digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

US is 97th most Peaceful Nation?

rawstory.com — The "Global Peace Index," compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, ranked the United States 97th out of 140 countries according to how peaceful they were domestically and how they interacted with the outside world. The United States slipped from 96th last year, but was still ahead of foe Iran which ranked 105th.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • quakerorts, on 05/21/2008, -30/+303I'm surprised we beat anybody!
    • pintomp3, on 05/21/2008, -9/+86we beat everybody. that's why we are so low on the list.
    • cerejota, on 05/21/2008, -5/+11I mean, not one, but two countries occupied, a number of military bases in other countries, paramilitary police forces who routinely kill innocent citizens, concentration/torture camps, legalized torture and death penalty, violent entertainment ranks on top.

      Yeah, there are countries as violent or worse, but I am very surprised we are not even in the bottom 25%.
      • Wargalas, on 05/21/2008, -18/+3You can argue about Iraq all day long, but Afghanistan? They started it.
        • pintomp3, on 05/21/2008, -3/+9they? weren't most of the hijackers saudi? isn't osama saudi?
        • noahhoward, on 05/21/2008, -5/+2pintomp, last I checked harboring criminals carries a penalty.
        • pakruse, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3pintomp,
          Mullah Omar refused to extradite Bin Laden. He had refused before in 1998, following the bombings of the embassies in Africa. The Taliban weren't an internationally recognized government to begin with - only three countries recognized their legitimacy (UAE, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia), and there had been significant international sanctions against the country since the 1998 bombings. Russia, India, and others had supported the Northern Alliance in the civil war against the Taliban, and there wasn't exactly a lot of love for the Taliban, even among other Arabic nations (outside of Pakistan, even the Saudis and the UAE withdrew their support after 9/11).
          With the refusal to hand over Bin Laden, there is some justification for an invasion. There was international pressure to hand over Bin Laden in 1998, and then again following 9/11, but it was for naught. The Taliban had given tacit approval to Bin Laden's activities and had given him sanctuary, and in return, Bin Laden had supported the Taliban government financially, and had allied with the Taliban government against the Northern Alliance in the civil war.
        • Wargalas, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2I wasn't talking about Saudi's Pintomp3, I'm talking about Al-Qaeda and their supporters the Taliban. Please try to keep up.
        • Cybereality, on 05/21/2008, -2/+0They started what?

          I thought that was the CIA/NSA?
        • solistus, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Pakruse raises good points, and Afghanistan can at least be credibly argued to have been a legitimate military intervention, but "they started it" is still false and asinine. Aiding and abetting is very bad, but it's different from starting the terrorism that is to be aided. If the Taliban truly "started it," we wouldn't have nearly as much to worry about years later when we removed the Taliban from Kabul but failed to catch Osama or stop his organisation from continuing to plan attacks.
      • yodaj007, on 05/21/2008, -7/+8I would argue that the number of military bases in other countries does not have anything to do with being peaceful, with the possible exception of our Korean base. Do you consider our German base(s), Japan base(s), etc. all threatening gestures? Many of those bases have been there 30+ years.
        • cerejota, on 05/21/2008, -3/+15From the index's perspective, yes. Why would you have a military base if not as a way to project military power? What are soldiers, nuns?
        • zeabu, on 05/21/2008, -2/+9There are American bases in Europe, and yes I see that as a treath, as do many other Europeans. The cold war is over, there is no logical use for them other than being strategic.
        • stubear, on 05/21/2008, -10/+2@zeabu:

          You're welcome for your freedom by the way. Next time we'll sit idly by and watch as your country is consumed by less then democratic governments. I hope you enjoy Sharia law because when we close these bases and pull out our troops you'll be overrun in no time. You already have the EU establishing hate crime laws which make it ILLEGAL to criticize other religions and when the ***** hits the fan don't come crying to the US. Just put on your head scarf and shut the hell up like a good little Muslim.
        • Mindzai, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1LOL! Good grief!
        • astronomical, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2And we don't even get any points for taking the two evilest nations at the time, and turning them into the only two nations to consistently compete with the US in a majority of positive world statistics.

          zeabu, we provide defense to many of Europe's nations. Thus by the index's criteria, dragging the US down and pulling your countries up.
        • controlguy, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2"The cold war is over, there is no logical use for them other than being strategic."

          What a generic statement.
        • nick111, on 05/21/2008, -1/+6@all those people who never stop going on about WW2

          The sacrifices that your grandparent's generation made do not justify you being violent today. They didn't fight nazis so you could use their sacrifices to score cheap political points... justifying somewhat nazi-like behaviour of your own. It's pretty reprehensible for you to even try.
        • 55mph, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5stubear posts "You're welcome for your freedom by the way."

          LOL. American's had their freedom thanks to the Revolutionary War and the Constitution. Your pals in DC have been systematically stripping us of those freedoms. We have never been in danger of becoming a Muslim state. Thanks to Bush and Cheney, we've had our first public taste of Fascism.

          p.s. the Fascists count on your patriotic loyalty. You are an expendable tool.
        • TexMexMatt, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2stubear: Like Saudi Arabia????
        • zeabu, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1controlguy + astronomical : being generic, as I don't know why they're still here. France, Germany, .. don't need "protection" from anyone. Or do you mean the Sicilian way of "protection", then I do agree. You could refer to poland, but they're like the UK, they're in the EU to profiteer from it's blessings, but want to stay out because they don't feel European. In such case, you're not planning to stay in, you have to think about your future, and play safe. They're with one leg in, one leg out, and at one point they'll have to chose. The Nucleus of Europe is already getting warry of both of them. With the new draft of the failed constitution, we went far in admittance to Poland, until it was enough. If a diplomatic says, take it or you're out, you know they're fed up with you.
        • solistus, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3Imagine if the French were still as big douchebags about helping us in our Revolutionary War as Americans like stubear are about WWII. Nationalist morons in the US would sure HATE France the- oh, wait.

          The idea that the rest of the world should STFU and stop thinking because we "helped them remain democratic" is probably a good part of why most of the world hates us now. Do you even know what democracy means?
      • bowe, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Iceland thinks they're better than us? Guess what..Uncle Sam just put Iceland on the top of his list.
    • arlok789, on 05/21/2008, -1/+12Its pretty peaceful IN the country... When we aren't shooting anybody.
    • halobender, on 05/21/2008, -5/+4blank entry is blank.
    • dignews, on 05/21/2008, -6/+11The country who is in last place has only been made worse by america
      • retawd, on 05/21/2008, -10/+8Yeah, it was full of kitten farts and puppy dog kisses before the US. Uday and Qusay were spreading joy throughout the land while their father sprinkled fairy dust over all the happy leprichauns. /sarcasm

        You're a ***** dunce. Call your mom and apologize.
        • astronomical, on 05/21/2008, -2/+0.
        • controlguy, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3I think it's easier for some (slower) people to believe that the world's evils are brought upon by a single source: the USA. It serves two purposes: (1) gives them a feeling of control in their lives (i.e., thwart the USA, make the world safer for me and you), and (2) everyone likes to attack the top dog. The same individuals want to believe that "peace" is a stable configuration for the world.

          You know, China will feel the same pain soon.
      • astronomical, on 05/21/2008, -5/+3In reality, murder (unjust death) rates are much lower after the invasion than under Saddam.
        • controlguy, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2The USA certainly made the country much worse for its citizens (and it was wrong to do so!), but let's keep in mind that the Saddam regime was no picnic. For example, what if I was opposed to invading Kuwait in 1991? Could I have spoken out about it as you do now?
        • solistus, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2I call *****. There have been close to 100,000 'unjust deaths' a year since the invasion. The annual death toll before the invasion was under 20,000.
    • astronomical, on 05/21/2008, -4/+8Me too! Because one of the biggest variables in the index is Military expenditure, in which the US surpasses every other nation, combined! Many of the nations above us we protect. So they get a free ride while the US gets pulled down providing their security. The people who made the index admit that the index's usefulness and accuracy is in how the rankings change year to year, not ranking by absolute peacefulness.
    • Shuukyoku, on 05/21/2008, -1/+9Does this mean we're not going to make the playoffs?
    • HMTKSteve, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Link to the source not blog spam: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN203273 ...
    • carlosos, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Not only did they beat some countries but they also improved by 7 places to last year. I wonder how much improvement there will be with a new president (assuming Obama wins).
      • fireashes, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1There will be a lot of change. Hope that change is coming and I believe it.
    • TheWorm, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Then your perception of global conflicts is pretty limited.
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3look at the criteria. the only reason we're so high on the list is because we're at peace domestically, which really brings up our average. we have almost no violent internal conflict. if they were just talking about foreign policy, i'm sure we would be at or near the bottom.
    • ChillHomie, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2While I am not surprised to find us relatively far down the list, much of this is questionable. The developing nations found lower down the list cannot by any means be called peacefull, much of the compiled data is based on reported crimes and death, and, well, developing nations don't exactly have a steller reputation for reporting violence/crime. Egypt, falling in at number 69, actually imprisons those with AIDS, citing homosexuality as a punishable offence. The lack of adequate data in these nations should not be confused for a lack of domestic problems. You have nations on here being cited as more 'peaceful' than the United States, whose life expectancy is less that 40; Rwanda, Botswana (the lowest, at 35) and Mozambique to name a few.

