Global Peace Index 2012

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I'm just jaded by too much World over the years to care too much more seeing the results after 40+ years.

Ditto...I've been harping about Sub-Saharan Africa for years on this forum to contrast the incessant bitching about political conflict between Israel and Palestine, which gets far more attention. Palestinians are starving!

No wonder they have to use flies.

Edited June 29, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Ditto...I've been harping about Sub-Saharan Africa for years on this forum to contrast the incessant bitching about political conflict between Israel and Palestine, which gets far more attention. Palestinians are starving!

No wonder they have to use flies.

Ethiopia and Somalia have been going at it since I was a kid. Your childhood too, I imagine. I knew the planet wasn't fair the day the Provos gave me a bad case of tinnitus.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ethiopia and Somalia have been going at it since I was a kid. Your childhood too, I imagine. I knew the planet wasn't fair the day the Provos gave me a bad case of tinnitus.

No kidding....I'm so old it goes back to at least Biafra famine in 1968.

[DogOnPorch]

No kidding....I'm so old it goes back to at least Biafra famine in 1968.

Give Peace A Chance. Bagism. War is OVER if YOU WANT IT.

All that energy...lol.

Thanks for this blog, btw....

http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/

[bush_cheney2004]

Give Peace A Chance. Bagism. War is OVER if YOU WANT IT.

All that energy...lol.

Thanks for this blog, btw....

http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/

Yes, it is interesting...with the raw negatives, which were at the place and time.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, it is interesting...with the raw negatives, which were at the place and time.

http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/blackpool-beach-in-1982-b-001.jpg

Yes, yes...I amuse easily.

[bush_cheney2004]

http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/blackpool-beach-in-1982-b-001.jpg

Yes, yes...I amuse easily.

Imagined what that smelled like!

[carepov]

It is an either/or scenario, you want to take people from their country in the hoped that 10,20 or 50 years down the line they will go back and help rebuild their homeland. How is that working for the Somali teens going back to Somalia and joining militias? What about Sudanese children? Who will help them?

We need to make our Refugee system available only for those clearly in need of asylum as opposed to taking anyone and everyone. Help them help themselves as opposed to bringing some of them here to stay on welfare and still be crying "Will somebody poles think of the children"... We don't have the resources to bring all the children in need to Canada.

I already said that I more or less agree with the status quo I 100% agree: "We don't have the resources to bring all the children in need to Canada"

There are some refugee frauds, but for the most part it would not be a bennefit to leave them in their home country becaus ethey would end up dead.

[Signals.Cpl]

There are some refugee frauds, but for the most part it would not be a bennefit to leave them in their home country becaus ethey would end up dead.

How so? If they are frauds then that in and of itself means they should be ineligible for refugee status. When people use refugee claim as an easier way to get in to Canada then something is wrong, many people from central and eastern Europe make a refugee in Canada under the guise of being oppressed and persecuted in their home countries. These people are in no way persecuted they just found an easier way to get in to Canada and one that seems like a cheaper and more affordable way. Keep refugee positions for people that really do need asylum as opposed to just giving it to people because they "might" be persecuted in their home country.

[carepov]

How so? If they are frauds then that in and of itself means they should be ineligible for refugee status. When people use refugee claim as an easier way to get in to Canada then something is wrong, many people from central and eastern Europe make a refugee in Canada under the guise of being oppressed and persecuted in their home countries. These people are in no way persecuted they just found an easier way to get in to Canada and one that seems like a cheaper and more affordable way. Keep refugee positions for people that really do need asylum as opposed to just giving it to people because they "might" be persecuted in their home country.

Sorry I mis-typed.

There are refugee frauds and yes most recently the Roma from Hungary and a few years ago the Czech Rep, most mexicans probably too. These people should be ineligible and I am in favour of Kenny's plan to fast-track these out of the system.

I meant that most refugees are not frauds and that many of these people would be dead if they stayed in their home country.

[Guest Derek L]

http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/blackpool-beach-in-1982-b-001.jpg

Yes, yes...I amuse easily.

A Dog and Pony show?

[dre]

The problem with people scoffing at the idea of international aid, is that if we wanted to get serious about it this would be a pretty easy problem to solve. I read somewhere that 30 billion dollars a year could end world hunger. Thats less than we gift to a strapped bank these days... and the world spends that on its aggregate militaries in just a few days.

Obviously on balance we dont make this a very big priority. If we funded the war on poverty as well as the war on communism, or the war on terrorism, or the war on drugs we would have won a long time ago.

We will spend billions of dollars bombing holes in the ground this year.

