This is in response to sunrise posted 19 September, 2005 06:06 PM.
But we do have a statistic on how many non-liberal democracy countries attacked liberal democracy countries in 2003, none. (according to the list Mr "Democratic Peace" guy uses)
If we are to use dyads in this analysis, then the results for Iraq War are (2004 at PWHC)
Free vs. Not free=25
Partly Free vs. Not free=7
Not free vs. not free=1 (Kazakhstan)
Picking one year out does not prove or disprove a theory but it does shed some light that for liberal democracies to go to war it is usually not a unilateral action.
I was thinking to myself that I was disappointed that there was not more wars to use in our examples, but then again if Democratic Peace is correct then as the number of democracies increased then the number of wars will decrease.
The Israel-Palestine question has a strong meme in you. But the question of course surrounds as to who attacked who first. My contention is that the non-democratic regimes around Israel attacked first and lost ground in the wars. Thusly any conflict is now a civil war at best and not included in my discussions.
The percentage chance that given a liberal democracy attacks a random country (provocation?) being a non-liberal democracy is 54.7% (105/192) as of 2003. Each time we have this event occur we get the same chances, but what is the likelihood that over 10 years the free country does not attack another free country? The result is 3.6%, ooops .036%. Just as if we flip a coin 10 times then what is the likelihood that we end up with all tails? Conversely what is the chances that we would get at least one free country fighting another free country is 99.964%.
We can include Iraq in as many times as you want. We can take the Iraq-Kuwait leading to the one missed of Coalition vs. Iraq and there is the 1998 included in the chart of:
1998 2003 IV 1 Iraq International violence (US/UK airstrikes)
and Coalition vs. Iraq.
It still does not include any liberal democracy against another.
Also there's a conflict listed in 1990 between Armenia and Azerbaijan, yet there's no listing in Freedom House for Armenia in 1990 as if it didnt exist.
Both partial free with a rating of 5 in 1991. Since to evaluate a country you would need some time frame to look at. Dr. Rommel does discuss that ( web page :
RJR: You have to be careful of the time stamp on these ratings. That for Chile in 1973 was issued in January-February of that year. Now, if you take into account the delay caused by data collection for all nations, and the preparation and publication of the charts involved, I guess that the rating actually referred to about June or July 1972.
Let us go through your list now.
Sorry but the liberal democracy (Israel) was attacked by two not free regimes and not the other way around ( Yom Kippur War).
Iran has never been a free country and has only been rated partial free with 5.5 at best.
When of course, in reality is more a case of a Britain and Portugal conflict.
I guess I missed how many Britains and Potuguese soldiers died in that war. Plus the fact since deaths are listed as na invalidates it as a war. And not one mention in Wikipedia for either country as to the war.
I believe that 1975 is after 1973 when the US left Viet Nam.
Lastly let us run down the wars in our survey:
(F=Free,PF=Partial Free,NF=Not Free) CSPMajor Episodes of Political Violence
Egypt&Syria vs. Israel=NF vs. F
Iraq vs. Kuwait =NF vs. NF
Armenia vs. Azerbaijan=PF vs. PF
Iran vs. Iraq 78 =NF vs. NF
VietNam vs. Cambodia75=NF vs. NF
US et al vs Iraq 91 =F vs. NF
US et al vs Iraq 03 =F vs. NF
US/Uk vs Iraq 98 =F vs. NF
Mozambique vs Zimbabwe=NF vs. NF na standing
Zambia vs Zimbabwe =PF vs. NF
Cambodia vs Thailand =NF vs. NF
Lebanon vs. Israel =PF vs. F
Tanzania vs. Uganda =NF vs. NF
VietNam vs. Cambodia78=NF vs. NF
China vs. Vietnam 83=NF vs. NF
Iran vs. Iraq 88 =NF vs. NF
Israel vs. Syria =F vs. NF
Argentina vs. UK =NF vs. F
Israel vs. Lebanon =F vs. PF
China vs. Vietnam85=NF vs. NF
China vs. Vietnam87=NF vs. NF
Ecuador vs. Peru =F vs. PF
Eritrea vs. Ethiopia =PF vs. PF
India vs. Pakistan =F vs. PF
Afghanistan vs. USA =NF vs. F
Thus my study shows:
F vs. F =0
F vs. PF =4
PF vs. PF=1
PF vs. NF=1
F vs. NF =7
NF vs. NF=11 (1 na was included).
While it does show some tensions between Free Countries and Not Free Countries the highest tensions are between NF and NF countries. Not free countries only make up 25% (48/192 as of 2003) of all nations. This random selection process should result in only 6.25% of all wars between NF and NF. We also can see that 18 out of 23 wars included as least one NF nation. Thusly the rarest of the possible outcome has created the most occurances.