      Additionally, you have nations on here such as Moldova, which is often cited as being the least happy nation in the world, falling in below the United States (at #83). Were I to choose between the two I would take the United States over Moldova in an Icelandic Minute.

      Additionally, nations such as Singapore and China gain peace through intensely restrictive governments. One should not confuse governments hell-bent on securitization, for peaceful nations.

      While this is upsetting to see, and I am by no means a Republican, given the choice between Qatar, Vietnam, Ghana, Kuwait, Cuba, Jordan, Egypt, China, Rwanda, Moldova, Serbia, Bosnia, Libya, UAE, Oman, Syria, Cambodia, or the United States, I think my choice is pretty obvious.

      So while there are many nations ahead of the USA that I would enjoy living in, one can see a sad trend in this study; the majority of the top 10 nations are ethnically homogenous regions.

      Peace is something wonderful, something this nation should most crucially strive for, but a loss of ethnic diversity, suffering a loss of freedom from over-restrictive governments, murder being replaced by disease, rampant unhappiness, and extraordinary levels of unreported crimes are not components of a peaceful society. It will not be until the word peace is associated with a happy society, with a society embracing diversity, with sustainable health of the populous, with freedom of choice and still choosing to do the right thing, that any nation can call itself a peaceful one.
      • kuzotz, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2yea I mean leave out the other first world nations... I mean yea CAnada does not exist. Iceland doesn't exist. New Zealand doesn't exist.

        According to you of course.

        :D
      • agaudet, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Well the US also has the highest murder rate of any country, and are constantly living in fear of the terrorists
        Also the CIA is one of the instruments that shape many of these totalitarian governments.
        If your country is so great then why must it interfere with everyone else's countries that want nothing to do with you?
  • Khaless, on 05/21/2008, -3/+187The actual rankings for 2008 are here if anyone wants to explore them.

    http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankin ...
    • citor, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4those bastards forgot iceland in 2007 =)
    • markwilcox, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5***** yeah 4th!
      • pygmy, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1sheep shagger
        • PhireN, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Hey!!!
          Just because there is a disproportionately high ratio of sheep to Humans doesn't make the quantity (which I really hope is zero) of people shagging said sheep higher.

          The only resent recorded case of someone shagging something (which wasn't a human) was a goat, not a sheep. But he is weird, and we disown him.

          P.S Woot, 4th
    • thewump, on 05/21/2008, -1/+11Iraq comes last.. No doubt Bush would use this as justification for our presence there while everyone else would see it as the result.
    • DeskFlyer, on 05/22/2008, -0/+12I dugg your comment and it went from +1 to +96. I HAVE THE POWER
      • anarchyinthekr, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4i made it go from +1 to +112. I HAVE SLIGHTLY BIGGER POWER
        • DeskFlyer, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3I undugg it and dugg it again and it went from +1 to +119 now. MY POWER IS INCREASING
      • Knucklecallus, on 05/22/2008, -3/+2its over NINE THOUSAAAND
    • jcannonb, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Canada is 11th? That is doable. I could move there.
      • danthemanhan, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2come on in, the bong water is fine!
    • HaMMeReD, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Comparison of Canada, US, and the Iraq.
      http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/compar ...

      This is what I learnt.
      (iraqi population) 28,000,000 * 0.001967 (% of population that is in army)= 55 thousand iraqi soldiers
      (us population) 304,140,850 * 0.005 (% of population in prison) = 1,520,704 US prisoners

      I seriously hope the US never drafts it's prisoners. I'm sure a lot of prisoners would be willing to trade time in prison for time in the army.

      Mortality rate is bad in both, but at least in the army the buttsecks is at a minimal.

    • specialK16, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Costa Rica ranked 34. Politicians here brag about not having an army and being peaceful, but this place is a ***** dump.

      It should be next to Iran and Afghanistan.
    • Oppslagsverk, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Wow, ranked third this year, and first in 2007. We sure are peaceful! Though we have troops in battle almost all the time.
    • known, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Happy Planet Index
      http://www.happyplanetindex.org/list.htm
  • bobzibub, on 05/21/2008, -8/+235Team Canada: #11!!!
    Not bad. Still have work to do...

    • 10001110101, on 05/21/2008, -1/+39Shhh! Ixnay on the ecretsay lanpay!
      • Arcesius, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2The dude from Chernobyl that you keep in a box?

        /stolen from bash.org
      • Gravey9, on 05/21/2008, -5/+1Ixnay? nxl?
      • suminona, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2Shouldn't it be anplay?
        • solidus636, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Lanp?
        • suminona, on 05/23/2008, -0/+0Yeah, I was a bit confused by whether for pig latin the consonant sound was the "p" by itself or the grouping of "pl." Wikipedia says that you should move the entire initial consonant cluster to the back of the word, then add "ay."

          The example they give is "three."
          The correct way of writing this would be ee-thray.
      • Dubbsacc, on 05/22/2008, -0/+11Pig latin grammar nazis, I've seen it all.
    • Brad324, on 05/21/2008, -4/+93Remember, keep pretending hockey is just a sport - they'll never suspect us.
    • 955701, on 05/21/2008, -2/+17That brings up a question. What would happen if most of the 150 nations clean up their act and all become very peaceful. Do they start fighting for #1? And if they do, doesn't that hurt them because they're, you know fighting?
    • xXdredgXx, on 05/21/2008, -30/+17Oh, Canada
      Our home and native land,
      True patriot love
      In all thy sons command.
      With glowing hearts
      We see thee rise,
      The true, north, strong, and free.
      From far and wide
      Oh Canada
      We stand on guard for thee.
      God keep our land
      Glorious and free.
      Oh, Canada we stand on guard for thee,
      Oh, Canada
      we stand on guard for thee.
      • CannedMango, on 05/21/2008, -0/+32I'm Canadian and ***** like this pisses me off.

        It just comes off as arrogant to me.
        • Rikkochet, on 05/21/2008, -3/+9Oh, Canada.. Can't we take the invisible man out of our national anthem?
        • joshuajargon, on 05/21/2008, -1/+10Totally agreed, I thought part of our national pride was supposed to come from not embodying as much ***** in your face arrogance as other countries.
        • CannedMango, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6@joshuajargon

          I totally agree... unfortunately, from my travels I've come across *many* Canadians who get in other people's faces about how great we are.

          It's a complete case of little brother syndrome.



        • joshuajargon, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4@CannedMango, I know, in my travels I have also noticed that EVERY fellow Canadian has a huge flag emblazoned on their bags... It embarrasses me as you don't see nice folks like the Kiwi's doing dumb ***** like this. I think Canadian nationalism really took off with Molson ads, and that sir, is a disgrace.
        • DarthDiabetes, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2There's nothing wrong with having a little well-earned national pride.
          I don't have a problem with the fact that Americans are patriotic. I have a problem with their misplaced patriotism.
        • yingjai, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5@ joshuajargon
          Where have you been traveling? I rarely see people with Canadian flags plastered on them. There are some, but hardly EVERY Canadian. Maybe you went out on Canada Day?
        • KMye, on 05/21/2008, -0/+10Traveling around Europe a few years ago, I'd say over 90% of the groups of Canadians had one somewhere very visibly on their bags. But it's less about being hyper-patriotically Canadian than it is about not being American, isn't it?
        • joshuajargon, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1No, I suppose EVERY could have been an overstatement, but in and around Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam over the course of a few months I found many fellow Canadians donned flags on their bags.
        • CannedMango, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I think there's healthy nationalism and unhealthy nationalism. It's good to be proud when your country does something that you support, and in turn, as a citizen, you should hold your government to the highest standards possible.

          I find it decidedly unhealthy when people let their nationalism become their identity and then brandish that identity in the face of others as if it somehow makes them a better person. It embarrasses me to see fellow Canadians tarnish our flag by almost inferring that we're better than other countries.

