FuzzyAffro Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Right, so are the Pro-EU guys the "No" side? What do you mean? We don't know the question yet so its hard to answer that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 That's actually related to something called Democratic Peace Theory. Basically that not two democracies have ever gone to war with each other. Its true, there are some arguable cases but that's basically a fact. Kashmir, 1999? Edit: Pakistan is a hybrid regime according to the Democracy Index, so you could call that either way actually. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Kashmir, 1999? Edit: Pakistan is a hybrid regime according to the Democracy Index, so you could call that either way actually. Interesting. Honestly its true, I didn't believe it when my tutor first mentioned it and spent ages trying to think of one. Its never happened, WWII was close but by the time war was declared Germany wasn't a democracy. So the idea is, as people don't vote to go to war evidently, democracy should be spread and that will help prevent war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Right, so are the Pro-EU guys the "No" side? The wording is up to Cameron, as it was up to Salmond. Accordingly, there's no way in Hell that it'll be worded as to give the racists a positive slogan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowmore Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 If you're going to use the WW2 argument as justification for the EU's existence. You have to understand that back then using the military or funding proxy groups to do your dirty work abroad was widely considered an acceptable means for achieving national goals. Sadly, Britain and America still think this is an acceptable way to behave. At the same time, they're propping up bad governments that happen to have favourable policies towards them via "foreign aid". There is a reason why foreign aid is usually falls under military spending. Despite all we hear on 24 hour news, the world is becoming a safer place. It's just that conflicts round the world are better covered than the used to be. You aren't going to see armies mobilizing in Europe again, because it's much harder for a war mongering politician to convince you to fight someone in a neighboring country. Especially when there is likely many people you know and relate to. Societal attitudes and level of education are what lead to certain leaders getting into power. If people think children should be beaten for their insolence, then don't be surprised when you get a knuckle dragging authoritarian in power. I'm not using an argument as you describe but a statement of fact that it is the basis of the EU! Whatever your political direction, don't take for granted the comfort that everything will be OK! Look at the Ukraines decision to give up nuclear weapons and the situation with Russia. Look at the anger/seethe on here. Never underestimate the human capacity for anger. From reading the above I would imagine that you are a smashing young lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowmore Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Oh and Fuzzy Bystander is trying to spin you again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny van Axeldongen Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 From reading the above I would imagine that you are a smashing young lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowmore Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 ...So the idea is, as people don't vote to go to war evidently, democracy should be spread and that will help prevent war. That would be true if that were true. It's not the people who go to war it's the f**king politicians in their various parliaments. Democratic or otherwise. Did you or I get tae decide whether we should go to war with Iraq or Afghanistan or bomb the ISIS in Syria? It's the warmongering British MP's in Parliament that decided those things. How else can they justify the money that is spent on so called Defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Obviously people don't actually get a plebiscite on each decision to go to war, but more genrally democratically elected governments are much more reluctant to go to war, especially with other democratically elected governments. And in the UK we don't do war anymore, we do 'interventions'. Usually cloaked as humanitarian, but almost always for resources directly or indirectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Obviously people don't actually get a plebiscite on each decision to go to war, but more genrally democratically elected governments are much more reluctant to go to war, especially with other democratically elected governments. And in the UK we don't do war anymore, we do 'interventions'. Usually cloaked as humanitarian, but almost always for resources directly or indirectly. I've always found it odd how they called the Iraq war exactly that, but the other middle east interventions were never called war, including Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I don't think the government refer to Iraq as a war, a 'liberation' due to humanitarian intervention or something more likely. Though they did face the military forces (what was left of them) of a nation-state, whereas in Afghanistan they didn't. Maybe that's the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Obviously people don't actually get a plebiscite on each decision to go to war, but more genrally democratically elected governments are much more reluctant to go to war, especially with other democratically elected governments. And in the UK we don't do war anymore, we do 'interventions'. Usually cloaked as humanitarian, but almost always for resources directly or indirectly. Fair doos but ye ken whit I mean. Ever since day one the English MPs have grossly outnumbered the Scottish MPs By the way I dinnae blame them, it's just a question of numbers. But it is only their votes which matter and that's what annoys me. I strongly object to the system where Scotland's voice is ignored in International terms and that is another reason why I want Scottish Independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowmore Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Call it what you like but the rational for invading Iraq was underpinned by economics - as are all wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Aye, and I totally agree. Union was a trap for Scotland, from which we could never escape and would always be irrelevant. That's why I still can't get over the no vote or forgive no voters, that was the only chance we've had in 300 years to break free. So people parroting moronic bullshit reasons for their no vote almost make my head explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Call it what you like but the rational for invading Iraq was underpinned by economics - as are all wars. They are also caused by belligerent English MPs. Remember the Falklands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The Falklands is about economics too. Oil, same as Iraq. The economic benefits of Iraq for the UK have been zero though, and the cost astronomical. UK companies have benefited but not the UK public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Aye, and I totally agree. Union was a trap for Scotland, from which we could never escape and would always be irrelevant. That's why I still can't get over the no vote or forgive no voters, that was the only chance we've had in 300 years to break free. So people parroting moronic bullshit reasons for their no vote almost make my head explode. That is my point entirely. The No voters are content tae let English MPs decide Scotlands past, present and future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyAffro Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Exactly. What gets me is Scotland has never been a nation-state in the modern world, post industrial-revolution we have always been a part of the UK. I'd love to see how we would do in the modern world, and would wager we'd do bloody well. We've done everything else well, I think we'd be a smashing little country and no voters are holding us back through ignorance and British nationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.