T Nation

Global Peace Index Rankings

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Number of jailed population per 100,000 people 5[/quote]

Again, maybe a causal relationship with the good ranking for risk of violent crime?

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Respect for human rights 3[/quote]

This is one of those factors steeped in opinion.

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Importance of religion in national life 4[/quote]

Umm, who cares? As if this meant peace?

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
In these 3 factors the US are dead last in the western world, maybe thats something to work on.[/quote]

Yawn.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How is Canada more peaceful thna Jamaica? What war is Jamaica fighting now?

According to the (EDIT:) site the indicators are:
Measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict
Measures of societal safety and security
Measures of militarization

I don’t know, but I’ll venture to guess, that Canada beats Jamaica in the second group of indicators. Or actually, Canada loses because they measure ‘absence of peace’. [/quote]

No, it’s because Canada boarders the US and any country threatening the Canada would get a response from the US.

So a large portion of the Canadian “peace” is because they have a Pit Bull as a neighbor.

In a more “just” society people would probably risk jail more than in an “unjust” society because of a lack of fear of unjust punishment. In a more totalitarian state there are more crimes and therefore more potentials to find oneself incarcerated.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How is Canada more peaceful thna Jamaica? What war is Jamaica fighting now?

According to the (EDIT:) site the indicators are:
Measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict
Measures of societal safety and security
Measures of militarization

I don’t know, but I’ll venture to guess, that Canada beats Jamaica in the second group of indicators. Or actually, Canada loses because they measure ‘absence of peace’.

No, it’s because Canada boarders the US and any country threatening the Canada would get a response from the US.

So a large portion of the Canadian “peace” is because they have a Pit Bull as a neighbor.
[/quote]

Why doesn’t that apply to Mexico?

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How is Canada more peaceful thna Jamaica? What war is Jamaica fighting now?

According to the (EDIT:) site the indicators are:
Measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict
Measures of societal safety and security
Measures of militarization

I don’t know, but I’ll venture to guess, that Canada beats Jamaica in the second group of indicators. Or actually, Canada loses because they measure ‘absence of peace’.

No, it’s because Canada boarders the US and any country threatening the Canada would get a response from the US.

So a large portion of the Canadian “peace” is because they have a Pit Bull as a neighbor.

Why doesn’t that apply to Mexico?[/quote]
We dont like mexico.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How is Canada more peaceful thna Jamaica? What war is Jamaica fighting now?

According to the (EDIT:) site the indicators are:
Measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict
Measures of societal safety and security
Measures of militarization

I don’t know, but I’ll venture to guess, that Canada beats Jamaica in the second group of indicators. Or actually, Canada loses because they measure ‘absence of peace’.

No, it’s because Canada boarders the US and any country threatening the Canada would get a response from the US.

So a large portion of the Canadian “peace” is because they have a Pit Bull as a neighbor.
[/quote]

This is especially so with Canada, but it holds true for a very large portion of the industrialized world as well.

Many nations that boast of how they de-emphasize the military (most of Western Europe, for example) are either intellectually dishonest or foolish if they refuse to admit that they are able to do so in large part because of the knowledge that the U.S. military will answer the bell if they are truly in dire need of protection.

As to how this idea relates to the topic at hand: Let’s imagine how much higher the numbers for defense spending would be for other nations if they actually had to pay for their own defense force rather than letting the U.S. pay for it.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How is Canada more peaceful thna Jamaica? What war is Jamaica fighting now?

According to the (EDIT:) site the indicators are:
Measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict
Measures of societal safety and security
Measures of militarization

I don’t know, but I’ll venture to guess, that Canada beats Jamaica in the second group of indicators. Or actually, Canada loses because they measure ‘absence of peace’.

No, it’s because Canada boarders the US and any country threatening the Canada would get a response from the US.

So a large portion of the Canadian “peace” is because they have a Pit Bull as a neighbor.

Why doesn’t that apply to Mexico?[/quote]

Mexico has other neighbors. Canada really doesn’t.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How is Canada more peaceful thna Jamaica? What war is Jamaica fighting now?

According to the (EDIT:) site the indicators are:
Measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict
Measures of societal safety and security
Measures of militarization

I don’t know, but I’ll venture to guess, that Canada beats Jamaica in the second group of indicators. Or actually, Canada loses because they measure ‘absence of peace’.

No, it’s because Canada boarders the US and any country threatening the Canada would get a response from the US.

So a large portion of the Canadian “peace” is because they have a Pit Bull as a neighbor.

This is especially so with Canada, but it holds true for a very large portion of the industrialized world as well.

Many nations that boast of how they de-emphasize the military (most of Western Europe, for example) are either intellectually dishonest or foolish if they refuse to admit that they are able to do so in large part because of the knowledge that the U.S. military will answer the bell if they are truly in dire need of protection.

As to how this idea relates to the topic at hand: Let’s imagine how much higher the numbers for defense spending would be for other nations if they actually had to pay for their own defense force rather than letting the U.S. pay for it.[/quote]

Very well said. America has been doing the heavy lifting for most of the western world for 50 years. If we would have pulled our troops out of Europe at the end of WW2 it is likely there would have been many more armed conflicts over there. Europe couldn’t even handle the Serbian problem wthout our help.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
No, it’s because Canada boarders the US and any country threatening the Canada would get a response from the US.