          I'll add this as a final thought though... never in my life have I seen a country toot it's own horn as the USA, and if I ever moved there I would invest all of my money in opening up a flag store (that only sold American flags).
        • ChristophyBrown, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1KMye, that is exactly it. Distinguishing ourselves from Americans is all that is meant by our flags, plus a little bit of patriotism.
        • kinseyincanada, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2in response to the canadian flag on backpackers, it haas been recommended by some to do this because it hows that your are not American and therefore might be treated better
        • supersquiggly, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I was traveling with a group in France when I was a teenager on a class trip. We all wore Canada flag stuff. The French were very friendly. And we got free stuff from complete strangers, street vendors and restaurant staff etc... We gave them flags and pins back, until we ran out. We had a great experience. We ran into an American group of teenagers also touring France. They complained about people being rude to them. True story. It was 1994. I think it had to do with how we helped during WWI and WWII.
      • hmunkey, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3...eh?
      • controlguy, on 05/21/2008, -9/+2"We stand on guard for thee."

        I believe the USA has been standing guard with a bit more effort than thee.
        • CannedMango, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1They've been standing on the throats of other guards while they make off with the loot.
      • vault, on 05/21/2008, -6/+3Canada...leading the world in being just north of the United States.
    • MeHow, on 05/21/2008, -3/+18Lets legalize pot, that for sure would bump us up a few ranks :D
      • mimio, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I'm from Colombia. I support your request
      • PhireN, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1It would, as number of prisoners is on of the factors.
    • joshuagor44, on 05/21/2008, -0/+10We actually went down from #8 in the last year. At least we have a lower / more peaceful score.
    • picsectionpleez, on 05/21/2008, -18/+6Ah Canada..... Our northern Mexico.
    • tolgafiratoglu, on 05/21/2008, -10/+4Show the rank of Canada to polar animals.
    • controlguy, on 05/21/2008, -15/+3When you don't have to protect the Western world, it's easy to be seen as "peaceful" and not as "leeches."
      • LamChops, on 05/21/2008, -1/+9You are retarded...
        • controlguy, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1Great counterargument, you should take up debating.
    • CannedMango, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5I feel compelled to tell you that on the previous list, we were #8. So to cheer for #11 doesn't really look so good.
    • scubaman5000, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Here you go my Canadian friends.

      http://www.zazzle.com/butters_number_11_shirt-2355 ...
      • CannedMango, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2now we just need a #97 shirt for our American friends...
    • TimeLincoln, on 05/21/2008, -0/+8lol, I think the only reason you aren't higher is because you neighbor the U.S.
  • Halbermunken, on 05/21/2008, -13/+39"Funny" thing the neocons want to occupy Iran as well...
    • Brownds, on 05/21/2008, -18/+3 And liberals hate America and want to hand us over to Iran... Sounds ignorant huh? As a "neocon" I can tell you, I and a lot of people I know don't agree with Bush's policy and I believe it is in our best interest to cut ties with the radical Middle East completely. It's buffoons like you in both parties that have blundered the US into a joke of a nation. If you judge people by political labels then all that shows is how small minded you are.
    • mypetridish, on 05/21/2008, -6/+2But but but... John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin.
      • Brownds, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5A vote for McCain or Clinton is a vote for "The same ***** differant day" Most people I know are voting to give Obama a chance to do what he says he can do...
        • zeabu, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I'd digg you up because I agree, but dugg you down for missing obvious sarcasm.
        • Scaryclouds, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I'm burying you for missing obvious sarcasm, and misspelling "different."
      • faralen, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Problem #1: How to beat Iraq and Somalia (they have a higher score than we do).
      • Halbermunken, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Sorry but no, since McCain is part of the problem.
    • synthpop, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5excuse me, I believe the correct wording is "want to liberate Iran as well..."
  • toddcat, on 05/21/2008, -6/+116Yeahhhh!!!! We're more peaceful than the Sudan!!!
    • kevinwiz, on 05/21/2008, -0/+18YA!!! Aim high, America. Aim high.
      • DarthDiabetes, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4They're aiming high already. Boom! Headshot!
    • hinmanj, on 05/21/2008, -0/+11That's what Miss South Carolina would say.
      • twrife, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Am I the only person who puts the word 'the' in front of certain countries?
        The Ukraine, the Sudan . . .
    • Nidy1, on 05/21/2008, -1/+7USA! USA!
    • linkinpark342, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Yeahhhh!!!! We're also more peaceful than Iraq...
      ... Wait a second...
    • funkedup, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1That's not what the Google told me...
  • sagenhoney, on 05/21/2008, -23/+7How does the U.S. even qualify for such a list?...and is comparing the best way to approach the subject of "peace" anyway?
    • themarq, on 05/21/2008, -1/+7Did you even take a second to browse the article? Nearly every country is listed, that is; every country "qualifies" or is ranked.
    • Borgcube, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3W...T..F...:?
      How does the U.S. NOT qualify for this kind of list? Unless you mean that USA is not a country and shouldn't be rated?
  • Crimsonsoul343, on 05/21/2008, -3/+101Now i know what countries to attack first on my quest for world domination.
    • wiggles, on 05/21/2008, -3/+3The first decent post in this thread.
    • Rocco03, on 05/21/2008, -3/+8if (USRank < FoeRank)
      ItsOkToInvade = true;
      else
      ItsOkAnyway = true;

      switch (AttackMode)
      {
      case NUKE_THEM:
      ...
    • PhireN, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Living in the 4th country on the list, I agree, you would have no problems invading us.

      Not that you should....
  • obliviousfool, on 05/21/2008, -14/+148Iraq is at the bottom. I wonder how it got there?
    • PolishLogic, on 05/21/2008, -22/+10Yeah, considering they were #2 in 2002

      /sarcasm
      • kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -5/+28Nice job, we made it WORSE than when Saddam was in charge.
        • PolishLogic, on 05/21/2008, -12/+4Did we?

          Looking at the numbers, we're still not even close to the estimated annual death toll during the years of sanctions brought on by Saddam.
        • isiz, on 05/21/2008, -1/+11Yes, you did.

        • Brownds, on 05/21/2008, -11/+1@kemp34
          Why don't you do some research before you say anything else that stupid. We are still finding mass graves from your "benevolent" Saddam regime...
        • CannedMango, on 05/21/2008, -1/+16@Brownds

          Just because Saddam was bad doesn't give America the right to go in and kill whoever they want. The fact of the matter is that Iraq IS in worse shape now than before America invaded to find WMDs/topple Saddam/promote freedom/protect democracy/whatever BS excuse it is this week.
        • piradians, on 05/21/2008, -0/+8Human Rights Watch estimated Hussein's regime killed 250,000 to 290,000 people over the span of 20 years. So their most liberal number would be 14,000 a year. The more conservative numbers are putting post-invasion Iraqi death toll at 16,800 an year.

          That's more, PolishLogic (apt name BTW) and Brownds.
    • Chassit, on 05/21/2008, -15/+2By attacking Iran.
      • LimeParrot, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I'm ***** at history. Why is he being dugg down? (can someone explain)
        • Kizilbash, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Because Iraq attacked Iran almost 30 years ago, under Saddam, supported by the US?
    • bjs3171, on 05/21/2008, -12/+1i don't know. do you wonder that? how am i supposed to know what you're wondering?
    • MysticSavage, on 05/21/2008, -1/+70See #97.
    • Gravey9, on 05/21/2008, -12/+9religion and hate crimes towards humanity might have something to do with it.
      • strupatn, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4Take the maple leaf out of your avatar if you're going to say crap like that.
    • pcore, on 05/22/2008, -1/+6"Don't mess with us or we'll bring Democracy into your country!".
      • strupatn, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2"Wer gunna free the ***** outta you!"
    • nwoantibody, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Something tells me it's reason #97.
      Maybe they should flip the 2; give #97 the bottom position.
  • PolishLogic, on 05/21/2008, -48/+5Buried just because.
    • kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -4/+19Just because you don't like peace or you don't like the truth?
    • glennkachmar, on 05/21/2008, -5/+4probably both!
    • yodaj007, on 05/21/2008, -1/+7I buried your comment. Just kinda felt like it. Y'know.
    • PolishLogic, on 05/21/2008, -4/+1Here's guessing that not one of you looked into how the information was compiled and what types of categories were and were not factored in.

