quote: Oh, btw, I'm a Muslim, and a Realist.

Actually since I consider my self a realist I don't understand how can you argue that democratic nations do not fight? All examples are limited to the last 40 years or so, and all the situations are very unclear because of WWII and the cold war. But I do agree that democracies do tend to aviod wars. at least wars that don't have wide public support.

quote: the first time this theory was stated, it was by Immanuel Kant.

I'm not sure. According to Kant there is a distinction between the "real world of phenomenas" and the world according to the pure intelligence. He was talking about guiding rules that should apply to all intelligent beings since it's the appropriate thing to do. I think he was trying to describe how should we act. In my opinion he understood these rules can never exist in reality since they describe a sort of utopia. I also despise willson's rules, but I don't think Kant mean them to be applied. I think he wanted them to be discussed and people like you and me to talk about them.

Anyway, we could chat about it later, in a couple of months, because I am studying Kant and his rules of ethics, and since I presume you are more educated about him than I am, I would like to finish studying before I enter a discussion.

quote: during all of the Isreali-Arab wars was any of the arab nations ever a democracy? the only ones that might have and egypt...so was lebanon or egypt a democracy when they fought with isreal?

Egypt never was, and still isn't a democracy. I don't know for sure, but I tend to think Lebanon was a democracy for some time. Israel, was a democracy with a military regime and had very extreme left wing tendancies until mid 70s because most new comers and founders came from the communist block of USSR and it's neighbors. And also because many arab countries such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt declared war several times. In fact the Israeli declaration of independance was in the middle of an arab-israel crisis which then got worse and became a war.

quote: And, after all, Israel can't really be called a democracy if it doesn't give rights to Arabs in Israel, now can it?

All new democracies suffered from lack of justice. How about how americans treated african americans? and is now the discrimination totally gone? of course not.

Was Israel a democracy?
Democracy:
1)fair, regular, multiparty elections
the elections at the 50 especially weren't all fair because the left wing parties had obvious advantages and although there was an opposition with one of the most right wing people was Menahem Begin (who later was the first prime minister to sign peace with an arab nation).

2)voting francise for substantial amount of the population
All citizens were given the right to vote. Arabs in the 50s weren't considered citizens

3)vote for executive or have strong parliament
There were always elections for the parliament and the leader of state was the leader of the party that had a majority in the parliament.
4)peaceful transfer of power
Because of the constant state of war there were several governments that resigned and situations were tence, but legal elections followed and never was the power taken by force (unlike Iraq or Iran).
5)stability and longevity (at least 3 years).
As I said the political system was subject to shaking because of the war situation. If a govt. failed to perform there were new elections. When did this happened in syria or egypt?

now arabs vote and have their representatives in the parliament. This wasn't reasonable before. In the 50s or 60s to ask Israel to have arabs voting in the elections would be rediculous. Like asking the USA to let communists to vote. And if I'm not wrong, communists were put on trial and persued by the american government.

In conlusion, this long post was not written to hurt any person, nation or religion. I just wanted to show the events from my personal point of view. I do not claim to represent no person, religion or state.

quote: Imran, If you were a realist you would not be espousing democratic peace theory. Evidently you don't understand what realism is.

Well, I support the Balance of Power theory and I'm a Power Transitionist. I believe in anarchy in the international realm. However, I've done enough reading to realize that the Democratic Peace is real. Excuse me for not following blindly the premises of realism.

Israel gave voting rights to Arab since it's creation, in 48. It's in the "Megilat ha'azmaot" ( Bill of independce ) for god sake!
Only the arabs in the captured region of the six days war ( 67' ) still don't have independnce, but a few got resident status.

No country Israel thought was a TRUE democracy. Egypt "dictatorical republic" isn't really a democracy any more then Syria. Some arab countries are a TRUE democracy ( rights to all citizens, including women ), like Iran, Kuwait, Katar and Yaman.

Megilat Ha'azmaut also promises a "huka" to be written no later than one year or so after the declaration. We still don't have one. Not even a draft.

I hope you meant to say Iran was a democracy. It's not exactly so these days.

I'm not saying you're wrong. We just have different points of view. Although I'm left wing, I'm not a pacifist but more of realist with some national points of view.

Basically, I think your proposition for incorporating both democratic peace and hegemonic powers is a good one. I only would like to add that I feel, that in order to be the hegemonic power you don't have to own the UN, as the USSR was quite hegemonic and the UN is after all owned by USA. UN will show who the hegemonic power is, since the UN leader will usually be the hegemonic power.
Influence and international power should be decided according to:

A. Military power 50% (including alliances und stuff. or maybe it should be different things? what do you think people?)

B. Economical power 40% (amount of trade, resources, amount of stacked money etc.)

C. Science 10% (usually leading sciences are also leading in mil. power, so science is here to differenciate between top mil. powers.)

btw Harel, if you'd like we could chat about these things over ICQ. I have many friends who I often talk with about these subjects and I constantly argue with my history and social studies teacher.
Also, we may play civ 3 over the modem when it'll come out.