But after my granola bar, I now think I will have a nice hot cup of coffee. Then again maybe Ren will make me explain this. :)
For the sake of Kate I will try to read the tea leaves that sunrise has thrown down.
And yes I have been studying all this weekend. Unlike others, I have to work hard at understanding the world as it is.
sunrise: Yes, so is "Djibouti", but its not one of the 46 that Mr "Democratic Peace" guy uses? [else where is the count of 15 F v NF?]
So I guess I will waste my time chasing every imaginary conflict that sunrise has thought up in his life. Again in this one for was a conflict from 91-94 with the FRUD causing a rebellion with about 1000 deaths. Djibouti also received independence in 1977. web page
I remember now, Ron, you're the guy who rejected the notion that Americas freedom bombs had killed many Iraqis, or something. All those cluster bombs and Napalm killings were accidents or necessary for freedom etc. Bet you're a believer in 'Progressive Genocide' too. Give War a chance, eh Ron.
Again you have not explained what you mean. Since you are putting words in my mouth then what freedom bombs are you referring to (Clinton, Bush)? How many cluster bombs do you think have been used compared to suicide car bombs? Since you are the intellect here, why not explain what is the "Progressive Genocide" that you talk about?
Why not give freedom a chance for citizens around the world? Of course I am looking forward to eating your freedom fries in Zimbabwe.
And like i said, no McDonalds.
Your discussion of McDonalds number of franchises has no bearing unless we have access to the exact list of countries that McDonalds counts. As far as Kasmir not having a McDonalds, the theory holds that a country no matter where they place their McDonalds is then considered a McCountry and when any McCountry fights another McCountry this then violates the theory of McDonald's Peace Formula. Again changing the theory to fit the facts. No?
Eh? You want to address the idea of war not conflicts, by talking about Mr "Democratic Peace" guys theory that uses a list titled "Major Episodes of Political Violence" using the category "International violence" and not the "War" category, how weird.
There is not a category for "War". Just trying to use semantics.
Ok, i take your point that just looking at the three paired categories (ignoring the other six) in 2003 the most likely is F v F not NF v NF or PF v PF. But as we are concerned with only F and the non F, grouping the NF and PF together, as Mr "Democratic Peace" guy splits the democracies into groups and selects only one. Then the most likley is a non F v non F, i'm sure you'll admit. As we know, some of those "electoral domocracies" are listed as PF. And as pointed out earlier, there's also a non-democratic listed as PF, and a "electoral democracy" listed as F. Making a mockery of the whole thing.
No the most likely with the three categories or two is F vs. F (88 free countries) not NF vs. NF (44 countries). Again trying to use semantics to confuse the issues. At least you could mention what country and year that you see any inconsistancy with links to where you see this information. No???
There are nine options. F attacking F or PF or NF. PF attacking PF or F or NF. NF attacking NF or F or PF.
Rounding may not result in 100%.
We do not use explicit combinations thus F vs. NF is the same as NF vs. F. But I still placed in 9 squares for you.
Also, there are not anywhere near 46 examples to choose from at all, many were counted more than once (one counted 7 times!) where an ongoing dispute hasnt been resolved.
Why not tell us the examples you counted and which one was counted 7 times?
Some of the conflicts were started when there were a lot less "liberal deomocracies" around. Even during the last 32 years mentioned, there were times where it was 25%. How many "liberal democracies" were around when the conflicts started. You see, all that is going to affect the calculation of probability.
Go ahead, you have the facts and the brains so tell me what is the probability?
At a quick glance there are only 24 seperate " cases of international violence". Many of them starting at a time when there was less than 25% "liberal democracies" around. Not to mention that some conflicts are the result of border disputes over borders imposed on NFs by Fs. [India Pakistan, Pakistan Afghanistan being examples, Colonial Africa etc.]
Go ahead and tell us the 24 seperate cases. I like the fact that every war of course has its roots in the faults of the US. You sure have some nice rose coloured glasses! You should actually look at the moves of Ghandi during independence, especially with respect to mass migration.
So its not 1 in 6 at all, thats rubbish.
Its looking like a 1 in 25 chance or less.
Well statistics do not go with hunches or looks, so tell us wise one.
You see, if years ago there were only 20% "liberal deomcracies" (being generous perhaps) that's a 1 in 5 chance of picking an F bean out a bag of 150. Then pick another bean out the bag, and this time it will be less because you already have the 1 F bean in your hand, and if the F beans do their usual ganging up thing, then you'll need to grab a handfull of F beans further reducing the chances of picking another F to fight against. So, anyway, thats another 1 in 5 or less, added together thats 1 in 25 chance, or less, isnt it?
So tell us when there was 20% liberal democracies.