Canada among 10 most peaceful countries

[guyser]

Casnada at #8 and weak sister Iceland at #1 ,most peaceful country?

That is crazy and cannot stand.

Once we get some tanks back from Afghanistan and those F-35s start getting delivered and we have a serviceable submarine....... I say we steam over to Reykyavik harbour and bomb those codloving poseurs into the Stone Age where they belong. Then we'll be #1, where we belong.

Please spare the women....they are gorgeous in Iceland.

[DogOnPorch]

Please spare the women....they are gorgeous in Iceland.

Tony Soprano & crew would agree!

[Topaz]

I live in Ontario and already pay health insurance premiums that result in eligible coverage through the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. These premiums are calculated based upon income.

How does this differ from "co-payments?"

Co-payments would probably be, still you pay that OHIP plus everytime you see a doctor and I remember in the 60's , you had to pay the hospital money before leaving.

[Saipan]

The reason behind my view is that Harper has complete power and we have the Health Care issue coming up and today I already have heard on the news that Canadians may have to start paying for their own healthcare in co-payments. Since Harper has said in the past that provinces should rise their own money, one has to wonder if Harper will go that route and then how many Canadian without jobs, low income or even middle income can afford to pay out of pocket?

You "may" have evidence for:

...my view.... ....have heard.... ....may have.... ...one has to wonder if.....

[AngusThermopyle]

The cold war was 'relatively' peaceful for a few decades, but that's over now, isn't it Angus Thermopyle

It sure is, as for peacefull, well I guess that depends on whether or not you consider standing on the edge of the precipice of Global Thermonuclear Warefair to be peacefull or not. I'm sure if you were to ask some who were involved in it such as B-C for instance, they may just give you a different perspective. Everything we did in the Armed Forces at that time was done from the basis of impending catastrophic war. The simple truth is that Humanity was closer to global anihilation at that time than it ever has been. More than a few times our survival hinged on one wrong decision, many times in fact one decision could have plunged us into global warfair the likes of which have never been seen before. Sure, for the average person it appeared peacefull, but to those of us involved in it a different perspective presented itself and we were aware of the fact that any given day could bring this horific form of war. So I guess whether or not it was peacefull would depend upon an individuals level of involvement. One thing I can tell you though is that to a man we were all ecstatic when that dammned wall came down and the Great Soviet Bear started to break up.

However if one goes a little further back in time we can take a look at the world wars, both of them. Are we engaged in this form of war currently? No, of course not. However we are still engaged in a form of world war. This new world war is also known as The War On Terror. Warfair constantly evolves and changes, just because we no longer do things the way we did 60 odd years ago does not invalidate the world war premise. Then one also has to look at all the minor national and regional wars around the world, these are not diminishing in number either. The world is not becoming safer in general as some would like to believe, rather as our technology improves and proliferates it is becoming more dangerous, at least on a non Nuclear level.

Of course the new threat that is on the rise is the number of states and organizations that are now gaining access to those dreaded Nuclear weapons, many of whom we would consider to be unstable or rogue, or both. This doesn't even start to consider the joint deadly and horrific factors of more accesible Biological and Chemical weapons.

In effect humanity is now at a level where can conceivablly decimate all life on this planet. Some consider Global Warming to be the biggest threat humanity faces. For myself I consider fallible and even stupidly short sighted individuals armed with power and these types of weapons to be just as or an even more serious threat to our survival.

Anyway, sorry for going on about this but I find that it is such an involved subject that it simply can not be addressed in a glib sentence or two.

[Saipan]

No, poor civilians deserve better.

Yes, they deserve better than Saddam or Taliban.

[bloodyminded]

It sure is, as for peacefull, well I guess that depends on whether or not you consider standing on the edge of the precipice of Global Thermonuclear Warefair to be peacefull or not. I'm sure if you were to ask some who were involved in it such as B-C for instance, they may just give you a different perspective. Everything we did in the Armed Forces at that time was done from the basis of impending catastrophic war. The simple truth is that Humanity was closer to global anihilation at that time than it ever has been. More than a few times our survival hinged on one wrong decision, many times in fact one decision could have plunged us into global warfair the likes of which have never been seen before. Sure, for the average person it appeared peacefull, but to those of us involved in it a different perspective presented itself

I think Western armed forces, by and large, were far less cognizant of the horrors than were the innocent civilians in third world countries who got to play the part of pawns between two violent Superpowers.

[Shwa]

Co-payments would probably be, still you pay that OHIP plus everytime you see a doctor and I remember in the 60's , you had to pay the hospital money before leaving.

OK, so why do you think that this is what 'co-payment' means?

[scribblet]

This bad news must really irritate you.

This could make it worse Canadians content with new Parliament

A healthy majority of Canadians are "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with the idea of an NDP official Opposition; the Liberals as the "third party" in Parliament; the elimination of the Bloc Quebecois as an official party in the House of Commons; and the election of the country's first-ever Green Party MP.

[bloodyminded]

This could make it worse Canadians content with new Parliament

According to the link you provide, Canadians are content with Parliament...except for the Conservative part, about which they remain sharply divided.

[Saipan]

I think Western armed forces, by and large, were far less cognizant of the horrors than were the innocent civilians in third world countries who got to play the part of pawns between two violent Superpowers.

Like Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda...... Junguvies in Somalia...... chopping off arms in Western Africa.......

[bloodyminded]

Like Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda...... Junguvies in Somalia...... chopping off arms in Western Africa.......

Your attempts at one-upsmanship remain ineffective, even baffling, when you fly off into unrelated topics.