I am very aware we don't follow everything our bill of independnce ordered, but Arabs DID get voting power in 48', so that's that.

And yes, a more realistic view to political power is in order.

Considering that I go to an Ivy League University and am triple majoring, I think its safe to say my rational thought capabilities are quite intact thank you very much.

Separating Christianity from state politics is not off topic in the least to answer your other objection. In fact, to those who have been convinced by the scriptural evidence that the God of the New Testament and Old Testament scriptures is real, it is impossible to divorce Him from the affairs of the nations. Therefore, your point on my posts being offtopic when it comes to the question of simulating civilization is entirely unsupported. The greatest statesmen in history have often had Christianity foremost on their mind when making decisions. Examples of this can be found in everyone from Bismarck (a devout Lutheran) to our founding fathers in their designing of state and federal constitutions.

Finally, I really wish you wouldn't feel sorry for me, because I am quite fortunate to have the mercy of God in Christ, something which no one deserves. I do however feel sorry for you, understanding that outside of Christ you have no hope for salvation. I will sincerely pray that God through Christ would have mercy on you and save you. God bless you!

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark on 03-20-2000 01:56 PM Someone told me about this thread - had to see it to believe it. I am not capable of discussing political theories, so I only have one reply to CivNation: Humble yourself in the Name of our Lord and present yourself as a servant to others, as our Lord did.

Steve,

Humbling yourself in the Name of the Lord means preaching His gospel with truth and sincerity. It does not mean defending the heathens, which your post appears to have done. Rather than humbling yourself before the LORD, you have helped His enemies shake their fists in His face. If you're going to post, please defend Christ and not the heathen who wish to remove Christianity from society: you are only helping them. I understand you may sincerely believe, but you must learn what true love is. True love is not keeping your mouth shut and defending the heathen when they assail Christ's rule among the nations. True love is serving God first by defending His gospel, and then serving your enemies; knowing that God will destroy His.

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark on 03-20-2000 01:56 PM Someone told me about this thread - had to see it to believe it. I am not capable of discussing political theories, so I only have one reply to CivNation: Humble yourself in the Name of our Lord and present yourself as a servant to others, as our Lord did.

It never ceases to amaze me. The present state of our apostate church has produced whimp Christians, people that the Puritans put to shame. Steve, I am NOT calling you a whimp Christian, but I do believe you have been taken in by the pluralist attitude of the present society. It is not the Spirit of Christ that motivates a defense of the heathen, but a spirit that is contrary to Him. Steve, if you really love Christ, you will defend His claims right now in this chatboard. If you do not love Christ, you will continue making shot comments at fellow brothers who are defending Him, while keeping your mouth shut at all other times. That is not how Christianity progresses. Christianity progresses when people hear the Word and believe it. True love is love to God and His service first, then service to others. You serve others by preaching the gospel. Please take this to heart. The children of God are not the servants of the heathen, they are the servants of their fellow bretheren. Christ did not come to serve the heathen, Christ came to serve the elect. Yes we are to be kind to our enemies despite all persecution, trusting God that His providence will give the saints victory. God will utterly destroy the wicked.

quote: Christ did not come to serve the heathen, Christ came to serve the elect. Yes we are to be kind to our enemies despite all persecution, trusting God that His providence will give the saints victory. God will utterly destroy the wicked.

CivNation

i always thought Christ came to redeem man from his sins, and that we are all sinners except for the grace of god, which anyone can call on if they only have faith

at least that what i thought christianity was all about

Yes that is absolutely correct. You just have to add one more factor, its that Christ did not come to save all sinners. If you're new to the faith you probably are not very familiar with it, but there is something known as predestination. Ephesians 1 and Romans 9, as well as many many other places, make this truth very clear. Christ came only to save His sheep, He did not come to save all people, nor does God will to save all people. God will have mercy on whomever He wishes. God has not chosen to give everyone a chance at mercy. God DOES wish to save EVERY LAST ONE of all of the elect, and He WILL do so because His call is irresistable.

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark on 03-20-2000 03:02 PM In my very short post, I only said to humble yourself. Nothing more, nothing less. You can present your arguments humbly, in the sprit of love. Afterall, you are addressing other human beings and the only approach is that of love for that person, not necessarily of what they believe. That is the attitude of a servant. I apologize for prolonging this OT conversation.