      Oh, and yodaj007, I actually dugg you up for that. Thanks for further helping me prove my point of how arbitrary things can be.
  • wonderchemist, on 05/21/2008, -20/+211Hmmm... so countries where you can legally smoke pot are peaceful ones...
    • kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -4/+22Makes ultra sense. Tyranny has been known to lead to violence. Marijuana being illegal is one evidence of tyranny.
      • executorzz, on 05/21/2008, -12/+2Give me a break, sound the violins.
        • kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -0/+12Just one piece of larger overall picture. BTW, you know there was extreme violence associated with Prohibition of alcohol right?
    • cheezintern, on 05/21/2008, -1/+92That's crazy. Smoking pot=peaceful populous. According to my government literature/propaganda, these pot smoking nations are suppose to be crime ridden, bordering total anarchy, with blood raining from the sky and people eating babies to survive.
      • orangefly, on 05/21/2008, -0/+37you ever ate a baby.................on weed....
        • gruvn, on 05/21/2008, -1/+8the munchies make everything seem tasty
      • yodaj007, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Why does this remind me of the episode of Futurama where Lur of Omicron Persei 8 eats the hippie?

        "Man, my hands are so huge. They can touch anything but themselves. Oh."
      • afruff23, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3And according to my government literature/propaganda, anarchy is a bad word.
      • diablo75, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Don't forget running over kids with cars while they ride tricycles!
      • thelock65, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Don't forget taking naked pictures of yourself and putting them on the internet!
        - according to those anti-pot ads, those things suck.
      • Grummond, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Also, the countries where pot is legal/quasi-legal, don't have problems with everyone smoking it.
        I live in a country where it's basically legal, and it's still something only certain people do.
        • cheezintern, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1that's what my economics professor from Jamaica said. Only certain people smoke and it's looked down upon, even in Jamaica.
    • kahakauai, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5Not suprised in the least - Irie mellow mood FTW
    • wiggles, on 05/21/2008, -1/+26Yes, but are they peaceful because they allow it, or do they allow it because they're peaceful? My vote is for the latter.
      • Brownds, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6I say we research this. For science of course...
        • Llanowar, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2My vote goes to the in between.
          Making pot legal in the US would help a lot on crime rates surely. (in many different ways)

          Making pot legal in Iraq (no idea what drugs laws are like there though) wouldn't really have any effect on its current situation.

          And on the opposite if we ban drugs in the netherlands crime rates will surely go up.
    • KillerLettuce, on 05/21/2008, -4/+19I seriously doubt marijuana is the sole reason a country is peaceful. Now go ahead, bury me for speaking the truth.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 05/21/2008, -3/+8Probably not...but it certainly helps...
      • kemp34, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2One reason in a larger scope of understanding. War on Drugs =/ peace.
      • mimio, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4Colombia, my country is at war, and it is a Drug war. FARC want to keep control of crops and exports. That's what they are fighting for.
        • mateoberry, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4Exactly the point. If recreational drugs were legalized for production, sale, taxation, and consumption, especially in the United States, organizations like the FARC would be out of a job.
    • phydeaux70, on 05/21/2008, -6/+1It's because they are too stoned to stay on task.

      I'm gonna kick your azz.....oooooh..wait....is that a package of Oreos.
    • jezsik, on 05/21/2008, -1/+7I think Bill Hicks gave the best example of why stoners aren't subject to violence.
      "Hey BUDDY!"
      (long pause)
      "What?"
      (long pause)
      Giggling and snickering.
      • RandomGorilla, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Dugg for Bill Hicks reference.
    • executorzz, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Perhaps you were smoking pot while in school, but correlation != causation.
      • Asay, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1This man speaks the truth; there're are many other factors that need to be examined.
    • Nenb, on 05/21/2008, -2/+40http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_ ...

      1. Iceland: Technically Illegal. Consumption is illegal even in small amounts. Possession, sale, transportation and cultivation could result in jail time.
      2. Denmark: Illegal.
      3. Norway: Illegal. Up to 15 grams is considered an amount for personal use, and is punished with a fine of 250-450 euros in the case of first-time offenders; possessing more is considered dealing and punished more harshly.
      4. New Zeeland: Illegal. Cannabis is scheduled as a Class B substance. Cultivation, possession or sale of cannabis is illegal.
      5. Japan: Illegal. Not tolerated. Even a positive drug test can get you jail time.
      6. Ireland: Illegal. Tolerated in small amounts for personal use. Cannabis cultivation or holding large amounts for resale is taken very seriously by the Gardaí.
      7. Portugal: Illegal.
      8. Finland: Illegal.
      9. Luxembourg: Illegal.
      ...

      I could go on. But I hope you CHECK YOUR FACTS next time.

      I am not saying anything wether light drugs should be legal or not, just that you are off your mark by a mile.
      • nipterink, on 05/21/2008, -11/+1coming from the man who sources wikipedia
        • Nenb, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5Do you have any better sources?
        • Grummond, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Technically you're right, but still so wrong.
          I can't speak for every country, but i live in Denmark, and marihuana is technically illegal, but the law isn't really enforced very strictly, especially not for personal use.
          Heck, i eat regularly at a public restaurant where people light up after dinner.
          I'm pretty sure it's more or less the same in Iceland, and at least a few of the others on your list.
          So...technically you're right, but still fail by trusting "facts" only and ignoring the subtle nuance that is "real life".
        • Nenb, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0Ok. Here goes an additional source since you never bothered to find any better yourself, this covers every country but New Zeeland, I suggest you look that one up for yourself.

          European Drug Policy Appendix & Sources (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5007#appendixB ...
      • etnuts, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2ok uhm i think i got it

        everyone move to jamaica!
        • Nenb, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Where it also is illegal. I'm not following you right now. I'll have whatever you are having. :-)
        • etnuts, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1dammit man
          can you at least name a place where we can freely smoke this *****
        • Nenb, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0The highest ranked country on that list where you can smoke pot legally is Belgium (ranked #15). But there you can only smoke at home.
    • KingGorilla, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Japan?
      • starmanfalls, on 05/21/2008, -10/+0***** japan period and forevermore
  • Dan137exe, on 05/21/2008, -8/+40Is it too much to ask to actually show me the list?
    • Nenb, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5See comment #2.
    • Knucklecallus, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2You hastily scrolled past it on your way to post that comment.
  • cokaine, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2No Maldivian Island???? The list aint complete without one:S
    • cdahlkvist, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Well, I count 195 current countries. Why didn't they rank the missing 55?
  • borez, on 05/21/2008, -4/+7No real suprise there then
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/21/2008, -2/+102"I hate these filthy neutrals, With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals?"
    -Zapp Brannigan
  • uncommonwords, on 05/21/2008, -1/+56Civilization IV Strategy: Choose United States, then war with every nation in game.
    Such Fun.
    • ZenMojo, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Meh, I just overtook them all with my scientific and cultural achievements in Civ III. Although, I wish we could research Coca-Cola and McDonald's, it would have made ***** go a lot faster.
    • jwoelmer2, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2I prefer Germany because of their scientific and militaristic focus (the latter has changed since WWII).
    • montiff, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Thank you sir, you made my night.
  • reuscel, on 05/21/2008, -3/+36In your face, Trinidad and Tobago! USA!! USA!! USA!!
  • Pitfan, on 05/21/2008, -1/+76Top 100!
  • BXRWXR, on 05/21/2008, -2/+59Oh yeah? You wanna make something of it?!
  • RespectableGuy, on 05/21/2008, -6/+1wow.
  • kahakauai, on 05/21/2008, -16/+4US would probably be like #40 if we weren't at war right now...
    • Picer, on 05/21/2008, -2/+17The thing is the US is always up to, war or deposing democratically elected governments, starting civil wars in countries that are a potential threat. At least one a decade, ***** happens that the US was responsible for, hopefully a president Obama can buck the trend, but as a brit i'm sceptical, but I hope...
      • gruvn, on 05/21/2008, -9/+0As a brit, you're #49, so maybe you have a slight inclination to declare war on the warmongering US?
      • kahakauai, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4Completely agree
      • gruvn, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1I was being sarcastic - not sure you are...
    • Gravey9, on 05/21/2008, -0/+141
    • sqwirl, on 05/21/2008, -1/+9Thanks, Captain Obvious.

      That's like saying that if Micheal Jackson didn't touch little boys, he wouldn't be such a pedophile.
      • kahakauai, on 05/21/2008, -9/+2P.S - don't be sad cause jackson wasn't touching you....
  • JayKeaton, on 05/21/2008, -0/+11Maybe most Americans have a lot of domestic issues to be angry about.
    • cerejota, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Bitter, jay, Bitter...
    • DarthDiabetes, on 05/21/2008, -1/+0Thank God you have the right to take up arms and kill someone over domestic issues.
  • Shaman760, on 05/21/2008, -2/+9It's the 'Merkin way....we are a warlike people. But then again, I'm sure some lobbyist could bribe off someone at that list and buy a #1 position....

