2010 global peace index

On September 09 2010 03:48 Amestir wrote:
Yeah it's a bit of public secret that the Netherlands, preaching diplomacy and justice worldwide, actually sell a lot of weapons. I believe a year ago there was a debate after someone found out some of our retiremend funding companies had stocks in weapon building companies.

On September 09 2010 03:58 Vain wrote:


I thought the retiremend funds stopped with that?

or did they only stop with investing in clusterbombs. i don't remember it anymore>.<

On September 09 2010 04:02 groms wrote:
canada i am disappoint. only 14th

On September 09 2010 04:06 Back wrote:


We have an unruly neighbor :D

On September 09 2010 05:10 Arevall wrote:
I was ashamed and angry at our weapons exports before seeing this index map,,,

But seriously, are we the worst country in the world? (at weapons export that is)


I may be drunk, but something has to be done about this...

On September 09 2010 04:02 Amestir wrote:


Ah clusterbombs, thats the word I couldn't remember. To my knowledge the funds who where "caught" stopped infesting in them.

On September 09 2010 05:43 infecteddna wrote:
Huh, surprised about Venezuela.

On September 09 2010 05:14 MangoTango wrote:
YOU ES EH! YOU ES EH! We're number 85! We're number 85!

Russia surprises me with a very low score. Why, I wonder?

On September 09 2010 05:58 orgolove wrote:
China more peaceful than US? rofl this is a joke

On September 09 2010 05:54 deconduo wrote:
#6 Not bad. Probably dropped a bit because of the whole thing in northern ireland.

On September 09 2010 06:04 Jibba wrote:
Because the people who made the index don't know very much. There's a lot of arbitrary values given, and I'm sure they're simply unaware of the dealings of the powerful countries.

On September 09 2010 06:04 DannyJ wrote:


It's obviously a retarded list.

On September 09 2010 06:43 Hobot wrote:




These are very sweeping judgments. Just because you don't agree with their conclusions, they're automatically ignorant/retarded?

They have a 63 page report on their methodology and results, did you happen to go through any of it? Do you have any specific criticism of their metrics beyond "obviously it's retarded"?

I agree that any time you try to rate countries by something as complex and ambiguous as "peace" or the like you're automatically oversimplifying, but it doesn't mean that the information is totally useless or wrong.

The US really isn't a very peaceful country, and it shouldn't be surprising to learn that. Starting unprovoked wars in other countries does not make you a peaceful country. When you spend as much on defense as the rest of the world does (or 9 times China's military budget) you're not a peaceful country. When you have 5% of the world's population but 23% of the world's prison population then you're not a peaceful country. When you have one of the highest homicide rates in the industrialized world (5.4 per 100k in the US, 2.36 in China) then you're not a peaceful country.

On September 09 2010 07:24 Sfydjklm wrote:
this is a retarded list.
Apparently USA which leads wars non stop is more peaceful then Belarus which hadnt ever engaged in a war on its own authority.

On September 09 2010 06:43 Hobot wrote:




These are very sweeping judgments. Just because you don't agree with their conclusions, they're automatically ignorant/retarded?

On September 09 2010 07:28 Alou wrote:


Not engaging in war does not necessarily mean a country is peaceful. Plenty of domestic issues that could affect Belarus.

On September 09 2010 07:17 Railz wrote:
The list doesn't go into detail if it means peaceful to others or ourselves.

On September 09 2010 07:17 Railz wrote:
The US is far too large, as is China and India to rate it as such.

On September 09 2010 07:33 Sfydjklm wrote:

which means that the list is purposefully mislable to create sensationalism spin and hence makes it's credibility questionable.
Also, again, US has a lot more internal issues then just about any other country out there with exceptions of the "hot spots" which are basically war zones.

On September 09 2010 07:34 Alou wrote:


I'm not saying the list is entirely accurate. I haven't spent the time looking at all the factors and what went into it for them to make a list. Usually lists are stupid. I'm just saying your first statement was rather ridiculous.

On September 09 2010 07:17 Railz wrote:
The amount of women in government didn't seem a bit arbitrary to you (Just as example of what he meant by arbitrary) ? Besides it is all subjective. To someone living inside the US it is peaceful, but we don't try to hide the fact that we'll protect interests abroad. The US is far too large, as is China and India to rate it as such. The list doesn't go into detail if it means peaceful to others or ourselves.

On September 09 2010 07:17 Railz wrote: It isn't that I don't agree with it, I'm just not sure what the fuck the GPI even means, it has no substance, nothing of value.

