[pinawinekolad]

The Global Peace Index (GPI) released by the UK Economist Intelligence Unit ranked China at 80th, higher than the US (85), India (128) and Russia (143). New Zealand, Iceland and Japan were listed as the top 3, while Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan ranked least. The world has become less peaceful over the last year as homicide rates and violent crime had increased around the world, according to the GPI. Is the statistics objective? If yes, there should be one more question to be considered: why the US only listed 85 while it always claims to be the most democratic country and peace lover? Maybe it is time the US considered its inappropriate handling of foreign policy. Is it because the US often takes double standards in dealing with foreign affairs, which caused great trouble to other countries? It is hard to say it can bring the world real peace and prosperity. So, please stop invading Iraq, Afghanistan.

[Extinimot]

The GPI is not considered serious data by anyone other than kool aid drinkers.
It is heavily - heavily weighted.

[globjgtyf]

HAHAHAHAAA...this year it ranked France's willingness to fight equal to America.
That's a good one.

[TubOppomo]

The GPI is not considered serious data by anyone other than kool aid drinkers.
It is heavily - heavily weighted.

so, what will be considered serious data? the number of nuke?

[Rchzygnc]

The GPI is not considered serious data by anyone other than kool aid drinkers.
It is heavily - heavily weighted.

What's your problem with it in detail? I mean it's a Peace index. The USA isn't exactly a peaceful country and few would even value that if it were.

The points where the US scores badly are often aspects many Americans actually like, such as the high militarization of society (5/5) or the high rate of incarceration (5/5).

The same goes for points such as easy acces to weapons (3/5) or the several aspects that are related simply to being in a war.

It seems a bit contradictory to have a wish to be high on a peace index given the nature of American society ?

[AdobeCreativeSuite]

What's your problem with it in detail? I mean it's a Peace index. The USA isn't exactly a peaceful country and few would even value that if it were.

The points where the US scores badly are often aspects many Americans actually like, such as the high militarization of society (5/5) or the high rate of incarceration (5/5).

The same goes for points such as easy acces to weapons (3/5) or the several aspects that are related simply to being in a war.

It seems a bit contradictory to have a wish to be high on a peace index given the nature of American society ?

Because it is a practice in gross naivety to assume that a large-capable military is in opposition to peace. WWII should be a testament to this, Hitler marched across Europe like a Sunday stroll because no one had a strong military. If France or Britain would have had a large capable military...somewhere near 60,000,000 people would not have died.
A strong military deterrence IS peace.

[exchpaypalgold]

What's your problem with it in detail? I mean it's a Peace index. The USA isn't exactly a peaceful country and few would even value that if it were.

The points where the US scores badly are often aspects many Americans actually like, such as the high militarization of society (5/5) or the high rate of incarceration (5/5).

The same goes for points such as easy acces to weapons (3/5) or the several aspects that are related simply to being in a war.

It seems a bit contradictory to have a wish to be high on a peace index given the nature of American society ?

The index is weighted to the number of wars fought, the number of deaths without regard to which war is justified or not, jailed persons, crime committed, and so on. It is an attempt, but like any index, is bias. But the biggest mistake is to say this index is about anti war.

The only true value in this is not where the country is listed in which year, but how the ranks changed over time. For instance, the United States went from 97 in 2007 to 85 in 2010 while Cuba went from 52 to 77 from 2007 to 2010. So, is the US getting better or Cuba getting worse?

[Polopolop]

It seems a bit contradictory to have a wish to be high on a peace index given the nature of American society ?

how so?

[lalffibra]

Because it is a practice in gross naivety to assume that a large-capable military is in opposition to peace. WWII should be a testament to this, Hitler marched across Europe like a Sunday stroll because no one had a strong military. If France or Britain would have had a large capable military...somewhere near 60,000,000 people would not have died.
A strong military deterrence IS peace.

That's more of an ideological statement than an observation of facts or a conclusion that can be reached from history.
Most casualties in the European theatre fell exactly when the opposing forces were capable, not when it was unbalanced as it was during the Blitzkrieg. But in the Soviet Union which had a capable military (they defeated the Nazis after all) the toll was staggering. And the Nazis were aware of the military capabilities of the Soviet Union but weren't deterred nevertheless. Japan wasn't deterred when it attacked Pearl Harbour nor Al Quaeda on 9/11. When the attacker for some reason believes they have a chance no military might forms a true deterrence.

Other than that, a strong military always needs a raison d'être. It's politically-fiscally untenable having a huge military that just sits on their asses all day. So the reasoning is that the mere presence of a huge military force enables war. And when one looks at all the nations that have such, not just the US, that's exactly what happens.

[Gvadelunar]

The index is weighted to the number of wars fought, the number of deaths without regard to which war is justified or not, jailed persons, crime committed, and so on. It is an attempt, but like any index, is bias. But the biggest mistake is to say this index is about anti war.

How is that a bias ? It's just its definition.
Bias comes in exactly when you introduce concepts such as 'justification' which is always subjective. Whether a war is justified or not, even if there were some objective values to measure this against, it makes no difference in the observation that there is an absence of peace.

The only true value in this is not where the country is listed in which year, but how the ranks changed over time. For instance, the United States went from 97 in 2007 to 85 in 2010 while Cuba went from 52 to 77 from 2007 to 2010. So, is the US getting better or Cuba getting worse?

