Michael W. Doyle in his write up argues about different things but one of the interesting things in his work is the one i wish to write on. Doyle has provided contrast of three theorists and thus argues whether liberal states can actually go on war, although its true that the liberal states are assumed to be much peaceful than the other dictatorial states but its not always true that they don't go to war. Kant also says that these states have many liberal reasons for aggression which he thought might cause wars. Apparently if we see the diplomatic conduct of these states, they seem to be solving issues via dialogue and peace but some states like "USA" doesn't always do that. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is a perfect example. USA without proving the presence of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq went destroying iraq which the world already know. To affirm this, there is a very interesting movie named as "Green Zone" that is released to explain the war ideals.
considering the basic pillars of " liberalism", right to property, freedom of speech and free market system, we can analyse that these factors are to the roots against the wars because the benefit of these to individuals of state can then be deprived in case a state goes to war. But this scenario has changed now a days. we see huge corporation having deep influences and interests in a particular state and with all these factors being put in a system, these businesses and lobbies are so strong that even system cant avoid wars. As Doyle discusses about "war machines", it is surprising that these machines were required to fight wars and to defend the state but right now they require wars for their survival. the example to illustrate this argument can the gun lobby in USA.
So it is evident that despite the proposition by liberals that democracies don't go on wars with other democracies, this idea does not always hold to be true.
~UZAIR MUJEEB
Just as with your previous post from this week, you did not proofread your work. Proofread and write in a formal manner please.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of your critique of the democratic peace theory, you have to remember that the theory argues that liberal democratic states don't fight each other. But it leaves room for these states to fight illiberal states, like the case of the U.S. against Iraq.
yes but i didn't understand proof read sir? i have a question sir. These states can even go to war with liberal states right provided that a suitable excuse is enough to get legitimacy over the attack?
ReplyDeleteBy proofread I mean recheck your work to make sure it doesn't have any typos and is grammatically correct.
DeleteIn terms of Kant's theory, no liberal states will not fight each other even if there is a suitable excuse.