum
by train. On the same morning (9. April) Vidkun Quisling declared himself
Prime Minister over the radio. Quisling was the ledader of NS (Nasjonal
Samling) a small fascistic party, who supported Nazi-Germany.
10. April: In Elverum there is new negotiations. One of the demands is that
the king should acknowledge Quisling as Prime Minister, but the king
declines. On Elverum, the parliament gave up its right to the cabinet*.
Later the king and the cabinet escapes to England (A Western Power).

*Some of the formalities was wrong, however all of the members in the
parliament agreed to this.

NOTE: History is not my best subject, so the details might be somewhat
inaccurate.

You could of course say that the illegal Prime Minister Quisling (With
support from about 25 000 people) ruled as democracy. You could say that
even through Norway was occupied by Nazi-Germany it was not under Nazi rule.
You might be right and almost every Norwegian
citizen wrong.

About the democratic peace vs hegemony thingy, I don't have clue.

Yours sincerely
Co_Sinus


That hopefully proves my point on Norway.

Next time, please choose your words with care. I don't like getting mad at people, but when I'm called unscholarly, etc. then I get a tad bit angry.
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 6, 2000, 02:47   #17
Dienstag
Warlord
 
Dienstag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Brea, CA, USA
Posts: 243
Wow, that was quite a read up to this point. I hope everybody's calmed down by now. Thanks to korn469 that it's just a game and meant to be fun.

I'll say right out that I'm a junior in college majoring in Physics (if anyone wants to start a physics fight, bring it on) so I don't pretend to know much in this field. When you guys are discussing theories like Democratic Peace, Hegemonic Stability, and Balance of Power, what's the point? Sorry for the apparent irreverence, but they can't all be right (and they could very easily all be wrong). Physics has a hard enough time agreeing that some theory is sufficiently sound to be called a Scientific Law, and that's after years of carefully controlled laboratory experiments. You guys are dealing with HISTORY, a bunch of recorded and relatively indisputable facts, and still have trouble coming up with a theory for how nations relate to each other. It seems to me that either arguing about it or waiting for more data isn't going to help (both have been done enough already), and if there _is_ a single, over-arching theory of international relations, then someone probably would have come up with it by now and it would be plainly obvious (due to lack of counter-example) that it was right.

So my suggestion is, come to an agreement on the things that are absolutely NOT possible, and let Civ III do whatever's left. The remaining possibilities could be weighted to reflect history, or we can go under the assumption that history was just a random sequence of stuff, or find a happy place somewhere in between.

Incidentally, I don't see how the Norway thing could be considered a war between democracies either, thanks mostly to the quote from Co_Sinus.

-Dienstag
Dienstag is offline  
Old March 6, 2000, 18:35   #18
NoviceCEO
Warlord
 
NoviceCEO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Criciúma, SC, Brazil
Posts: 185
Imran, in just a few minutes you'll receive my e-mail. I would only like to comment that, discussions (when well-paced) are healthy. I enjoy to read about these theories, even though I can't be good enough to understand them sometimes.

I do think that korn469 made a good point, but if the game can be more accurate, fine. If not, this is a public forum and discussions are healthy.
NoviceCEO is offline  
Old March 6, 2000, 19:01   #19
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Diesenstag, I thank you for your post. I hope things are calm as well . However, I do believe that it was WAY to easy to conquer the world, especially in a democracy (no way, no how!). So, I thought about the democratic peace. In fact, it was I that first put that in the list of ideas. So blame me . In International Relations democracies are no less willing to fight other nations, however, they almost never (if ever) fight against other democracies! I'd like to see this modeled. For if you have democracy (the best science government in the game), you shouldn't be taking over the world, which includes other democracies. You should be in peace, or else your population should get a little more mad when fighting against a democratic nation (if you fight against a dictator, the people are less angry about going against an authoritarian).

I hope that made sence .

And Novice, thanks for the email. I shall tell you what I find in this thread.
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 6, 2000, 19:05   #20
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Hey! I actually found something pretty quick!

quote:

Triple Alliance, War of the

1865–70, fought between Paraguay on one side and an alliance of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay on the other. Brazil's military reprisals for injuries to Brazilian subjects in Uruguay's civil war brought a declaration of war against Brazil from Francisco Solano López, Paraguayan dictator, who favored the Blanco regime in Uruguay. Imprudently, he also declared war on Argentina after Bartolomé Mitre refused to allow Paraguayan troops to cross Argentine territory. A secret alliance, made by Brazil and Argentina with Gen. Venancio Flores of the Colorado faction (traditional enemies of the Blancos), brought Uruguay into the war. The heroic defense of Paraguay against powerful invaders lasted five years until the final stand at Cerro Corá, where the entire populous rallied around López. By the end of the war Paraguay was devastated and a considerable part of its male population killed. The war was the brutal consequence of López's provocations as well as of the abusive aggressiveness of the larger powers. It nevertheless opened the way for a development of constitutional government in Paraguay.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright ©1993, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Inso Corporation. All rights reserved.