On September 09 2010 07:36 Sfydjklm wrote:

when i wrote it i was under assumption that by peace they actually meant peace

On September 09 2010 07:32 Jibba wrote:No, because international relations and security is what I specialize in and looking at their criteria and the questionable rankings for certain countries in certain categories, I've judged they don't know what they're talking about. Occasionally people on TL are more than just SC players.

Don't think I made that judgment simply because I'm an American. I understand much of our place in international security and I'm well aware that more death and destruction comes by way of our presence across the globe than anyone else (Russia isn't far behind.) It's still bullshit to take an abstraction such as peace and attain values to figures like prison populations or number members in the armed forces or donations to the UN, as if there is a formula for attaining peace.

Following UN protocol, following the wills of every country in 1-10, plenty of horrible, "unpeaceful" things have happened in the world.

On September 09 2010 07:37 Hobot wrote:


Did you read the report? It'll answer a lot of your questions.

No, the number of women in government does not seem entirely arbitrary to me. An equal and egalitarian society tends to be peaceful, women in government is an indication of that (a small indication yes, but it doesn't have a large impact on the rating anyway). A country that respects women and treats them as equals is more peaceful for women. Maybe you remember the Taliban and how they treated women?

And I don't know if I agree that someone living in the US will find it more peaceful than someone living in New Zealand for example. There is a lot more crime in the US, you're more likely to be murdered in the US than in New Zealand. The US government also doesn't respect its citizens' rights as much as in a country like New Zealand. Warrantless wiretapping ring a bell? How about selling out your Social Security?

On September 09 2010 07:50 Jibba wrote:
The Taliban were a proxy government that never really bothered anyone outside their borders.

On September 09 2010 06:43 Hobot wrote:




These are very sweeping judgments. Just because you don't agree with their conclusions, they're automatically ignorant/retarded?

They have a 63 page report on their methodology and results, did you happen to go through any of it? Do you have any specific criticism of their metrics beyond "obviously it's retarded"?

I agree that any time you try to rate countries by something as complex and ambiguous as "peace" or the like you're automatically oversimplifying, but it doesn't mean that the information is totally useless or wrong.

The US really isn't a very peaceful country, and it shouldn't be surprising to learn that. Starting unprovoked wars in other countries does not make you a peaceful country. When you spend as much on defense as the rest of the world does (or 9 times China's military budget) you're not a peaceful country. When you have 5% of the world's population but 23% of the world's prison population then you're not a peaceful country. When you have one of the highest homicide rates in the industrialized world (5.4 per 100k in the US, 2.36 in China) then you're not a peaceful country.

On September 09 2010 07:49 Hobot wrote:


I understand people here are more than just SC players, but I can't tell why you made a judgement or what intellectual background you have. You didn't back up your assertion with any kind of reason except to accuse them of being ignorant. You still haven't definitively shown that the study's authors don't know what they're talking about. I don't think you can even do that since any judgement about what country is more peaceful will be somewhat subjective. How can you say what pieces of data are more important or what should be included and what shouldn't? Anyway you look at it, something will seem arbitrary, but that doesn't totally invalidate everything else.

Your concern about ranking countries according to a rather nebulous concept like peace is addressed in the report itself. They explain their motives and attempts to quantify a qualitative assessment.

On September 09 2010 07:56 enzym wrote:
that is not the absolute criterium for peacefulness. they still committed plenty violent acts within "their" borders.
i think youre confusing something here. this is not merely an index covering the relations between nations, but rather an indicator of the peacefulness of the nation in its entirety, even inwards, as shown by the criteria they have used. i thought thats plenty obvious, but apparently you managed to escape that notion somehow. world peace is understood differently from just peace, but doesnt the population inside a country also count towards 'world'?

On September 09 2010 08:00 DannyJ wrote:Not, it is obviously a retarded list, as i said. Any list that tries to equate "peace" to many different, odd variables, is obviously amazingly flawed and biased. The word peace, what it means and how it is achieved, can have a million different definitions.

On September 09 2010 08:08 Hobot wrote:


You're strawmanning. You're assuming that they're saying "THIS IS WHAT PEACE IS, THIS IS A DEFINITIVE STUDY ABOUT WHO IS PEACEFUL AND WHO ISN'T" except they're not. This is an attempt to try and make a quantitative study of peace. Most reasonable people will understand that this a way of looking at peace, not the way.

