The closest U.S. ally not in NATO

[Sbane]

democracies don't fight one another, bro

I saw something about this once... The Golden Arches Theory of International Relations, or something like that? That two nations which both have Mcdonalds Restaurants trading there have never declared war on each other?

then I guess we don't have to worry about a future Indo-Pakistani war given that both countries acquired McDonald's joints in the 1990s

THEY'VE ALSO FOUGHT EACH OTHER WHEN THEY WERE DEMOCRACIES

The Mcdonalds theory of international relations makes much more sense to me. This is of course what is meant when it is said two democracies don't fight each other, as Americans love to conflate democracy with capitalism. As for India v Pak, many claim it was MNC pressure on the Indian government that led them to pursue a more peaceful response to the 2002 parliament attacks.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

btw, is Argentina really an "ally?" I can't imagine most Americans rooted for them in 1982.

Of course not, but are most Americans ever going to root for any other country over Canada or the UK?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A professor at a prestigious university claimed to me that Pakistan wasn't really a democracy. Then again, neither is Russia. Neither is Georgia, since apparently there were accusations of fraud in its 2008 elections...

Invalidates the McDonalds thing, not democratic thing.

The first war with Israel could classify as war between democracies, since Syria actually had a democratically elected government in 1948 (toppled in a military coup not too long after that though.) One could make a case for the NATO countries against Serbia in 1999 too.

[Brittain33]

invalidated by Russia-Georgia, 2008

It was invalidated when the first U.S. bombs fell on Belgrade about 10 years ago.

[Brittain33]

The U.S. got much out of its alliance with Israel the last few years according to Bush Administration policies, when our government encouraged the invasion of Lebanon and the isolation/crushing of Hamas and even discouraged Israel from ending the war in Lebanon earlier. Israel was content to be Bush's right hand in the Middle East and to be the army that the U.S. couldn't personally field against Hezbollah. Also, the bombing of the nuclear project in Syria served U.S. interests.

By and large, though, this reflects Israel's usefulness as an ally to neo-conservative foreign policy and not consistently across all U.S. interests.

[Boris]

Also, England bombed Finland during WW2 and they were both democracies

This is probably the most straight forward exception to the theory. I wouldn't count Pakistan in the 1990s as a liberal democracy (nor did the civilian government really have all that much control over the military). But the UK wouldn't have declared war on Finland if Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union (and if the Soviet Union had not invaded Finland in 1939) and iirc did not directly engage Finnish units (they bombed Nazi positions in Finland before the formal declaration of war). It was basically an act to show solidarity with Soviet Union against Nazi Germany, not an actual attempt to engage and destroy Finnish military units.

If we go with Freedom Houses's designation of "free," "partially free," and "not free," I don't think there has ever been a scenario where two or more "free" countries have gone to war with one another, but that's only post-1973

[Psychic Octopus]

Australia, Japan, Israel.

Japan is the most important one, somewhat like a "Great Britain of the East" however.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Israel is the closest US ally, in or out of NATO

[Lunar]

Also, England bombed Finland during WW2 and they were both democracies

This is probably the most straight forward exception to the theory. I wouldn't count Pakistan in the 1990s as a liberal democracy (nor did the civilian government really have all that much control over the military). But the UK wouldn't have declared war on Finland if Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union (and if the Soviet Union had not invaded Finland in 1939) and iirc did not directly engage Finnish units (they bombed Nazi positions in Finland before the formal declaration of war). It was basically an act to show solidarity with Soviet Union against Nazi Germany, not an actual attempt to engage and destroy Finnish military units.

If we go with Freedom Houses's designation of "free," "partially free," and "not free," I don't think there has ever been a scenario where two or more "free" countries have gone to war with one another, but that's only post-1973

Indeed, the whole definition of what is or what is not a democracy has radically changed in the last half-decade.  I mean, would a country like the US be considered a democracy before MLK?  Like, systematically removing the voting rights of minorities?  That's be despotic in the 21st century.  And of course everyones a hatah on the Middle-Eastern countries that deny women basic rights but the US was the pioneer in that until 90 years ago.

I lead with my  best foot forward   There are a number of other examples but UK-Finland is the best.  Of course, exceptions don't disprove theories.

I think the most legitimate part of the Democratic Peace Theory is that a free press really makes it difficult to go to war with another country with a free press.  Because, if one country's government were to lie or bluff, basically threaten to go to war when it wasn't intending to, then that government would be voted out of power.  Err, I believe that misinformation is a critical component to war nowadays.  Well, in a nutshell.

[Zarn]

btw, is Argentina really an "ally?" I can't imagine most Americans rooted for them in 1982.

Of course not, but are most Americans ever going to root for any other country over Canada or the UK?