So, the Paraguayan leader was a dictator it seems. Man, I tell ya, I love the internet!


[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited March 06, 2000).]
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 6, 2000, 19:22   #21
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
Imran

you are completely right, in civ it is much too easy to conquer the world. the AI is completely inadequate in handling military operations, and in multiplayer conquest is even more important.

how exactly does the senate work in civ2? it has been years since i have played civ2 and i never really figured it out when i used to play it. i know how things work in SMAC but i am rusty on civ2...

korn469
korn469 is offline  
Old March 6, 2000, 21:54   #22
Sirotnikov
DiplomacyApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization III Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Sirotnikov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,138
Although it is true that democratic governments don't declare war on other governments, the hegemoning powers always try to impose their will on other nations. The US is used to issuing bannings of all sorts on countries that don't play along. How about banning Iraq or Libia? How about the Kosovo incident? I'm not saying it was wrong to do so, but US does that. Russia is now fighting in Chechnia to get rid of terrorists and the US doesn't like it. So they cancel financial aid to Russia. What is the excuse? Russia has every right to persue the terrorist parties that had planted bombs through out Russian cities. Didn't the US do the same after terrorist actions in it's own back yard? Shooting missiles at other countries?

It did. And what right exactly did the US had to try to take over cuba? and what is the reason? It was a threat to close to home.

So we see the hegemonic powers (in present: USA, UK, China and Russia is slowly losing it's status) do use their political power and army to force their terms. And i quote from a quote in a war guide for civ 2 called "fire" : war is an extension of diplomacy (or something like that).

But still remember our main goal is to discuss the game, no matter how interesting and inviting history and politics are (at least to some people including me). I have no intentions to hurt anyone and I understand that I might be wrong.
Sirotnikov is offline  
Old March 7, 2000, 14:26   #23
CivNation
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Anonymous
Posts: 349
Imran,

You are being highly irresponsible. You are imposing your views as fact on people who are ignorant of the specifics. Folks don't fall for it. Democratic peace theory is NO WHERE NEAR PROVEN, and whole universities are oppossed to the theory. Based upon paltry evidence over a 30 year time period, when many democracies are finally actually in the world (and even then the definition of democracy is vague) they go and spout off these ridiculous propositions that democracies NEVER fight each other. Its ludicrous and completely unproven. Before the 20th Century democracies, depending on how you define the term, fought each other often. Most scholars would see the current era of peace not the result of many democracies (heck only 15 years ago half the world was communist!) but of a hegemonic power known as the United States providing a single defense umbrella thereby fostering open economic and peaceful relations.

To put it succinctly- Imran is completely wrong when he says democratic peace theory is proven and that "democracies simply don't fight each other!" Imran please read all of the viewpoints and stop spouting off this kind of ignorance.
CivNation is offline  
Old March 7, 2000, 18:54   #24
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Uh uh huh... *waves hand in front of CivNation's face*

You have not said a SINGLE case of democracy fighting against democracy! Not ONE! Where is your proof? I have proof! Political scientists have proven it. Hell, in my political theory class, the teacher said "it is the closest thing to a law in international relations". And she's right! Be a naysayer if you wish. You are just obstructing the facts.

Every example you gave has been slammed back down into your face. The Democratic Peace is highly respect and as close to being a law as you'll find in ALL of the political science.

Furthurmore the number of democracies before the 20th century was minimal. The definition that I've provided seems EXACTLY like what a democracy! HELL, you'd call Serbia a democracy today, knowing you. Name me ONE example. You can't do it, because the Democratic Peace is correct no matter what your dogmatic professors will have you believe!
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited March 07, 2000).]
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 7, 2000, 22:17   #25
NoviceCEO
Warlord
 
NoviceCEO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Criciúma, SC, Brazil
Posts: 185
Sirotnikov:"Although it is true that democratic governments don't declare war on other governments, the hegemoning powers always try to impose their will on other nations."

That couldn't introduce me better to talk about the Paraguayan War. Imran, I'm surprised. Your encyclopedia did had a mention on this War and it did it ok, but forgot some very important aspects:

1-Paraguay had an impressive growth those days and it was just about to become a superpower. The percentage of people who couldn't read was smaller than Brazilian's current. Paraguay had became a country that didn't need external help, that had its own industry.

2-The "official" reason for the War was the tensions for the control over Rio del Plata ("Silver River", literally translating, it's a river that enabled Paraguay to have a "sea-contact", it is, through the river they could reach the sea.)

3-Brazil was a monarchy I believe and was the country that actually fought against Paraguay, Argentina and Paraguay had only a small part on it. After the war, Brazilian's economy was devastated.

4-We Brazilians get ashamed of our past everytime we hear about this War.

You're probably wondering "What the heck this got to do with democracy?". Well you said that UK was a democracy by those days.

The hidden part of this war is that UK was in full strength ahead in the Industrial Revolution. The British wanted to sell their new products. But read again topic 1. Paraguay wasn't buying anything and the British were getting worried with the growing power of them.