So yes, it's retarded to look at this as the only way to measure peace, but that isn't what the study's authors are saying.

On September 09 2010 08:09 ProudZionist wrote:
Thanks to the Palestinian terrorists we're ranked 144.

On September 09 2010 08:09 ProudZionist wrote:
Thanks to the Palestinian terrorists we're ranked 144.

On September 09 2010 08:16 Hobot wrote:
So am I to understand that the major complaint against this list is that because it isn't entirely objective (and when are the soft sciences every fully objective??) that it is useless and we should just ignore it in its entirety?

Is it just me, or is this a completely intractable and ridiculous viewpoint?

On September 09 2010 08:16 Hobot wrote:
So am I to understand that the major complaint against this list is that because it isn't entirely objective (and when are the soft sciences every fully objective??) that it is useless and we should just ignore it in its entirety?

Is it just me, or is this a completely intractable and ridiculous viewpoint?

On September 09 2010 08:21 Mindcrime wrote:

+ Show Spoiler +

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

On September 09 2010 08:22 Jibba wrote:
FYI, a piece of artillery = -1 peace point
1 tank = -5 peace points
1 combat aircraft = -20 peace points
1 warship = -100 peace points
1 aircraft carrier/nuclear submarine = -1000 peace points

No wonder Germany is so low. It must be easy to be landlocked. You can have 200 tanks for every 1 of our submarines!

On September 09 2010 08:31 Duckvillelol wrote:


200 tanks is not equal to 1 nuclear submarine, with the possibility to move all around the seas, strike any target with an ICBM?

On September 09 2010 08:31 Duckvillelol wrote:


200 tanks is not equal to 1 nuclear submarine

On September 09 2010 08:33 DannyJ wrote:


Well, tanks are kinda useful in waging real warfare. I don't see America patrolling the streets of Iraq with Nuclear submarines...

On September 09 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote:
So the ideal country according to this ranking is one that imports no weapons, exports no weapons, disallows firearms to its upstanding members of society, has a small & incompetent military, and relies on its large funding to the UN to stay safe?

LOL

On September 09 2010 09:00 Hobot wrote:


Peace isn't always a good thing...didn't you watch that Simpsons Halloween episode where Lisa wishes for world peace? Kang and Kodos took over and enslaved the entire human race.

On September 09 2010 08:39 Hobot wrote:
Now that you (Jibba and Danny) have fleshed out your disagreements more, I can definitely respect them if not entirely agree with them.

I still think there is at least some value to this list as a way to bring attention to some issues that the majority is not aware of. For example, I was not aware of the scale of weapons exports in the Netherlands and Sweden.

By the way, out of interest, Jibba you said you specialize in international relations and security, in what capacity?

On September 09 2010 05:08 Integra wrote:
What makes Sweden ranked 10 is due to the fact that we export weapons to third countries that supports dictatorship and or has conflicts so the low ranking was really no surprise.

On September 09 2010 16:33 dinmsab wrote:
"The Index is composed of 23 indicators, ranging from a nation’s level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries and the level of respect for human rights."

So why are people surprised USA is at #85? I'm actually surprised they aren't much higher lol

On September 10 2010 10:38 Alizee- wrote:
Look at the whole issue of mining in Afghanistan. Japan and China profit, the US is the security force...

On September 10 2010 10:38 Alizee- wrote:
UN funding? I'll quit speaking from an American centric position and say that I don't support global governing bodies for funding, I feel like its something to keep out of.

On September 10 2010 11:11 muccer wrote:

Basically the finding say that higher rates of education, higher GDP per capita, low-corruption correlate well with their index but NOT women in parliament.

On September 10 2010 14:03 muccer wrote:



mmm, not so sure, I see what you're saying but should then not the amount of money spent on education also correlate? and in terms of 1/2 indicators being directly related to GDP I can only see the 2 related to military, milex - which is based on GDP, and military sophistication. how is the # of pax in jail and the political instability, level of crime, relations with neighbours etc related to GDP?

On September 09 2010 08:22 Jibba wrote:
FYI, a piece of artillery = -1 peace point
1 tank = -5 peace points
1 combat aircraft = -20 peace points
1 warship = -100 peace points
1 aircraft carrier/nuclear submarine = -1000 peace points

No wonder Germany is so low. It must be easy to be landlocked. You can have 200 tanks for every 1 of our submarines!