    /sarc
    • rickcarson, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1Yeah, the non stop invasions of other nations over the last 50-60 years probably didn't help. However if I read correctly only those in 2001-2006 are counted, so you pretty much get a free pass on the war front.

      What I think really skews the numbers is America's massive jail population.

      Also since America is basically the leading country for "Death's by firearm" that _isn't_ in the middle of a violent revolution/civil war, that probably drops the numbers a little as well.

      So don't beat yourself up over not getting #1 on this list, you guys rock out in the following categories:
      (1) overthrowing of peaceful democracies (not counting Iraq, which was a bit of an aberration since Saddam really was a genocidal maniac (see also: Kurds))
      (2) most prisoners being trained to follow a life of violence and crime, since other avenues of advancement will be restricted
      (3) school shootings.

      Go Team America!
  • utexas112, on 05/21/2008, -2/+6Funny, though realy quite sad.
  • Oxygen, on 05/21/2008, -0/+60Kazakhstan is #72
    • uriman, on 05/21/2008, -2/+34they are all having sexy time!
    • ZenMojo, on 05/21/2008, -10/+2With the way they treat "the Jew?" They should at least be behind Iran.
  • Sherman901, on 05/21/2008, -0/+28woohoo!, we beat iran! who's got the cake?
    • blackjack75, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Amusing considering Iran only has internal issues and hasn't been at war since the one with Iraq.
      • jezsik, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3Wasn't that the war where we provided the weapons? To BOTH sides?
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Well, there is that whole Hezballah proxy army thing.
    • n3demonic, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5The uranium cake is a lie
    • neorser, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4The cake is a lie!
  • grayfox, on 05/21/2008, -12/+26Im surprised the usa scored that high...

    edit: I blame the usa for Canada only scoring 11th place.
    • thoughtcrime, on 05/21/2008, -12/+6Yes grayfox. It is all an evil American-Haliburton-Nazi-Bush conspiracy. We also ruined your precious Victoria Day holiday by threatening Ottawa with nuclear annihilation if they didn't move it up a week. Bwaaaahaaaaa!!!

      P.S. Oh yeah, we control the price of hockey pucks and Tim-Bits as well. Expect a price increase very soon you beaver-eating troll.
    • iFrikkenR, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Well hey, you're up 7 spots from last year!
    • chaosevil, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Guilt by association
    • girlpirate, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5I blame Stephen Harper and everyone who voted for him.
      • SupaDawg, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1I campaigned for him. Blame away! :)
    • kuzotz, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1maybe if Canada grew some cajones every once in awhile then maybe just maybe they would be higher up in the list.
  • bcerz811, on 05/21/2008, -2/+83we seriously got beat by rwanda? wow...that sucks
    • reuscel, on 05/21/2008, -2/+18And China, Belarus, Syria, and Serbia. It's ***** shameful.
      • Borgcube, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5It is... Croatia is more peaceful than USA, and we spent about a quarter of our existance as a state in a war (it was for independence, but still).
        • Rikkochet, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4In all fairness the scores are calculated annually. Canada dropped about 3 places since 2007, most likely because of our military involvement in Afghanistan.
    • executorzz, on 05/21/2008, -3/+4US getting beat by Rwanda yet know one questions the methodology of the scoring and only accepts it as fact. Please list the last time you saw a mob come down a street and chop an arm off?

      What ever happend to critical thinking?
      • ZenMojo, on 05/21/2008, -1/+8When was the last time you saw that ***** in Rwanda? It's not 1993, buddy, it's 2008. Hell, in 1993 we hadn't stomped a ***** in Iraq yet, either.
        • executorzz, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Alright you got me there, but still should raise some eyebrows.
      • GoneFishing, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Last time I saw four cops in the beat the crap out of someone, they merely lost their jobs... Wait now, was that the US?
  • SevenTwo, on 05/21/2008, -6/+60America, ***** YEAH!
    • nyx210, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2"God bless America...Land that I love..."
    • mythicflux, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Coming again to same the mother ***** day now!
    • digger210, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1"Terrorists, your game is through, 'cause now you have to answer to ..."
  • rmxz, on 05/21/2008, -6/+3Wonder what metrics they used? "# of foreign civilians killed on foreign soil" would be an interesting one; but I wouldn't know where to find such stats.
    • rickcarson, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4As well as your standard war stats (e.g. number of foreigners killed, number of your own people killed while fighting those foreigners) jail/prison populations, and violent deaths* counted, and that probably skewed your numbers downward quite a lot.

      *Sorry to tell you this, but this means death by handgun. I know, I know, guns don't "kill" people, so they shouldn't really count because the people aren't really dead, but hey, what can you do, ask for a recount?

  • pu-z, on 05/21/2008, -4/+128Oh, wow. You got beaten by China on a peace index. That stings.

    Sincerely, #3
    • ZenMojo, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6China needs to ramp up their capital punishment fast. They've got a billion people, I'm sure they can catch up.
    • Vigacmoe, on 05/22/2008, -5/+2China invades nobody.
      Tibet? Taiwan?
      Emmmm...
      No, China invades nobody.
      • mateoberry, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2The invasion of Tibet was more than 50 years ago, dip *****. How many nations has the US invaded in the last 50 years?

        And Taiwan??? Is this a prediction of yours, genius, or are you just that stupid?
  • Funpolice2050, on 05/21/2008, -0/+28Too many pirates have invaded Sweden, they dropped to number 13.
    • bas4ball, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4But we pirates are a peaceful people, until it comes to the MPAA/RIAA...

      ***** THE RIAA
    • verkon, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4I say introduce heavier controlling on immigrants, should move us higher on the list,
  • JohnGalt72, on 05/21/2008, -5/+101Do we need to wipe out those nations higher on the list than us in order to get to #1?

    *Neocon logic*
    • dondara, on 05/21/2008, -1/+36That would be funnier if some moron in D.C. wasn't thinking that.
      • Scaryclouds, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I believed it is spelled "funner."
    • g00dETH3R, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Then you'd drop down even further due to the increased wars. The only option is to invade everyone, America, ***** YEAH!
    • glutamate, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1I lol'd.
  • mlwarrior, on 05/21/2008, -14/+11Ask any other asian countries if they think Japan should be number 5. These Europeans don't really know a lot about asia, sadly.
    • blackjack75, on 05/21/2008, -2/+22I think this is about modern japan, not 1942's japan.
    • Borgcube, on 05/21/2008, -3/+7I don't think Iceland should be number one, what with the Vikings and all. These Europeans don't really know history, sadly.
      • EarlOfLade, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4The Vikings stopped their raids several centuries prior to Columbus crossing the pond. In 1492, they had an extensive network of trade routes throughout the European continent, going all the way to Miklagard, today known as Istanbul.
        I can trace my family back to the 900's, we had some real badass family members in earlier days.
        One of my family members took a quick trip over the pond and stayed a few years in New Foundland, some centuries prior to Columbus btw.
      • mlwarrior, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1See my comment below you ***** fool.
    • mlwarrior, on 05/21/2008, -9/+4blackjack75, and Brgcube

      Your ignorance of contemporary Japan is revolting. If anybody on digg actually knew how other asian countries felt about modern japan, you wouldn't be so bold to trumpet your stupidity so loudly.

      You should take a look at some of the quotes made in the last few years by one of Japan's most prominent politicians, the governor of Tokyo, Ishihara. Try looking up the sex tour for Japanese business men. The previous prime minster (I.E last year), was the Asian equivalent of Hitlers grandson. It's very common to honor the warriors who raped China. Handicapped people in Japan, as of last year, are now "allowed" to take classes with regular children, AKA they got rid of education for challenged people because they can't compete and drop out, so the government saves money.

      You see, you know nothing, ***** nothing about Japan. I'm glad your comment is getting diggs, because it shows me how most westerners really know nothing about asia, which was my original point.
      • joshuajargon, on 05/21/2008, -0/+10This index isn't about measuring old (and 100% justified) grudges though. Germany scores high on the list and no one in Europe gives a *****, because people have for the most part forgiven (or at least attempted to forget) the terrible atrocities committed by Germany during the war. This is the only way we can move on and hope to live peacefully. The way Korea and China refuse to forgive Japan for what happened historically is almost certainly going to result in another war one day. Yes Japan should be heavily reprimanded for continuing to honour WW2 war criminals but I don't think this should disqualify them from obtaining a high rank on a peace index. For you to make a sweeping genralization about "Westerners" is a little bit uncalled for in my books, when I would just say humans in general are fairly ignorant. How much do you think the average Asian really knows about "the West"?