So they had to find a way to slow down Paraguayan's progress, and that way was Brazil. Financed by the British money who we used to buy British war equipment. With superior weapon's and British support, we found a reason to declare war on Paraguay and killed not only nearly all of the men in that country, but children, women and old people, with no mercy.

The result: of over 1million inhabitants, only about 200 hundred Paraguayans survived the war, mostly women and children. Brazil ruined its economy and received as a prize the task to pay back the money we had borrowed from England.

"Although it is true that democratic governments don't declare war on other governments, the hegemoning powers always try to impose their will on other nations. "
And so did England...
NoviceCEO is offline  
Old March 8, 2000, 06:35   #26
Dienstag
Warlord
 
Dienstag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Brea, CA, USA
Posts: 243
Regarding NoviceCEO's last post, can we all agree that even if democracies don't outright declare war, they do have a tendency to be very influential in the wars of others when they wish? This proxy-war idea seems like something Civ III should include that I haven't heard much about yet. And thanks for the insight, NoviceCEO.

CivNation-
I'm afraid I'm going to have to second Imran's appeal for proof that democracies have ever fought each other. The few examples I've seen seem to have been pretty well invalidated, so although I agree that any instance of such a war would immediately disprove the Democratic Peace theory, it seems only fair to say that this hasn't happened yet. Please provide an example, or at least conceed that the Democratic Peace theory is _not proven_.

CivNation and/or Imran Siddiqui-
As I said I'm a Physics student, and I'm guessing that Physics has somewhat different requirements for "proof" than does International Relations. Could either or both of you explain what you think it takes to "prove" a theory such as these? I only ask because I have trouble believing that no examples of a war between two democracies is proof that such a war can't and/or won't ever occur. If we can agree on what it takes to prove/disprove something, that might be a good start to settling what has become a rather heated and unreasonable debate.

-Dienstag
Dienstag is offline  
Old March 8, 2000, 12:21   #27
MadWoodster
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:31
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: A wierd and mad place called Southampton
Posts: 168
How about a multi nation alliance system.
This would be more realistic as if you ally yourself with one nation shouldn't you be allied to all their allies as well, this way you would have more realistic alliances such as the axis and allies in WW2. Also this would solve most of these problems as each alliance could pass non-nuclear treaties and the like.
MadWoodster is offline  
Old March 8, 2000, 15:19   #28
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
quote:

As I said I'm a Physics student, and I'm guessing that Physics has somewhat different requirements for "proof" than does International Relations. Could either or both of you explain what you think it takes to "prove" a theory such as these? I only ask because I have trouble believing that no examples of a war between two democracies is proof that such a war can't and/or won't ever occur. If we can agree on what it takes to prove/disprove something, that might be a good start to settling what has become a rather heated and unreasonable debate.


Ah, good point. You see, almost no theory in International Relations has been able to stand up to history's exceptions, except one, the Democratic Peace. In fact, there is a Democratic Peace Project that went/is going through all of history and found that there is absolutley no case of two democracies going to war. I think that is sufficent to prove a theory of International Relations.
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old March 8, 2000, 20:25   #29
pauli
Prince
 
Local Time: 20:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: herndon, va, usa
Posts: 436
"If you claim to know something on the basis of hearsay, or on happening to see it in a book, you'll be a laughingstock to those who really know."
- K'ang-Hsi (emperor of china, quote taken from book of the same name).

i just read that a minute ago, and i thought it was relevant enough to post. granted "those who really know" is a group that can't really exist in this case, unless there are some omniscient beings who play civ and are going to show up and correct me .

all these theories... how about if you take the discontent caused when a democracy goes to war, and multiply it by four if the other civ is a democracy, three if it's a republic, and two if it's a parliamentary monarchy? would that settle things enough?
pauli is offline  
Old March 9, 2000, 00:34   #30
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:31
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
Hi all,

While I am also a physics student I would like to have my say.

1. I think that Imran has succeded in proving that the DP theory has not been proven false.

2. I think that CN is right in that 30 years of democracy is not near enough time to declare DP fact, when comparing that with how long human civilization has lasted. Any previous years can be declared unusable since most countries were not democratic and so democratic nations not fighting each other would be statistical.

3. CN, your initial statements against Imran were too harsh. Imran your replies got to harsh.

4. I think democracies are government by the people. And if the people want war with a nation it will not matter if it is democratic or not. Most wars WW2 and previous were fought over resources, it has only been since then that the advanced nations have solved their resource shortfalls and wants by trade and not war. Thus wars fought by these nations since WW2 have been idealogical. Democracies have no idealogical reason to fight eachother. If there was a resource shortfall that could not be solved by trade or other methods we would start seeing a demand for war, even in democracies. Of course if there was a nonsolvable resource shortfall the democracies might fall into dictarorships anyways.

5. Question, were not some Indian tribes democracies?

Jon Miller
Jon Miller is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:31.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team