In the relative ranking of countries both statements are true. It's not a dichotomy.

[Viafdrear]

how so?

I thought I already explained that.

To elaborate: the US military has been involved in dozens of wars or conflicts since WWII alone. In most cases that was with the support of a large majority of the population. Whether any or all of these military interventions were necessary/justified or not is not relevant in this topic. They all indicate that there is no stronge incentive in American society for peace, i.e. the absence of war.

Since such a sentiment exists, why would it be of importance to be ranked highly on a scale that measures exactly that, viz. the absence of war for any reason ?

[Jorcelirl]

I thought I already explained that.

To elaborate: the US military has been involved in dozens of wars or conflicts since WWII alone. In most cases that was with the support of a large majority of the population. Whether any or all of these military interventions were necessary/justified or not is not relevant in this topic. They all indicate that there is no stronge incentive in American society for peace, i.e. the absence of war.

Since such a sentiment exists, why would it be of importance to be ranked highly on a scale that measures exactly that, viz. the absence of war for any reason ?

That is what happens when you are the only military around.
I guess it would have been better to allow a genocidal dictator take control of most of the Middle East. Is that what you are saying?
If you are living in an idealogical world where there are no evil people - you don't need protection, but in this world there are bad people.
I think even you know that without the global protection offered by the American military, a world map would look very different today...and peace would only be reserved for those who submit.

[BrainTop]

HAHAHAHAAA...this year it ranked France's willingness to fight equal to America.
That's a good one.

france has a great history of fighting, they are in the top 5 nuke powers. WWII they were over run by a new form of warfare and they have no less indignation as losers as we did in Nam.

Reagan also cut and ran in Lebanon.

[Flefebleaft]

france has a great history of fighting, they are in the top 5 nuke powers. WWII they were over run by a new form of warfare and they have no less indignation as losers as we did in Nam.

Reagan also cut and ran in Lebanon.

- The GPI index takes only in consideration of what a nation is now...not 70 years ago.

[ggdfgtdfffhfyj]

That is what happens when you are the only military around.
I guess it would have been better to allow a genocidal dictator take control of most of the Middle East. Is that what you are saying?
If you are living in an idealogical world where there are no evil people - you don't need protection, but in this world there are bad people.
I think even you know that without the global protection offered by the American military, a world map would look very different today...and peace would only be reserved for those who submit.

Saddam was not a threat to the ME after Desert Storm. However chickenhawk republicans talk a good talk yet failed to percieve their weakness to handling a greater threat from North Korea, and the former Soviet Unions oppressive, totalianarian repeated invasions of the eastern bloc nations.
The only reason W went to war in Iraq was to secure oil reserves and have a military presence. The Turks have and continue to kill Kurds at an alarming rate as does regimes in SE Asian, yet we do nothing.

What is even worse is the resolution of China as a most favored nation by H.W. Bush and the eventual acceptance of Congress and Bill Clinton to cave into corporate greed in doing business with them fully aware of China's genocidal actions that still occur to this day.

[arrendabomnem]

"The Global Peace Index (GPI) released by the UK Economist Intelligence Unit ranked China at 80th, higher than the US (85), India (128) and Russia (143). New Zealand, Iceland and Japan were listed as the top 3, while Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan ranked least. The world has become less peaceful over the last year as homicide rates and violent crime had increased around the world, according to the GPI. "

So these are annually calculated scores that ignore well documented history and events of the past?

[smifatv]

Is the statistics objective? If yes, there should be one more question to be considered: why the US only listed 85 while it always claims to be the most democratic country and peace lover? Maybe it is time the US considered its inappropriate handling of foreign policy. Is it because the US often takes double standards in dealing with foreign affairs, which caused great trouble to other countries? It is hard to say it can bring the world real peace and prosperity. So, please stop invading Iraq, Afghanistan.

We are pulling out of Iraq and aren't really conducting military operations there anymore.

We decided to invade Afghanistan on a whim, right? Seriously, use some critical thinking.

[Seilehogshell]

The same goes for points such as easy acces to weapons (3/5) or the several aspects that are related simply to being in a war.

You have a problem with our Constitution? We are given the right to have easy access to weapons.

[Zhgpavye]

That is what happens when you are the only military around.
I guess it would have been better to allow a genocidal dictator take control of most of the Middle East. Is that what you are saying?
If you are living in an idealogical world where there are no evil people - you don't need protection, but in this world there are bad people.
I think even you know that without the global protection offered by the American military, a world map would look very different today...and peace would only be reserved for those who submit.

No, that's not what I am saying as is pretty clear from what I wrote.
It's not the point what kind of war is considered or for what reason. The index merely measures the absence of peace. The involvement in any war, for whatever reason, brings a country down on the list. Since you find e.g. the Iraq war justifiable, what does it matter to you that the USA is on the 85th spot ?
That's the point.

[bestformaldress23]

No, that's not what I am saying as is pretty clear from what I wrote.
It's not the point what kind of war is considered or for what reason. The index merely measures the absence of peace. The involvement in any war, for whatever reason, brings a country down on the list. Since you find e.g. the Iraq war justifiable, what does it matter to you that the USA is on the 85th spot ?
That's the point.

Thank you.
You just clarified why the index is not a good indicator of peace.