:lol: Yep. That's just it. :p

Yes, Israel would probably be higher up if it wasn't sharing area with the Palestinians. They... don't exactly get along too well.

I knew Norway was peaceful, but that it was #1 I just couldn't imagine. And here I was worrying about there seems to be more murders each year:oops:. It should be mentioned, though, that peaceful and safe aren't necessarily the same thing. The weather's growing pretty hostile here on the South-Western coast, which has already caused fatalities. I think that if hurricanes and storms were factored in, we might drop a place or two, although I think we'd still rank among the 5 top countries.

Also, I notice some countries, such as Iceland and Greenland, appear not to be included. Surely Iceland must be more peaceful than Norway, what with it only having 300 000 people:-?? I'd liked to have known where Rwanda would have been, too.

4th, not so bad

I'm surprised to see Switzerland rank 14th instead of 1......the swiss haven't been involved in any wars for more than 200 years.

Australia 25th, not too surprised at that, with troops in Iraq and Afganistan that pulled our score down somewhat.

You don't have to be in a war to benefit from it.

Technically speaking the United States hasn't been to war since Korea. Vietnam was a 'police action', 91 was an intervention of some kind and the 'War on Terror' is so ambiguous that it doesn't even exist anywhere except on a teleprompter.

I read somewhere that Swiss citizens that are in the armed forces take their issued arms home with them and keep them nearby for quick deployment. That might be part of it... that and the Jewish gold.:rotfl:

Oh and Israel... hahahahaha... oh man. I'm not gonna touch that except to say that best intentions aren't everything. Peave loving and peace making are two different things.

*retreats to underground bunker to arm self with sharpest wit and strongest critical armour*

Come out, come out, where ever you are!

What next in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which some call the “peace process”?

I shall argue three points: that these negotiations have been so counterproductive, they could better be called the “war process”; that their failure results from an Israeli conceptual error fifteen years ago about the nature of warfare; and that the U.S. government should urge Jerusalem to forego negotiations and return instead to its earlier policy of deterrence.
- Next Steps in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, Testimony by Daniel Pipes, U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, February 14, 2007

Any group that this is their main supporter list is a bit suspect in my eyes....

HH Dalai Lama
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Betty Williams
President Jimmy Carter
Amnesty International
Professor Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: The world's premier income redistribution leader?

War doesn't have to be sanctioned to be called a war.

Here's some raw meat for ya! lol.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ceIndexMap.gif

Um, that's the topic of this thread. So what exactly is your point? :hmm:

Avon,
That was kinda a joke. I always figure that at link to LGF is going to cause excitement. One of the commenters LGF pointed out some of the folks who put this "study" on consider their dearest allies, this was slightly instructive.

Some of my favorite comments at the bottom of the LGF post are/were:

"Well that certainly explains why so many people are fleeing the US for Cuba, China, Vietnam, and Libya. At this rate in a few years they'll be no one left in America."

"I like to look at that peace map when I'm stoned. It kind of looks like a patchwork quile of peace, or like a tapestry man. It's just so beautiful."

"I think we should bomb all those countries that ranked higher than us, to eliminate the "Peace Gap".

"It's because of all our monster trucks."


I had course in statistics once, using excel and maps and such, called "Quantitative Analysis in International Affairs" and it was just like this little project that this org. did. In fact, the methodolgy is exactly the same. You punch a bunch of numbers in to criteria you come up with yourself, kinda like the EIU, which is the basis of much of this report.

You will notice on page five a professor from one of my alma matter where I had this course.

The criteria itself is very interesting. Tells you a great deal about the agenda. Where % of GDP and defense spending, as well as 'trust of others' is criteria, a certain agenda becomes apparent.