        Forgive and forget buddy, and quit drawing out new battle lines.
        • mlwarrior, on 05/21/2008, -8/+1Did you even read my comment? Everything I mentioned is about CONTEMPORARY Japan.

          Please take your strawman argument elsewhere. In fact, I'm going to say that nothing in your comment applies to what I said. You would have been better off just beating your keyboard with your fists, because at least that would be better that writing something that clearly shows you have no reading comprehension.
        • rickcarson, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5"The way Korea and China refuse to forgive Japan for what happened historically is almost certainly going to result in another war one day."

          Well if Japan would say "sorry" and really mean it, it would be a bloody good start I'm sure.
        • Gndoab, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2hah! You must not go to Europe often, as all of Germany's neighbors still hate her.

        • joshuajargon, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5@mlwarrior

          Your reasoning as to why Japan should not be high on the peace index:
          1) Other Asian countries continue to dislike Japan
          -> This logic is so stupid I won't even address it
          2) Quotes made by former prime-minister (FORMER, only current PM quotes should really count in a current index) would convince us that this is not a peaceful nation.
          -> As none of these alleged quotes were given it is hard for me to judge, however, I am supposing (perhaps wrongly) here that if they were of great significance they would have been mentioned in the international media.
          3) Japanese men commonly engage in sex tourism.
          -> Probably a small demographic of perverts, hardly indicative of the country as a whole. Are these men merely paying for sex or are they doing awful things and abusing women (I honestly don't know)? In my experience there are a lot of perverts in this world, and Japanese men are probably doing this because they are a wealthy nation, many nationals engage in sex tourism. I lived in Korea for a while and let me tell you, that that is a prostitution obsessed nation, not to mention most of their pornography includes a rape theme. Anyway, I feel this is more a reflection of wealthy men than a national culture.
          4) Previous PM was related to fascist Japanese leader of some sort.
          -> This is only relevant if he is behaving like his ancestors.
          5) Commonly honour war criminals
          -> Addressed above. Reprehensible behavior that the entire world condemns. Still, I don't really see how this is relevant to a current peace index, its more disgusting than relevant.
          6) Japan's education system is built to alienate mentally handicapped students.
          -> Truly disgusting, only significant point made so far. However, when compared to nations with grudges against Japan... China, manufactures and sells weapons to many questionable customers, Korea, is forced to live with the potential of war everyday and has a mandatory military draft for all male citizens which lasts more than 2 years I believe, Thailand, many women are kidnapped and enslaved as sex workers.

          My point is, Japan's ***** is certainly quite stinky, but I still think it is not THAT stinky these days. Hell, their constitution states they cannot go to war except in defense (I am aware they are actively trying to change this) and they barely have any hand guns on the streets. Don't they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world? I suppose 4 is perhaps a little high on the list, but really, it is clear that you are so down on them because you have been brainwashed by being subjected to years of anti-Japanese propaganda.

          Anyway, you seem to me to be a very hateful and angry person, all this ***** is just baggage for you and will only hold you back in life.
        • mlwarrior, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1"1) Other Asian countries continue to dislike Japan
          -> This logic is so stupid I won't even address it"

          Be specific, what about this logic is so stupid. Are you sure you're not just bluffing? This is significant point number 1. This is a pretty well established fact. For example. That earth quake that hit china. China turned down aid from Japan initially, and Japan has the best earthquake response tech, in the world, because Chinese hate Japan. I know some chinese that celebrate the atomic bombing date.

          "2) Quotes made by former prime-minister (FORMER, only current PM quotes should really count in a current index) would convince us that this is not a peaceful nation."
          I told you to look up quotes from the CURRENT governor of Tokyo, the capitol and largest city. CURRENT.
          significant point number 2

          "3) Probably a small demographic of perverts, hardly indicative of the country as a whole..."
          Do a google search for "Japanese sex tourism", then come back to this. Also look up the age of consent. Also, look up what kind of sex tours are popular (hint: it has to do with the previous statement.) Significant point number 3.

          4") 4) Previous PM was related to fascist Japanese leader of some sort.
          -> This is only relevant if he is behaving like his ancestors. "
          You don't know why Abe stepped down, do you? You should really research things before you speak, you just keep looking dumber. HE WANTED TO INVADE KOREA YOU DOLT!
          Point number 4.

          "5)Reprehensible behavior that the entire world condemns. Still, I don't really see how this is relevant to a current peace index, its more disgusting than relevant."
          These two sentences contradict each other. Something can't be condemned by the whole world and not be relevant to the point that I was making that Japan has a bad image in Asia.
          Point number 5

          6. Point number 6.

          7. "Don't they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world?"
          They lie about their crime rate when it's suitable. For example, they count the number of inmates as the number of crimes that have been committed. A major problem in Japan is that secret executions happen with about 80% of long sentences. They constantly inflate the number of crimes committed by foreign citizens.

          When I was in Tokyo, I wondered why homeless people slept next to ponds. It's because a hobby of highschoolers is to throw kerosene on the homeless and burn them to death. The Japanese government hasn't taken any measures to solve the problem. By the way, you should do a little research on the governments stance on homeless.

          I'm very hateful and angry when someone speaks about something as if they know a lot, but actually don't

          Also, I am fluent in Japanese, my girlfriend of three years is Japanese. I've lived there. The point is, is that I know about the good and the bad. Which you don't, and the people doing this study didn't.








        • ka2err, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3@Gndoab
          > all of Germany's neighbors still hate her.
          I'm German and I'm working abroad in most European Countries during weekdays.
          I'm typing this in a Hotel in Vienna currently. Germany is one of the biggest countries in Europe and so we are watched closely and sometimes with a little suspicion because of the influence that comes with economical power and size. And we have our cultural peculiarities as everybody has and which may cause some intercultural friction sometimes.

          But I have never experienced hatred because of my nationality in any European country so far. Neither in any non-European country. Quite the contrary. I often have to discuss current and not so current (1933-1945) German and European history with people I meet which is something I enjoy.

          Somehow I doubt that you travel frequently enough to be a good judge on this..
        • joshuajargon, on 05/22/2008, -0/+31) The logic is stupid because whether or not people are hated has nothing to do with whether or not they deserve to be hated (think about the Jews in Germany). It is as much an indication of the nature of the haters as the hated. Maybe it tells us that the Japanese aren't people who experience and exhibit peace at the current moment, but also maybe it tells us that the neighbors of Japan are petty and brainwashed. Without more explanation and context this point alone means nothing and is not worth bringing up.

          2) Why would I look up quotes for you, you are the one making the argument, so you go do the research and post a footnote to support your assertion. Personally, I am not going to go do research when I have good reason to believe you are probably misinformed... but prove me wrong.

          3) As stated I have little doubt that there are Japanese sex tourists, but once again I can't simply take your word for it that they have a bigger demographic of people taking part in these activities than anywhere else, give me proof.

          4) Footnote needed again, I doubt this because it would be stupid (Korea would probably win, North and South could probably unite to fight that fight seeing as the North's nationalism is built almost entirely upon hating Japan). Perhaps some stupid joke taken way out of context?

          5) Your initial argument was not that Japan had a bad reputation in Asia (to this I fully 100% agree, a well earned reputation, but one we should now be trying to chip away at through dialogue and open minds) but that Japan did not deserve to be number 5 on this list and Europeans were truly misinformed about the realities of Asia. Thus, my statement that yes the war shrine visits are disgusting, but no they have almost no bearing on where Japan should sit on a list of worlds peaceful nations (not only in foreign policy, but in the way a population experiences life). HOWEVER, now that I think harder I will concede here that it does hold significance as it is highly violent symbolically, but physically and practically these visits are not violent. This being said I doubt the list was built to measure symbolic violence.

          7) I still think they have a much lower crime rate than most countries in the world. I didn't live there, but I have visited for a short period of time and I can say I never felt threatned walking down the streets of Fukuoka drunk at night. That being said I might have felt slightly safer in Korea (unless around US soldiers). The story about the homeless is really scary, though I have a feeling it might be an urban legend, you can easily change my mind with a footnote though. I had Korean students who claimed relatives visiting China had had organs stolen, which is *****, and don't get me started on fan death. This is a nation that LOVES urban legends and believes them earnestly so I can't help but wonder if this applies to other Asian nations.

