Dear King Hazza,

The article that I wrote makes the point that democracies and/or popular governments can export soldiers since they are not needed to control the population. The same is true for Switzerland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries

“During the Late Middle Ages, mercenary forces grew in importance in Europe, as veterans from the Hundred Years War and other conflicts came to see soldiering as a profession rather than a temporary activity, and commanders sought long-term professionals rather than temporary feudal levies to fight their wars. Swiss mercenaries (Reisläufer) were valued throughout Late Medieval Europe for the power of their determined mass attack in deep columns with the pike and halberd. Hiring them was made even more attractive because entire ready-made Swiss mercenary contingents could be obtained by simply contracting with their local governments, the various Swiss cantons—the cantons had a form of militia system in which the soldiers were bound to serve and were trained and equipped to do so. It should be noted, however, that the Swiss also hired themselves out individually or in small bands.”

‘Peaceful’ Sweden makes money from other nations’ conflicts.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Equipment/Artillery/354-155mm-Bofors-Fh-77b.html

“The Indian Army initially planned to acquire 1500 FH-77B howitzers, from Bofors of Sweden, but due to the infamous 'Bofors Scandal' only 410 guns were purchased in 1987. Due to the lack of spares, an estimated 100+ guns were cannibalized and deemed not operational. A deal was signed with Austria's Maschinenfabrik Liezen (MFL) in July 1998 to supply much-needed Bofors spares to the Indian Army.”

Dear Seano,

Thanks. However, I was thinking of unions of democracies. ASEAN doesn’t fit the bill.

Dear Jon J.

"Democratic governments sometimes go to war. Therefore democratic government is a bad thing." is not a good summary.

From the article: “Popular democratic governments are good places to live for most citizens of such entities.”

Fair enough David- good logic, but it's not really a necessary property of democracies, or a disadvantage of dictatorships.
The premise for dictators and elected leaders with an exclusive say in war policy to focus their entire fighting force onto foreign conflicts and not worry about suppressing the public is rather similar. Outside threats provide a similar motivator for dissenting publics to not want to risk an insurrection of some sort out of fear that they may provide an opportunity for the other power to invade, and grudgingly go along with whatever they want. It's only for countries when all of the enemy powers are actually outright more palatable than the regime in charge.

But the premise IS different for Direct-Democracies in which the public has the sole right to allow a war declaration to pass. Most people aren't so eager to participate in a war if they actually had the paper in front of them unless- they thought they would somehow benefit- and most members of the public tend not to, and know it.
The probability of the dangerous rivals often weighs against public consent- as at the moment they are not attacking at the moment- saying yes to a war means they definitely will. As the public is most likely going to bear the consequences, even the most selfish would think twice.

If the EU were to form a federal army, it would indeed improve the chances of not exporting conflicts- although the possibility of similar incentives for individual countries to join foreign conflicts (like the War on Terror) may easily pass onto the persons in charge of the new Continental Army instead of the nations.

On war, I have the least expertise out of anyone, but I watched Gulf I on CNN for a week or so, and it seemed like a fair call at the time. The bad guys invaded Kuwait and the good guys helped out to save them. Problem solved. Happy planet.

Gulf II didn't seem to have the same justification. Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys that time? IMHO the roles may have been reversed.

Apart from one nation invading the territory of another (and perhaps the Preah Vihear border disputes between Thailand and Cambodia were barely excusable if not political stuntwork from what the papers said) what possible reason is there for any one country to need to start a war nowdays?

Whatever North Korea is getting upto in the lab might be scary stuff to imagine the possible consequences from outside, but who has the right to tell them that they can't have what the others have? How Tibet and Taiwan and China get along might be decided by whether the Tibetans and Taiwanese democratically decide to opt in or out. I'm oversimplifying these things because I don't know my stuff; but on the whole, defence is a good thing for security but attack is the opposite. That's a bad thing.

If everyone just settles down and lets foreign nations do their own thing within their own borders as however they decide by whatever government of the day, with the main international objective of just maintaining the extant borders and no more intervention than that, then when else but in the event of one nation wrongly invading another would justify war? Aren't we meant to be the good guys?

On that note, I must get some rest so excuse me if I cannot apologise for my idealistic ranting until tomorrow. Goodnight.

Athenian so somewhat related: The Old Oligarch. It chills me. Why do we always re-visit history? I read old people are the protectors of Democracy. Perhaps having so much immigration in places like the US, UK and Australia dilutes the living memory of what democracy really is and a form of oligarchy is what we really have as a result.

Quote.
"Now, as concerning the Polity of the Athenians, and the type or manner of constitution which they have chosen, I praise it not, in so far as the very choice involves the welfare of the baser folk as opposed to that of the better class. I repeat, I withhold my praise so far; but, given the fact that this is the type agreed upon, I propose to show that they set about its preservation in the right way; and that those other transactions in connection with it, which are looked upon as blunders by the rest of the Hellenic world, are the reverse.

What it comes to, therefore, is that a state founded upon such institutions will not be the best state; but, given a democracy, these are the right means to procure its preservation. The People, it must be borne in mind, does not demand that the city should be well governed and itself a slave. It desires to be free and to be master. As to bad legislation it does not concern itself about that. In fact, what you believe to be bad legislation is the very source of the People's strength and freedom. But if you seek for good legislation, in the first place you will see the cleverest members of the community laying down the laws for the rest. And in the next place, the better class will curb and chastise the lower orders; the better class will deliberate in behalf of the state, and not suffer crack-brained fellows to sit in council, or to speak or vote in Parliament. No doubt; but under the weight of such blessings the People will in a very short time be reduced to slavery."

Democracy is the worst kind of dictatorship !

We don't have true democracy.The USA at the moment is anything but a democracy.Patriot act, Bush's presidential orders, habius corpus etc.The USA is verging on being a totalitarian state.So don't try to blame democracy.