So a large portion of the Canadian “peace” is because they have a Pit Bull as a neighbor. [/quote]

And yet, “the Canada”[sic] gave you the fat finger in 2003. And judging from opinion polls, Canadians see the US as a huge threat to world peace (and rightly so).

http://25461.vws.magma.ca/admin/articles/TheStar03Nov2006.pdf

Besides, what country would try to invade Canada? The place is pretty much isolated and if the threat doesn’t come from the south, then it won’t come at all. The country spends around $20 billions in military expenditures yearly. It’s also has a very big uranium industry. Anyone who tries to screw with them will face fierce resistance. Not to mention the rude climate which would be enough to immobilize troops not used to the cold.

And it’s no different in Mexico either, where 89% of respondents said the Iraq war was unjustified.

So please take your dillusions elsewhere. The entire world sees you as a threat and the only thing your army is protecting are the interests of corporations and fat cats. Your government makes up with new and ficticious enemies to make you cower and cough taxes, and that’s about it.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

No, it’s because Canada boarders the US and any country threatening the Canada would get a response from the US.

So a large portion of the Canadian “peace” is because they have a Pit Bull as a neighbor.

This is especially so with Canada, but it holds true for a very large portion of the industrialized world as well.

Many nations that boast of how they de-emphasize the military (most of Western Europe, for example) are either intellectually dishonest or foolish if they refuse to admit that they are able to do so in large part because of the knowledge that the U.S. military will answer the bell if they are truly in dire need of protection.

As to how this idea relates to the topic at hand: Let’s imagine how much higher the numbers for defense spending would be for other nations if they actually had to pay for their own defense force rather than letting the U.S. pay for it.[/quote]

Actually, this is especially not so with Canada. What is de facto being said here is that Canada enjoys peace because the US is not hostile towards it. Which is true, of course.

The argument works much better when it comes to Western Europe. Many countries have been able to count on americas help and many others have indirectly benefited from americas presence in Middle Europe. And as you certainly know, america has benefited from the arrangement, too. Sooner or later this arrangement must come to an end or change somehow, though. The world has changed.

It is clear that this kind of index can’t be entirely fair towards the US, and that wasn’t my point either (edit: to underline ratings). My point is that it is interesting never the less.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How is Canada more peaceful thna Jamaica? What war is Jamaica fighting now?

According to the (EDIT:) site the indicators are:
Measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict
Measures of societal safety and security
Measures of militarization

I don’t know, but I’ll venture to guess, that Canada beats Jamaica in the second group of indicators. Or actually, Canada loses because they measure ‘absence of peace’.

No, it’s because Canada boarders the US and any country threatening the Canada would get a response from the US.

So a large portion of the Canadian “peace” is because they have a Pit Bull as a neighbor.

Why doesn’t that apply to Mexico?[/quote]

It does apply to Mexico, we were just talking about Canada. However, Mexico has had a lot of internal conflict which is why it rates much lower than Canada.

[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How is Canada more peaceful than Jamaica? What war is Jamaica fighting now?

Because of the gangs in Kingston, Jamaica has one of the highest murders per capita in the world.
[/quote]

I lived in Jamaica for several years in my youth. The level of government corruption and the inadequacy of the police force is incredible.

Elections always degenerate into gang violence and sometimes even widespread chaos. Some sections of the Jamaican Defense Force are basically an organized mafia that shake down the drug cartels and murder their rivals.

Vigilante justice is also quite common as well. All legitimate businessmen of any standing have armed personal guards and often must rely on bribery to ensure government and/or gang protection.

Societies dominated by the black market are amusing to behold.

Speaking of peace, here’s what the Washington Post had to say today:

U.S. on the Outside in Peace Efforts

[i]Just days after President Bush returned from the Middle East, the Middle East is moving beyond the Bush administration.

Two major peace efforts – a surprise announcement of indirect talks between Israel and Syria brokered by Turkey and an eleventh-hour deal to prevent a new Lebanese war brokered by Qatar – were launched without an American role, and both counter U.S. strategy in the region.

For years, the Bush administration has resisted overtures from Jerusalem and Damascus to participate in revived peace efforts over the Golan Heights. The administration balked at including Syria in the Annapolis conference on Middle East peace last year, relenting only under pressure from allies, according to Western officials. [/i]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052102569.html

Now if you please…BITE THE BIG ONE!

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
Now if you please…BITE THE BIG ONE!

Your posts are becoming more and more juvenile and vulgar.

I point this out not because it bothers me, though. Quite the contrary: It’s fun to watch your frustration grow as you ineffectually flail away at the big, bad American boogy-man.

Poor you. So long as the US maintains any degree of superiority on the world stage, you’ll be a miserable, frustrated person.

He he. [/quote]

And he has a lot of time to “flail” living in Sweden, being on welfare, and sitting around smoking weed all day.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Speaking of peace, here’s what the Washington Post had to say today:

U.S. on the Outside in Peace Efforts

[i]Just days after President Bush returned from the Middle East, the Middle East is moving beyond the Bush administration.

Two major peace efforts – a surprise announcement of indirect talks between Israel and Syria brokered by Turkey and an eleventh-hour deal to prevent a new Lebanese war brokered by Qatar – were launched without an American role, and both counter U.S. strategy in the region.

For years, the Bush administration has resisted overtures from Jerusalem and Damascus to participate in revived peace efforts over the Golan Heights. The administration balked at including Syria in the Annapolis conference on Middle East peace last year, relenting only under pressure from allies, according to Western officials. [/i]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052102569.html

Now if you please…BITE THE BIG ONE![/quote]

How would the Umma rank on this peace scale? 11,118 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 and counting, but the Umma only gets enrage by cartoons or bullets in books or Pope statements.