          At the end of all this I will concede that you have convinced me to think harder about Japan, and I will be doing more reading about Japan in the future. However, I resent this blanket accusation that Westerners and Europeans know nothing of Asia and speak on it anyway. Besides, the exercise of talking about and exploring these issues is how people learn. It's not like we are writing an encyclopedia here, we have a fantastic opportunity to have dialogue with people all over the world and I just don't think that bitter quickly flung insults are very conducive to open dialogue.
        • Borgcube, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1That most Asian countries hate Japan is irrelevant since they are not currently at war. Also, most of the list is based on crime rates etc. and that they have sex tourism and some gruesome criminals doesn't make them any less peaceful since it is noted in those statistics and seems to be a very small percentage.
        • mlwarrior, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1joshuajargon

          "The logic is stupid because whether or not people are hated has nothing to do with whether or not they deserve to be hated "

          Do you really think that's true? So basically your saying that actions have no consequences, like murder, or insulting someone means that you don't deserve to be hated. You should really look at this studies methods, because the opinion of neighboring countries is a criterion for peace.

          http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/about-gpi/meth ...

          Points 2, 3 and 4 are true. I told you to look them up. All your doing is calling *****, citing you're own ignorance of the issue. I agree, it's better to cite specific sources, but it's not my job to do a lot of extra work because you don't know about something. In your last paragraph you talk about how you know little about Japan, so do the research yourself. Ignorant people constantly call ***** on issues because they don't know about it, and use it as an argument that they are right.

          But here you go....

          2.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shintaro_Ishihara#Rac ...
          http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Shintaro_Ishihara
          http://www.japantraveler.com/issues/0005/racism.ht ...

          3.
          "Despite limited government action, sex tours continue to thrive, fuelled by the doubling of Japanese men travelling abroad in the last five years to reach 12 million in 1992. One survey reported that one in five men admitted to having bought sex with women abroad."

          http://www.newint.org/issue245/sex.htm

          4.
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5186460.st ...
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinzo_Abe#Defense
          I know about this from my girlfriend. Everyone knows that Abe wanted to revise the Japanese constitution to allow war. Please don't claim your own ignorance of something as an argument that it's wrong.

          5. Again, opinion of neighbors is a criterion of the peace index, and in Asia, Japan is about as bad as they come.

          Also, @ Borgcube
          You should read the methodologies section for the article I linked to see why that statement is false.

          I've proved that Japan doesn't meet the criterion to be ranked number 5. I'm upset at you, and the rest of digg, because your being stubborn, ignorant about an issue and thinking that your right. This is related to my original point. You think Japan is a peaceful place, and maybe it is to whites, but not in Asia. Really, if you guys took a second to close your mouth and open your eyes, you'd see how wrong you really are.
      • starmanfalls, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0So it is the new war with japan? Bullets and bombs worked last time. And now we are supplying them with the means to finally destroy us for good. Who gives a rats ass what Asia thinks about us?
        • ka2err, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0> Who gives a rats ass what Asia thinks about us?

          Asia does. They do own your rat's ass.
          And yours.
  • lazerus9, on 05/21/2008, -2/+9This survey has really pissed me off! I could just tear someones hea...............I am now thinking peaceful thoughts....breath in......breath out....breath in....now let it out slowly.
  • executorzz, on 05/21/2008, -21/+20How can mexico be above the united states? There's like a drug war going on between federal police and the cartels. They're trying to tell me that it's more peaceful there than in boise, idaho? Just another egghead index if you ask me...

    Take a look at the methodology they use.
    • drmangrum, on 05/21/2008, -10/+5Don't know why you're being modded down, you're right. There are several countries that are DEFINED by their violent and confrontational natures that are "peaceful." The list is *****.
    • cerejota, on 05/21/2008, -5/+16Name one country that Mexico has invaded.

      In fact, half of Mexico is now part of the United States as war booty. 'Nuff said.
      • drmangrum, on 05/21/2008, -4/+3Why don't you read the methodology they used to determine the point scale. There are many countries that haven't had much in the way of international conflict, but have massive internal conflicts.
      • starmanfalls, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0AMERICA
      • Petrushka72, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1"Name one country that Mexico has invaded."
        Texas (which had just declared its own independence), in 1846. Do I win a prize?
    • EXreaction, on 05/21/2008, -3/+8"according to how peaceful they were domestically and how they interacted with the outside world"

      Read much?

      Of course, you also picked an example of a relatively peaceful (guessed) area and ignored the rest of our country. There are a hell of a lot of places in this country I'd never go to without a tank.
      • executorzz, on 05/21/2008, -7/+31. People don't immigrate to non-peaceful countries.

        2. The European countries score lower on the "peace" rating because they don't have to spend much on defense what with the 80000 US troops in Germany.

        This is just another one of those articles invented for mutual mental masturbation to all the america sucks groups.
      • upyourego, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1It's not the EUs fault the US decides to spend all its, sorry Asia's money on defence instead of health care and looking after their poor.

        And the total EU defence budget is still the second highest in the world - us spends about $500 billion on defence and the EU spends about $311 billion.

        I doubt the 80,000 US troops are really needed in Germany.
  • KillerLettuce, on 05/21/2008, -6/+14I wonder how Switzerland did. They're never in any fights of any kind.
    • Lugano, on 05/21/2008, -0/+7#12
    • cerejota, on 05/21/2008, -0/+15RTFA!
    • Myonosken, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3They all have knives though, so we'll rate them high out of fear of our mobiles and loose change.
      • CorwinShiu, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Actually I think I heard that every male in switzerland has to enroll in the army and are required to keep a firearm at home. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    • inverselogic, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1and those backpacks....and their mountains as well , those are threatening
  • drmangrum, on 05/21/2008, -16/+2Meh, Very biased list. There are many countries on that list that aren't peaceful at all, they just don't make headline news. Clear case of most visible = most hated.
    • cerejota, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4This makes no sense at all.

      I mean, is the USA the 97th most visible country?

      • drmangrum, on 05/21/2008, -3/+1Look at the methodology they used to do the rankings. The ranking system is pretty much geared to skew the results out of favor for the US.

        "The Global Peace Index is intended as a review of the state of peace in nations over the past year, although many indicators are based on available data from the last two years. The advisory panel decided against including data reflecting a country's longer-term historical experience of domestic and international conflict ...
        * Number of external and internal conflicts fought: 2001-06
        * Estimated number of deaths from organised conflict (external)
        * Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal)
        * Level of organised conflict (internal)
        * Relations with neighbouring countries...
        * Level of distrust in other citizens
        * Number of displaced people as a percentage of the population
        * Political instability
        * Level of disrespect for human rights (Political Terror Scale)
        * Potential for terrorist acts
        * Number of homicides per 100,000 people
        * Level of violent crime
        * Likelihood of violent demonstrations
        * Number of jailed population per 100,000 people
        * Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people"


        So they chose to ignore a countries past, which would put most of Europe near the bottom of the list. They are using values from 01-06. Oddly enough, from the year of Sept 11th, followed by the afghanistan war, the iraq war, Katrina, et all.

        As I said, their standards are biased against the US. ***** list.
        • Recidivus, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I suppose they could look at a countries past also, World War 1 or 2 could be a good start?

          After those there's Lebanon 1958, Vietnam 1964, Lebanon again in 83, Gulf War 91. Those are the ones authorized by Congress.

          Then there's just engagements/deployments that could be added. Although not all are offensives, there's still quite a list here:

          http://www.cdi.org/issues/USForces/deployments.htm ...

          Just because the US is getting marks on those indicators doesn't mean it's skewed. I would hazard a guess that it is showing how "violent" a nations government is and/or how it deals with it's own population. There is no denying that (for example) there is an incredibly high jailed population, which will affect the results.
  • depro9, on 05/21/2008, -6/+12We are so pathetic for allowing this ***** to happen. What a sad state of affairs for us all.
  • Hetman, on 05/21/2008, -2/+23Whats the chances of this happening? It is not like we have our highest ranking politicians going on T.V. and singing Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb. Oh wait nevermind I guess we do.
  • 32bitwonder, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3Molvania ftw!
  • atbrask, on 05/21/2008, -2/+55I find it funny that the top three are old viking countries..
    • mrweasel, on 05/21/2008, -0/+26Well we're still tired from kill each other for a couple of hundred years.
  • Irlande, on 05/21/2008, -5/+6I really question that list....I looked at Ireland (cos its the only one I really know about) and its a bit iffy!
    Similarly, the system used to judge it is a bit questionable too. Theres a few countries in questionable positions. Japan higher than Ireland (maybe its just patriotic bitterness but I dunno!), like really, how?! :P

    Still, very interesting statistics inside each country (if only I trusted them!)
    • Nidy1, on 05/21/2008, -3/+5Do you know anything about Ireland?

      /facepalm
      • Irlande, on 05/21/2008, -1/+9Yes. I live here. Hence I refuse to accept certain statistics, such as members of paramilitary organisations for 100,000 citizens: 0.