On September 09 2010 05:17 Integra wrote:

Yea, it's kinda fucked up, we have not engaged war in a long time, we de declared ourselves neutral during world war I and world war II and have diplomatic relations with practically every country, even North Korea. Yet we have no problem in selling weapons to support countries that currently are waging war.

On September 10 2010 08:34 muccer wrote:
I am surprised by Austria's ranking though. Never stroke me as very peaceful.

On September 13 2010 12:52 Floophead_III wrote:
LOL US is only a 3 for "respect for human rights?"

That's a load of crap.

On September 13 2010 12:56 sith wrote:


Seriously fuck that. I can't believe that is even being considered as accurate.

On September 13 2010 12:58 stroggos wrote:


its probably from 16year olds getting the death penalty

On September 13 2010 12:58 stroggos wrote:


its probably from 16year olds getting the death penalty

On September 13 2010 12:52 Floophead_III wrote:
LOL US is only a 3 for "respect for human rights?"

That's a load of crap.

On September 13 2010 12:58 stroggos wrote:


its probably from 16year olds getting the death penalty

On September 13 2010 20:29 BlackJack wrote:
How did Switzerland get a 2 in "ease of access to small arms and light weapons"

and UK got a 2 as well

On September 13 2010 21:15 FuRong wrote:
Hell yeah, New Zealand #1 baby!

On the other hand, being the most peaceful country in the world does have its downside...

On September 09 2010 05:19 Emon_ wrote:
Sweden is just as peaceful as the test suggests, 10/145. There is the random maniac every once in a while, otherwise you're free to wander the lands as you please.

We do export lots of weapons so other people can wage war. Wish this hypocrisy could stop.

On September 14 2010 08:16 muccer wrote:
I found it very interesting that the main belligerants of WW2 are doing so well, Japan and Germany. Much higher than the winners of the WW2.

On September 14 2010 08:16 muccer wrote:
I found it very interesting that the main belligerants of WW2 are doing so well, Japan and Germany. Much higher than the winners of the WW2.

On September 14 2010 17:34 DannyJ wrote:


Other nations picked up the tab for their rebuilding / defense for half a century.

On September 14 2010 18:58 Yuljan wrote:


the reparations we had to pay were and still are alot higher than the aid we received and dont forgot all the patents the americans stole.

On September 14 2010 21:38 Altair wrote:
Why is Russia so red? Can someone explain it to me? -_-

On September 14 2010 22:00 ThunderGod wrote:
lol wut, number 1.
Guess this doesn't take into account domestic violence.

On September 15 2010 10:27 Cloud wrote:
Well we rocked this chart in comparison to pretty much all others.

On September 14 2010 21:38 Altair wrote:
Why is Russia so red? Can someone explain it to me? -_-

On September 16 2010 20:15 bulldyke wrote:


they don't have the internet.

Also, #19! Oi, oi, oi! how'd we get beat so hard by them kiwis?

On September 17 2010 08:56 muccer wrote:



POssibly because the kiwis aren't sending troops everywhere the US goes!

On September 17 2010 11:06 TwoPac wrote:
Switzerland should be number 1 ._.

On September 09 2010 03:39 betaben wrote:
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2010/scor

How did your country do? Are you surprised? Do you feel the index is accurate?

On September 09 2010 04:48 DoubleZee wrote:


That dragged us into a 9 year old war and encourages our leaders to spend billions on war planes. I would say 14 is pretty good.

On September 23 2010 03:26 LaLLsc2 wrote:



Everything Canada has done to drop its peace rating is a direct result of what they believe is best for Canada. You can blame the US all you want but in the end you're just like everyone else.

On September 09 2010 04:48 DoubleZee wrote:


That dragged us into a 9 year old war and encourages our leaders to spend billions on war planes. I would say 14 is pretty good.

On October 22 2010 15:22 dybydx wrote:
lol USA ranked below communist China.

and how is japan ranked above canada?

On October 22 2010 15:22 dybydx wrote:
lol USA ranked below communist China.

and how is japan ranked above canada?

On October 25 2010 11:09 Alexhandr wrote:
Lol. Ahhhh... I love stuff like this. Makes me laugh. But ya know what? If we were the most violent country, I'd STILL love my country. If we were the worst, I wouldn't care. My nation is the most charitable nation. We fund the most cash to the UN (which is freaking useless!), we give the most cash and goods away to other countries, and we are almost ALWAYS there at the scene of whatever international incident there is. (Chilean miners, anyone?)