Steve,

Maybe what I'm asking for is something more, putting it in your own words. Why are you apologizing for continuing to talk about the King of the Universe as well as of this chatboard- Jesus Christ? Don't apologize for your faith Steve, present it! God richly bless you brother.

quote: Someone told me about this thread - had to see it to believe it.

Substitute forums for thread and you have Apolyton .

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark on 03-20-2000 04:27 PM sigh... [This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited March 20, 2000).]

Steve, don't be upset. Trust and obey. Preach the gospel unfailingly. Disagreements about government theory does not mean I despise the people I'm talking to, whether Imran or others. Relax brother relax. Gods speed.

quote: Originally posted by CivNation on 03-20-2000 12:08 PM The insinuation that Christianity and rational thought do not coincide is nothing more than antichristian propoganda from people who claim neutrality in the religious sphere. Of course any true christian knows that those who are not for Christ are against Him. Considering that I go to an Ivy League University and am triple majoring, I think its safe to say my rational thought capabilities are quite intact thank you very much.

quote: Christ does not want us, and never wanted us, to cowtow to unbelievers. Christ wants us to treat them with love and respect, as we should any neighbor. That is done by preaching the gospel first and foremost. It is NOT done by lying to the heathen and telling them that their point of view is just as good as the Christian point of view, and it also is not done by keeping Christianity out of conversation and making it only a "private" affair.

Please, please preach the gospel in your next "triple majoring" paper at your "Ivy League University" (pride=1/7 deadly sin)

BTW, the title of this thread is "United Nations and the Democratic Peace?? Inaccurate Modeling". One of you, the one who blindly regurgitates the pap your professors feed you, wrote that. I was talking to God last night and even he agrees that your last week's worth of spam is OT to the thread.

And a note to CivNation: I believe in freedom of speech and the freedom to express one's opinions but your posts regarding christianity sound to much like a preach. I think that in this amount it becomes OT. It has little to do with Civ3 and more to do with personal belief. I think this subject can be signed by saying that each person should carefully choose his beliefs and be proud of them (though not too much, as wiser people mentioned it is a sin which is heavily punished by christ, and especially his dad. )

Is the story behind Railroad Tycoon an accurate version of the railroad history or is F16Falcon an accurate description of the relations we had with Sovjet in the -70/80's?

Who cares? I just play, am I all that weird?

Also, if a true democracy is where everybody vote directly for a prez, than I can be proud that Israel is a democracy.

It's true though that in earlier times a democracy would vote for every decision. it kinda sucks. no one would work. everybody will just vote themselves to death.

am I being too gloomy?

The academic debate (as opposed to the invective) has been very interesting. I just two questions for you. The Economist recently did an article on democratic peace theory that questioned if the theory was not overdone somewhat. The two counter-examples they gave were the Boer War (UK - Boer Republics) and the U.S. civil war. Why do these not cast some doubt upon the theory?

If there are vicious ethnic or religious rivalries democracy is no gurantee for peace because public opinion itself will be baying for blood at least for a while. For instance I find it quite plausible that if the Arab countries had popularly elected governments the resulting regimes (which would likely be Islamist)would be more not less bellicose towards Israel.

Answering some questions:

Boer War involved a British democracy, but I don't think there is any way that the Boers could be called a Democracy!

The Civil War - The South was NOT a democracy. Let's see, they only were in existance for 4 years (so there was no peaceful transfer of power), and the only elections they had was the first one.

India/Pakistan. In 1971, Zia-ul-Haq ruled Pakistan, a dictator. And a war a couple years ago? I don't think so... maybe a minor conflict.

Arab nations would urge more negotiation than war if they were democracies. See the example of Egypt.

Anyway Zia came later in the decade. The president at the time of the 1971 war was Yahya Khan who was a military man. However the 71 war was caused by the results of the election a few months before where the Awami League won big in East Pakistan and wanted autonomy in all matters except foreign policy. After the war Bhutto who had won the election in West Pakistan became the leader. Anyway regardless of whether Pakistan was technically a democracy or not it was an election which caused the crisis.

The 99 affair could be considered a minor war ; it's a matter of definition. Anyway what stopped it from becoming a major war wasn't any kind of democratic restraint but the reality of a possible nuclear confrontation and the diplomatic intervention of the US neither of which had anything to do with the two countries having democratically elected governments.

Did MtG like to this to show CivNation's horriblness?

"but I
think you forget that by that time Musharrif already seized power."
No Musharraf came a few months later. Nawaz Sharif was Prime Minister at the time.

I am not sure the total no. of battle deaths was 1000 but it was probably close if you count both sides. Even without a major war if the fighting had continued at the same level of intensity for a few more weeks the total would easily have gone over 1000.