h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Is democracy worth killing for ? Only if you're one of the people in power, or part of their elite group."

I disagree. Witness the composition the armies of the major democracies. Are the majority of soliders the "people in power, or part of their elite group?" These are the people who are, in fact, willing to kill for democracy.

Does that mean that despots don't have armies ?

no, it means what it says. The armies of "democracies" are composed not of the ""people in power, or part of their elite group".

The people in the army have inherently signed up to kill for democracy.

How many soldiers have that ideological motivation when they sign up? I'd imagine relatively few. Their concerns are probably much more down to Earth things like adventure, pay or getting to college (in the USA).

Exactly. Soldiers generally sign up for the reasons Bomba said, or perhaps to defend their country against attackers.

Can you honestly say that all, or even a significant number of, those Americans who signed up for the army wanted to go to Iraq?

Well soldiers have signed up for a variety of reasons in the past.

I met some people intent on going to Iraq as part of the armed forces because of the threat that the Iraqis posed to "our" way of life, and our life and limb. They were oing to war for a lie, but they beleived it was for the sake of our democracy. What a great thing to go to war for - a system that alows you to kill and risk your own life for a lie.

In the UK the two most recent reasons or people volunteering to kill was for the soverignty and to an extent the democracy of the UK. Odd then that at those times democracy was not as widely spread as it is now in the UK itself. a great meany of the people who killed and died for democracy never had a chance to take part in it.

Soldiers sign up for a variety of reasons Im not going to pretend that some of them those who signed up werent more noble and brave than I will ever be, but I think its foolish to presume that all soldiers sign-up for noble and selfless reasons.

I didn't they signed up so that they *could* kill for democracy. I said that they're signing up means they are *willing* to kill for democracy. Big difference.

They may be killing as part of a set of instructions received by a democratically elected government, but they might just as easily be killing for money, for a dictatorship, or because they enjoy it.

I think I would suggest that the majority of soldiers do not sign up to kill for democracy.

The ones intelligent enough to sign up to protect democracy would expect to never have to use their skills in anger.

Does anyone believe the killing in Iraq is for democracy ? I suppose it could be argued that killing done by peace-keeping forces is in the name of protecting democracy, but I think they are killing to obtain peace.

However the question was is it worth killing for - not does anyone do it. My answer remains that the only reason a concept would be worth killing for it would be if you were someone who had something to lose.

>Is democracy worth dying for ? No. Democracy is a form of leadership sold to the people as allowing them to decide their destiny. In reality they abdicate their right to freedom in return for letting someone else make their decisions.

Are you seriously trying to say that it's all relative - democracy is the same as a dictatorship?

>Is democracy worth killing for ? Only if you're one of the people in power, or part of their elite group

So all the French, British etc troops who fought in World War 2 for democracy (including German democracy), they were all part in power were they? What about the Spanish militias in the 1930s? Were they part of "their elite group"?

What hogwash, even by internet standards.

McKay, do you have a reading disorder?

Are you seriously trying to say that it's all relative - democracy is the same as a dictatorship?

Absolutely correct - well done.

McKay, do you have a reading disorder?

I do - I find myself oblidged to read things, rather than assume them.

Is democracy worth killing for ? Only if you're one of the people in power, or part of their elite group

So all the French, British etc troops who fought in World War 2 for democracy (including German democracy), they were all part in power were they? What about the Spanish militias in the 1930s? Were they part of "their elite group"?

What hogwash, even by internet standards.

If that was what I said it would indeed be so - all those troops you mention, plus the ones in Iraq today were deluded by the governments of their countries into giving their lives for the continuance or furtherance of the power of their leaders.

They thought they were dying for their country, for their God, for truth and freedom.

In reality they were settling the iniquities of the settlement of the first world war.

"They thought they were dying for their country, for their God, for truth and freedom.

In reality they were settling the iniquities of the settlement of the first world war."

You really need to read-up on some things. Nazi Germany was not the German Empire of the Kaisers (although the far-right had taken political control of the German Empire towards the end of WWI - see unrestricted submarine warfare and the Total War philosophy for evidence), it was not merely "another" country and it was clearly an ideology worth fighting and one that was a danger to democracy in Europe. World War II was about much more than the "iniquities of the first world war".

As soon as any nation goes to war it has to cease to be a democracy since the majority of people are not in favour of being shot at for any reason whatsoever.

Unfortunately many people see the correlation between democracy and peace and prosperity as meaning that democracy brings peace and prosperity. In fact it is the other way around: peace and prosperity allow democracy to exist. Therefore forcing democracy on a nation will not bring it peace and prosperity but allowing a nation to have peace and prosperity will lead to democracy.

World War II was about much more than the "iniquities of the first world war".

You really need to read what is written - I said it was about the iniquities of the settlement of the first world war.

The Treaty of Versailles insisted on penalties against the German Nation that practically guaranteed future conflict, in particular French demands for control of the Rhinelands and the seperation of Austria were really reflection of political desires and nothing to do with the settlement of any reparations.

The causes of the rise of Nazism in Germany *were* about the iniquities of Versailles (which the Americans warned Britain and France about, incidentally, not that we listened...) but World War II itself was about stopping an extremely-powerful Nazified Germany from turning Western Europe into a far-right fiefdom and Eastern Europe into a graveyard. France and Britain's collective-punishment of Germany sowed some of the seeds of Nazism (although the world economic crisis of the late 1920s was also a major, major contributing factor crippling post-war prosperity) but World War II was not about this in any way.

"...but allowing a nation to have peace and prosperity will lead to democracy."

Classic "End of History" mythologising. Have you looked at all the democracy peace and prosperity has brought China recently?

"The causes of the rise of Nazism in Germany *were* about the iniquities of Versailles but World War II itself was about stopping an extremely-powerful Nazified Germany from turning Western Europe into a far-right fiefdom and Eastern Europe into a graveyard."

So we're agreed that defence of democracy was not what WWII was about ?