So, yeah. This stuff means nothing. God bless America and every decent soul within her borders. <3

On September 14 2010 03:52 Kimaker wrote:
Ok...based on that criteria, the USA's number's would be artificially inflated because of how many people are jailed because of Marijuana, the "access to weapons" criteria is no indicator AT ALL of peace when you consider that the perceived criminality, police, level of violent crime and homicide's category's all demonstrate how those weapons are actually used, which would be a much more accurate representation of how "peaceful" a nation is. The notion of "disrespect for human rights" is arbitrary and non-quantifiable in any meaningful way, and should be removed as a criteria. Military capacity and sophistication is silly as well. Just because you CAN kick ass, doesn't necessarily mean you WILL, just look at Japan, pretty peaceful, then look at the US, we're at war all over the joint! Given you can have both extremes within ONE category, I'm not sure it's really useful.

Those are just the ones that jumped out at me as being bullshit.

Very interesting list, but like all lists of this sort, ultimately useless.

On October 25 2010 11:19 .Aar wrote:


Very, very, very, very important to consider when viewing this kind of data. Thanks for the insight.

On October 25 2010 16:38 sluggaslamoo wrote:
One should look at this as qualitative data. If you compare rankings, while they say that country X is 2 ranks higher than country Y its more likely that they are basically the same. So you can look at the most peaceful countries and the most war torn countries, and common-sense would judge why these countries are ranked where they are.

I'm not surprised that NZ is #1 though. They are a developed country, while being very passive about crime, terrorism and war, and America. They also don't have a great amount of natural resources, so basically no one cares about them, and thus they are left alone.

On October 25 2010 11:09 Alexhandr wrote:
Lol. Ahhhh... I love stuff like this. Makes me laugh. But ya know what? If we were the most violent country, I'd STILL love my country. If we were the worst, I wouldn't care. My nation is the most charitable nation. We fund the most cash to the UN (which is freaking useless!), we give the most goods and cash away to other countries, and we are almost ALWAYS there at the scene of whatever international incident there is. (Chilean miners, anyone?)

So, yeah. This stuff means nothing. God bless America and every decent soul within her borders. <3

On November 22 2010 08:58 darmousseh wrote:Switzerland was "peaceful" during the world wars....but not because their people didn't have guns, but because of how dangerous it was for enemy armies.

On November 22 2010 09:01 andyrichdale wrote:
Wohoo we win! Maybe someone will attack us out of spite now

On November 22 2010 09:30 Darpa wrote:
All in all i think these kind of ratings are fairly biased and really you cant take much from them. But thats my opinion

On September 14 2010 03:52 Kimaker wrote:
Ok...based on that criteria, the USA's number's would be artificially inflated because of how many people are jailed because of Marijuana, the "access to weapons" criteria is no indicator AT ALL of peace when you consider that the perceived criminality, police, level of violent crime and homicide's category's all demonstrate how those weapons are actually used, which would be a much more accurate representation of how "peaceful" a nation is. The notion of "disrespect for human rights" is arbitrary and non-quantifiable in any meaningful way, and should be removed as a criteria. Military capacity and sophistication is silly as well. Just because you CAN kick ass, doesn't necessarily mean you WILL, just look at Japan, pretty peaceful, then look at the US, we're at war all over the joint! Given you can have both extremes within ONE category, I'm not sure it's really useful.

Those are just the ones that jumped out at me as being bullshit.

Very interesting list, but like all lists of this sort, ultimately useless.

On November 22 2010 09:55 Konfustikator wrote:
Interestingly, the top countries of the GPI and the HDI ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index ) are kinda similar.

In another note, WE WIN! This strange surge of nationalistic pride makes me want to go out and conquer foreign lands to show them how to be like us!!! Oh wait...

On November 22 2010 10:22 KillerPenguin wrote:
What a load of bull. If we used these indicators on people the police officer would get a 4/5 because he often gets involved in conflicts, carries a weapon etc.

I love how Germany and Japan terrorized, murdered, and raped half the world and on number of conflicts, casualties, and global peace index they score so high. How does this just not take into account the only real destabilization of peace which happened during WWII because of those 2 nations.

Can anyone name a country in the past which was more powerful than the US relative to other countries and showed more restraint than the US has shown? Iraq was certainly a blunder but that is nothing compared to the millions Greece, Rome, Persia, England, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia terrorized and murdered when they were powerful. If most muslim nations had the power the US has there would be a WW3 within a generation. Let us hope when the US falls that China or whoever takes our place doesn't act like a typical superpower and terrorize other nations the way history usually works.