        Also, the system of judging is flawed. Lebanon more peaceful than Israel?
    • pilot3033, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I clicked on the countries to see how they were scored, the metrics are interesting to say the least. I don't agree with all of them, but it is a pretty interesting list none-the-less.
  • saunders45, on 05/21/2008, -12/+2Rawstory Spam. Rawstory=FoxNews. Sensationalist journalism at it's finest.
  • astronomical, on 05/21/2008, -15/+59A bit misleading, here's why.

    The Economist, in publishing the index, admitted that, "the index will run into some flak." Specifically, according to The Economist, the weighting of military expenditure "may seem to give heart to freeloaders: countries that enjoy peace precisely because others (often the USA) care for their defense." The USA spends more than all other countries combined on the military. The true utility of the index may lie not in its specific rankings of countries now, but in how those rankings change over time, thus tracking when and how countries become more or less peaceful.

    The Peace Index has been criticised for not including indicators specifically relating to violence against women and children. Riane Eisler, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, argued that, "to put it mildly, this blind spot makes the index very inaccurate." She mentions a number of specific cases, including Egypt, where she claims 90% of women are subject to genital mutilation, China, where, she says, "female infanticide is still a problem," and Chile, where 26% of women "suffered at least one episode of violence by a partner, according to a 2000 UNICEF study.
    • Lugano, on 05/21/2008, -0/+16Not sure why you are getting buried...
      • stoneking2312, on 05/21/2008, -0/+12Diggers aren't as enlightened as we often give ourselves credit. (As a majority) Good comments get buried all the time for bringing context or opposing viewpoints to a controversial story.
      • drmangrum, on 05/21/2008, -0/+9Because it's not cool to call ***** when the US is shown in a bad light. Of course, these are the same people who call others sheeple for not thinking for themselves. Ah, the irony.
    • stoneking2312, on 05/21/2008, -1/+8Thanks for digging up that info. It's good to get an objective viewpoint.
    • PolishLogic, on 05/21/2008, -1/+16Excellent post. However, you have to remember that anytime a report casts the US in a bad light, it doesn't matter to many diggers how it got to that result. Merely that the result was achieved, period.
    • thoughtcrime, on 05/21/2008, -0/+12Oh, oh. Watch it astronomical... you're using that dreaded *logic* and even worse, *facts* again (shudder), and that's libel to get you digged-down by this crowd of knuckle-draggers.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/21/2008, -7/+1Then again, the 1/4 of all women who have been raped in the United States isn't factored in, either.
    • Myonosken, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3Um, child violence should be given more weight, female violence should NOT. There's a equality for a reason and it should have the same value if a man is shot or a woman.
      • cme884, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Ok, then call it 'domestic violence.' Either way, it's not represented.
  • robinohio1, on 05/21/2008, -4/+52US # 98
    IRAN #105
    ISRAEL #136

    ...as expected.
    • Lahe, on 05/21/2008, -1/+12why is iran worse then the us? without getting political, the us is involved in 2 wars. Iran isn't. I just want to know what this list means with "peaceful" nation. What are the criteria for the score?
      • Lbarboza, on 05/21/2008, -1/+13It considers domestic violence also. A place where this happens:

        http://www.pathguy.com/lectures/8186.jpg



        tends to have a little more internal turmoil, wouldn't you think? lol.
        • Scaryclouds, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Jesus 80 to 180 lashes for drinking beer? That would kill most people!
      • Myonosken, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Iran is generally a pretty angry country with internal violence (eg: gay killings).
      • TxAggie08, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2Ever heard of Hamas? How about Hezbollah? Both of these very violent terrorist groups are funded by Iran. Also, they are sending arms into Iraq. Did I mention threatening to wipe Israel off the map?
        • Notquitesane, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Iran has no nukes. It's been proven. And you seem to think those groups are a threat to Israel, who has around thirty. Iran also has no navy. Unless you think of that "terrifying" speedboat "conflict" everyone was so worried about 6 weeks ago qualifies as a navy. "OMG that poor defenseless aircraft carrier is being bullied by those speedboats!!!1!1!11"

          Shut yer whinin'
          Israel is a big boy now and can take care of itself. They would just prefer to have the US do it for them.
      • iFrikkenR, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Human rights play a part as well. Iran is fairly restrictive of what people do and when. And how they dress when doing it
      • nickvdk, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0The US military has accused Iran of sending agents to Iraq and help destabilize it. Iran has also been accused of supplying weapons, food and money to support rebels/terrorists, similar to the CIA.
    • EXreaction, on 05/21/2008, -2/+7if ($attack_iran)
      {
      $iran += 35;
      $us += rand(5, 30);
      }
      • Scaryclouds, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1So if we attack Iran their peacefulness rating would drop further than us? That's illogical.
        • topace3000, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2This isn't a measure of "evilness" or something, it's a measure of total violence. Yes, a war in Iran would cause more violence to Iranians than to Americans.
    • neko6, on 05/21/2008, -7/+2Rwanda at #76, more peaceful than all of those. The nation murdered 800,000 civilians in 1994 for belonging to the wrong tribe, but hey, thats old news, so its considered a "peaceful" nation... List is not well made.
      • Nenb, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3List well made. But yes, it may seem a bit odd considering the track record of Rwanda fourteen years ago. But then again neither does the German genocidal history about fifty-eight years ago count, nor does the american conflict with native americans long ago count.

        The list is contemporary, it is not relating to history.

        These are a few points where Rwanda had a better score:
        • Higher citizen trust in their government.
        • More police officers per capita.
        • Harder (believe it or not) to access weapons.
        • Lower potential for terrorist acts.
        • Better relations with neighbouring countries.
        • Fewer internal an external conflicts.
        • Fewer killed as as result of the internal and external conflicts above.
        • Higher percentage of women in the parliament (close to 50%).
  • ToadX, on 05/21/2008, -15/+21Ok, Americans. Let's just admit it. We don't want to be at the top of this list. Who wants to be known as a wussy country? That's how you get your lunch money stolen.
    • Zippo, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5Yeah, and then that wussy country grows up to be your boss. At the rate America is going now, it's going to hit rock bottom.
      • Lbarboza, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1everything that goes up comes down, but I can assure you that it won't be hitting rock bottom in your life time. So stop spewing bitter nonsense. I don't think Iceland is going to be the boss anytime soon. But I will definitely consider vacationing there!
        • itsthemechanic, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6You can't afford to vacation in Iceland on dollars. A pizza over there costs $50.
        • KingGorilla, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2I did not know the laws of gravity applied to international relations
        • Troy64, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1The question isn't if someone can afford to go to Iceland, but why they would want to go there in the first place.
      • crowbar77, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Is that you George?
    • Rikkochet, on 05/21/2008, -7/+8You represent exactly what is wrong with America now. Peace is now synonymous with weakness.
      I weep for your founding fathers.
      • starbuxadct, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2perfectly stated.
      • moberme, on 05/21/2008, -3/+2Right on brother! The bully does not stop picking on weaker kids because of diplomacy. He stops when he gets dominated.
        Our founding fathers not work things out with our bully England. Freedom is not free. PS wussies move to France, don't ruin our country.
        • du4l1ty, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Except we're the bully...
        • cme884, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I'd hope someone representing America has a good sense of humor. In my eyes he represents exactly what's right about America.
      • topace3000, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Our founding fathers were corsairs,smugglers and revolutionaries...
  • phydeaux70, on 05/21/2008, -18/+9It's tough to be simultaneously the most envied, loved, admired, and hated country in the world.

    Who would want to move to Iceland??? It would be impossible for the US to be high on this list, we are too significant in too many ways. Most of Europe owes it's very freedom to the brave soldiers of the US.

    We should pack up our troops from around the world; japan, guam, germany, afganistan, etc etc etc, and see how the rest of world will defend itself without the help of the US military.
    • gruvn, on 05/21/2008, -2/+8Maybe you should.
      • phydeaux70, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1Apparently to do so would mean that the rest of the world would have to deal with the meanies on their own and that is just unacceptable.

        In truth...all people would be better off if they just stayed out of everybody elses business. Mind your own borders and blast anybody who comes over them in a provacative nature. That includes the U.S. too.
        • gruvn, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I tend to agree, but I like my oil, and my lead-tainted chinese toys... :)
      • Buelldozer, on 05/21/2008, -4/+2I'm an American and I think that we *should*. I know that tens of millions, at least, will die from such an action but it's in keeping with what the "world community" wants.

        Besides, it'll be fun to have to watch Europe nut up and deal with it's own backyard for a while.I think that the U.S. should take it's phone off the hook so that the shirtcuff relatives will stop calling and asking for favors.
        • spongya77,