An invasion of France (Can you hear the revolutionary rhetoric resurfacing/ another NATO country) or Ireland (very strong bloodlines in the US) would do the trick. I have several reasons on why, outside of the UK being the aggressor. I don't think Americans would tolerate the UK invading a lot of countries, actually.

[The Mikado]

Yes, there is a debate about what counts as a democracy and what does not around the issue.  For example, most countries that deny women or minorities the right to vote wouldn't be counted as democracies today, yet the US de facto took away the voting rights of blacks until 1960 and women until 19...18ish.

Also, England bombed Finland during WW2 and they were both democracies

With a loose definition of "democracy," you could even cite the American Civil War (the USA vs. the CSA) as a war between democracies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

btw, is Argentina really an "ally?" I can't imagine most Americans rooted for them in 1982.

Of course not, but are most Americans ever going to root for any other country over Canada or the UK?

An invasion of France (Can you hear the revolutionary rhetoric resurfacing/ another NATO country) or Ireland (very strong bloodlines in the US) would do the trick. I have several reasons on why, outside of the UK being the aggressor. I don't think Americans would tolerate the UK invading a lot of countries, actually.

Ridiculous examples with no chance of happening though. Besides, the UK did not invade Argentina.

[Stranger in a strange land]

speaking of which, I'm kind of puzzled as to how Argentina got MNNA status in the first place. I mean don't get me wrong, it's a great country, but they really don't do anything for us.

[Edu]

speaking of which, I'm kind of puzzled as to how Argentina got MNNA status in the first place. I mean don't get me wrong, it's a great country, but they really don't do anything for us.

Argentina became a MNNA in 1998 when President Carlos Menem who was a very close Ally of the US (some would say he was a lackey) was in office. He was a close friend of George H W Bush and sent some troops to the gulf war and several peacekeeping international missions. He also pegged the value of the Peso to the dollar and i'm sure the 2 countries had a very good bilateral economic relationship.

Probably Argentina got that status as something symbolic as it was one of the closest (some would say the closest) ally of the US in Latin America. Plus the US probably needed a strong ally to watch over the triple frontier (Though we are not doing a very good job at that lol)

At least this is what i can think of

[Mr. Morden]

Taiwan should have been included in this list.  Of course, it depends on what you mean by "closest ally".  Is it which country values the US most / would do the most for it, which country the US values most / would do the most for, which country happens to have its interests most closely aligned with that of the US, or something else?

[Stranger in a strange land]

Taiwan should have been included in this list.  Of course, it depends on what you mean by "closest ally".  Is it which country values the US most / would do the most for it, which country the US values most / would do the most for, which country happens to have its interests most closely aligned with that of the US, or something else?

The list is countries that have Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status, which Taiwan doesn't, mainly because the U.S. no longer *officially* recognizes it, and naming it an MNNA would unnecessarily piss off the Chinese.

And Taiwan really isn't as close an ally as Australia, Japan, Singapore, New Zealand, the Philippines, or South Korea.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd say actually the McDonald's thing was invalided with the invasion of Panama in 1989, so 10 years before the NATO bombing of Serbia actually.

[Zarn]

btw, is Argentina really an "ally?" I can't imagine most Americans rooted for them in 1982.

Of course not, but are most Americans ever going to root for any other country over Canada or the UK?

An invasion of France (Can you hear the revolutionary rhetoric resurfacing/ another NATO country) or Ireland (very strong bloodlines in the US) would do the trick. I have several reasons on why, outside of the UK being the aggressor. I don't think Americans would tolerate the UK invading a lot of countries, actually.

Ridiculous examples with no chance of happening though. Besides, the UK did not invade Argentina.

When did I ever say any of that?

[Platypus]

Considering that Australia is the US's closest ally worldwide...

No other country has a military relationship as close, long-standing or mutually repected with the US than Australia, it's that simple. Australia's closest ally is probably the UK, the UK's is the US.

Basically, the anglosphere is exceptionally unified. Australia, the US and the UK form the core, with the UK-US link being the most important, if not quite the closest. Canada and less so New Zealand are also aligned, but not so important.

[dead0man]

Yeah, but Japan is more valuable to us than the Aussies are I think.  I agree our relationship is longer and has the better chance to survive in the long haul with Australia, but Japan has a couple of things going for it that our brothers down under don't:
A.Excellent location next to one of our more dangerous potential enemies (and not likely to be lost in the opening days like S.Korea)
B.A very mature, domestic technology base.

Plus, where the Aussies are a slightly "off"* mirror of the US culturally, Japan is a REALLY funked up mirror of the US culturally.  Their culture is just more interesting...but that's a minor point compared to the above two.




*I mean nothing bad by that.  I love that you guys are so much like us.  Much more so than the UK.  In some ways you're even more like us than Canada...but not many.




Ya know what, I change my mind.  You're probably right.  I was thinking "most important" nation outside of NATO, but that's not the question.  It's who is "closest" to us outside of NATO and that probably is Australia.