[Sir Bandelot]

I think what Angus Thermopyle said is true, but he speaks of it in the past context. He's talking about the potential threat of nuclear war during the cold-war era, that it 'was' a great threat. The potential for "mutualy assured destruction" kept the superpowers locked in a tense stand-off, were they fought wars in remote areas by proxy. This created a dilemma that they could not engage in total war, as they seem so wanting to do. Imagine, war becoming obsolete because the weapons are too horrific to use. But now that the USSR has subsided, I doubt that this threat has been diminished. The militants seek a way to use their nuclear arsenal in limited skirmishes, and to do that need to make the public less afraid of using nukes. Just small nuclear bombs please, they are so compact and wonderfully effective. But the standoff continues because of the threat of escalation, and the big johnnies are still there, in their underground silos.

The dismantling of USSR may have been hailed as a victory of sorts for the west, but in some ways made the world less safe. Soviet nuclear scientists, finding themselves unemployed were offered lucritive posts in foreign lands. Now there's a threat of dissemination of nuclear technology to countries that have no treaty agreements, where it can fall into the hands of terrorists and criminals.

The checks and balances have been disturbed, temporary though they may have been in this terrible chess game. Now there is no one left to reign in the white queen. She can roam all over the board freely, taking whatever square she wants. And in whatever manner she wants- rules be damned.

[RNG]

Case in point. The militant attack on the Pakistani naval base where the BBC STATES that the militants had lots of inside help, all part of a growing anti-Americanism. Many lower level Pakistani military are very anti-American, the article says and keep in mind it is the Pakistani military that controls their nukes. Scary stuff.

The BBC website is funny today and missing several features including the search window.

[Bonam]

Oh? You got to be kidding! Small scale compared to the past?

Link please.

You really need a link for that? Never heard of WWII?

[August1991]

You really need a link for that? Never heard of WWII?

WASP Canadian smugness predates WWII. But all must admit the individual's goodness.

Casnada at #8 and weak sister Iceland at #1 ,most peaceful country?

Have you ever heard of this book?

The Smug Minority

Edited May 28, 2011 by August1991

[fellowtraveller]

except for the Conservative part, about which they remain sharply divided.

How so? Do you think the millions of Canadians who voted them a majority have now changed their minds?

[betsy]

You really need a link for that? Never heard of WWII?

No, explain how present-day conflicts are smaller in scale compared to WWII.

Edited May 28, 2011 by betsy

[CPCFTW]

No, explain how present-day conflicts are smaller in scale compared to WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Total Soviet losses in the postwar 1946–91 boundaries[11] were 26.6 million. (13.5% of the total population of 196.7 million)

Jews:The Holocaust is the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, Martin Gilbert estimates 5.7 million (78%) of the 7.3 million Jews in German occupied Europe were Holocaust victims.-[23] Other estimates for Holocaust deaths range between 4.9 to 6.0 million Jews.

The historian Chalmers Johnson has written that “the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Documented civilian deaths from violence

101,097 – 110,421

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darfur

300,000-330,000[8] civilians killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war

Estimated total killed on both sides including civilians:

10,000[30

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Total Military Killed 13,107

Civilian deaths: 14,000-34,000 approx.

Edited May 30, 2011 by CPCFTW

[TTM]

No, explain how present-day conflicts are smaller in scale compared to WWII.

See also: Human Security Report

About the decline of conflict since the end of the second world war (and in particular after the cold war). Very interesting read.

From the report:

"The increase in battle deaths since 2003 needs to be seen in the context of the dramatic, though very uneven, decline in estimated war-death tolls since 1946. In 1950 (the first year of the Korean War) there were some 600,000 battle deaths worldwide; in 1972 (the deadliest year of the Vietnam War) the toll was more than 300,000; in 1982 (the height of the Iran-Iraq War) it was 270,000; in 1999 (when wars were being fought between Ethiopia/Eritrea and in East Africa’s Great Lakes region) it was 130,000. In 2008 the battle-death toll was 27,000."

To put that into even better perspective:

Year World Population (Millions)

1950 2,519

1970 3,692

1980 4,435

2000 6,070

2008 6,707

For an equivalent level of battle-deaths in 2008 compared to 1950, there would have to be ~1,500,000 battle-deaths that year. There were 27,000.

Edited May 31, 2011 by TTM

[betsy]

Regarding war scales, I wasn't thinking along the lines of death tolls, but rather the countries involved, the intricacies and complexity of conflicts.

The war on global terrorism, in my view - not to mention conflicts between nations - seems to be much larger in scale when compared to World War II. But then again I might be wrong.

Edited June 1, 2011 by betsy

[dre]

The war on global terrorism, in my view - not to mention conflicts between nations - seems to be much larger in scale when compared to World War II. But then again I might be wrong.

Yeah, youre wrong.

I would say in fact that right now is one of the most peaceful times in human history. No wars between major powers, very little in the way of external threats, and really just not much going on at all.

[dre]

No, explain how present-day conflicts are smaller in scale compared to WWII.

[RNG]

Yeah, youre wrong.

I would say in fact that right now is one of the most peaceful times in human history. No wars between major powers, very little in the way of external threats, and really just not much going on at all.

Ever heard of Africa, including North Africa/Middle East?

[dre]

Ever heard of Africa, including North Africa/Middle East?

Yup theres a spattering of regional conflicts around the world... there always has been and always will be. But this is chump change compared to major times of conflict in history. This is an unprecedented time of peace between nations, and especially between major nations. Like I said... not much going on these days.