On November 22 2010 09:55 Konfustikator wrote:
Interestingly, the top countries of the GPI and the HDI ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index ) are kinda similar.

In another note, WE WIN! This strange surge of nationalistic pride makes me want to go out and conquer foreign lands to show them how to be like us!!! Oh wait...

On November 22 2010 10:35 xaeiu wrote:

i'm curious...was new zealand really never #1 on the hdi?
because i just searched a lil bit and was not really able to find nz on #1 ever...am i missing something?

On November 22 2010 10:25 HeIios wrote: I liked the restraint the US of A showed when faced with the native "problem".

On November 22 2010 10:25 HeIios wrote:


Send the sheeps! The sheeps! I for one welcome our new herd overlords.
[edit] I liked the restraint the US of A showed when faced with the native "problem".

On November 22 2010 12:25 Frigo wrote:
China more peaceful than the United States? What?
Israel less peaceful than every single country in the Middle East, except Iraq? You kidding?
Malaysia only marginally less peaceful than Hungary and Slovakia? After all those molotov attacks on churches and christians? Sharia law anyone?
Did they fine-tune it so Israel and the United States (with Iraq and Afghanistan) would look bad?

Some concept of "peace" they have.

On November 22 2010 10:22 KillerPenguin wrote:
What a load of bull. If we used these indicators on people the police officer would get a 4/5 because he often gets involved in conflicts, carries a weapon etc. and the homeless guy on the street gets a 1/5 because he's old, sticks to himself, and has nothing that can be considered a weapon.

In reality overly peaceful no military nations make the world less safe, it's like elementary school where the kids don't know how to say no to a bully so there ends up being a lot of powerful bullies because it works. Europe could have dealt with Hitler easily without the US but almost the entire continent just caved in.

I love how Germany and Japan terrorized, murdered, and raped half the world and on number of conflicts, casualties, and global peace index they score so high. How does this just not take into account the only real destabilization of peace which happened during WWII because of those 2 nations. Compared to any other time in history the last 65 years have been extremely peaceful while the US has been a superpower. I think people take for granted that the US has not abused it's power to the extent everyone else has in the past and just assume that the world is more civilized now so of course their will not be a WW3 if another country replaces the US.

Can anyone name a country in the past which was as powerful as the US relative to other countries and didn't completely abuse and take control of another country? It's one thing to say "if my country was the most powerful they would do a better job than the US" it's another thing to actually be the most powerful country and not abuse it. Iraq was certainly a blunder but that is nothing compared to the millions Greece, Rome, Persia, England, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia terrorized and murdered when they were powerful. If most muslim nations had the power the US has there would be a WW3 within a generation. Let us hope when the US falls that China or whoever takes our place doesn't act like a typical superpower and terrorize other nations the way history usually works.

On November 22 2010 23:46 KillerPenguin wrote:
1. It has been a golden age in the last 65 years, more people died in WWII than every war since combined. Look at statistics of population vs war casualties.

2. I never said they saved Europe alone.

3. After WWII the US built bases all over Germany and Japan and changed their government to make it difficult for them to repeat what they did before. 65 years of peace doesn't forgive 30 some million people dying the US can hardly be blamed for killing 30 some million people out of belligerence and then labeled at the bottom of peace.

4. Many Japanese would have rather died than surrender unlike any other nation. They didn't even surrender days after the first atomic bomb. Any other nation would have used the bomb rather than assault the main island, millions died assaulting other tiny islands.

Don't try to pin me as a conservative Bush lover. I didn't want to go to war in Iraq. I admitted the US is a bully just not nearly to the extent others have been in the past. I would cut our military budget and bases in half. I'm tired of using our money to be the world's police while the rest of the world especially the cocksure 18 year old European liberals on this forum hate on us and come up with these BS posts like the US being one of the most anti peaceful nations. I'd love to see Europe take the lead again in securing world peace like they had before 1945 so we can return to our economy while sitting in the back comfortably removed from the war thousands of miles away and criticize how terrible a job they are doing keeping rogue belligerent nations in check.

On November 22 2010 12:25 Frigo wrote:
Malaysia only marginally less peaceful than Hungary and Slovakia? After all those molotov attacks on churches and christians? Sharia law anyone?

On November 24 2010 13:33 Avaloch wrote:


Apparently Malaysia is more peaceful than Singapore as well. I find that truly shocking.