Edited June 29, 2012 by dre

[Signals.Cpl]

The problem with people scoffing at the idea of international aid, is that if we wanted to get serious about it this would be a pretty easy problem to solve. I read somewhere that 30 billion dollars a year could end world hunger. Thats less than we gift to a strapped bank these days... and the world spends that on its aggregate militaries in just a few days.

Obviously on balance we dont make this a very big priority. If we funded the war on poverty as well as the war on communism, or the war on terrorism, or the war on drugs we would have won a long time ago.

We will spend billions of dollars bombing holes in the ground this year.

What happens when local warlords block the food aid or use the food aid to hold civilians hostage? What happens when you send food aid to a country like Sudan and they don't have the infrastructure to receive all of it so it has to go through neighbours to the north or east or south... how do you ensure that the 30 billion of aid will get to the people in need rather then end up in the storage facilities of the local warlord? In the facilities of the guy who will use the food as a weapon against his enemies?

[carepov]

The problem with people scoffing at the idea of international aid, is that if we wanted to get serious about it this would be a pretty easy problem to solve. I read somewhere that 30 billion dollars a year could end world hunger. Thats less than we gift to a strapped bank these days... and the world spends that on its aggregate militaries in just a few days.

Obviously on balance we dont make this a very big priority. If we funded the war on poverty as well as the war on communism, or the war on terrorism, or the war on drugs we would have won a long time ago.

We will spend billions of dollars bombing holes in the ground this year.

What happens when local warlords block the food aid or use the food aid to hold civilians hostage? What happens when you send food aid to a country like Sudan and they don't have the infrastructure to receive all of it so it has to go through neighbours to the north or east or south... how do you ensure that the 30 billion of aid will get to the people in need rather then end up in the storage facilities of the local warlord? In the facilities of the guy who will use the food as a weapon against his enemies?

These are all very good points and questions from both sides. I would like to make four points:

1. We should avoid over-generalizing every country is different - even every village.

2. We cannot help everyone, this should not stop us from helping where we can

3. There are many recent successes of international aid and development and there are many NGOs doing good work

4. No matter what the situation, we should sympathize with the powerless victims

[carepov]

The question is simple, you think about the children who are not at fault, I think about their parents who will come to Canada and drain the resources of the welfare system and those innocent children who will continue to drain the system.

You are exaggerating. Our system is not drained by refugees.

[TimG]

I read somewhere that 30 billion dollars a year could end world hunger.

You are too credulous. Hunger, where it remains, is the result of bad government and corruption. spending money on aid would only make the problem worse.

[Signals.Cpl]

These are all very good points and questions from both sides. I would like to make four points:

1. We should avoid over-generalizing every country is different - even every village.

Yes every country is different, but in many cases the general assessment applies to most countries in need barring those due to natural disasters.

2. We cannot help everyone, this should not stop us from helping where we can

Theoretically thats a noble sentiment but in reality not so much, what is the point in investing resources in educating, feeding and providing medical attention to children when we don't provide safety to them? We spend all those resources and then see those children forced in to being sex slaves for this militia or that militia and the little boys being forced to fight as child soldiers. When people want to help as much as it seems you want to and thats an honourable thing, they sometimes do so blindly, "helping" people in need far away but not really helping the intended people.

3. There are many recent successes of international aid and development and there are many NGOs doing good work

There are some NGO that are respectable and do good work, but then there are NGO's that counteract any limited success that already ineffective Peacekeeping missions. NGO's should work within an international framework where they work to support the general goal of helping people rather then "helping" people by being counter productive and downright destructive to the overall goal.

4. No matter what the situation, we should sympathize with the powerless victims

Sympathy solves nothing, actions speak louder then words, being sympathetic while doing nothing well nothing happens.

[Signals.Cpl]

You are exaggerating. Our system is not drained by refugees.

I did not say drain BY Refugees, I stated many of the "refugees" drain the system as in they are one of those multiple groups that drain the system rather then the group that does so by itself.

[guyser]

We don't do what? Take in everyone and anyone? Because if thats your argument I would beg to differ, I know of a number of "refugees" who come from stable countries and found being a refugee the easier way to come to Canada.

You know a number of refugees? Well , great.

We take slightly less than 10% of the worlds refugees.

You want to argue we take far more of our share then be my guest, I will back you up.

[carepov]

Yes every country is different, but in many cases the general assessment applies to most countries in need barring those due to natural disasters.

Theoretically thats a noble sentiment but in reality not so much, what is the point in investing resources in educating, feeding and providing medical attention to children when we don't provide safety to them? We spend all those resources and then see those children forced in to being sex slaves for this militia or that militia and the little boys being forced to fight as child soldiers. When people want to help as much as it seems you want to and thats an honourable thing, they sometimes do so blindly, "helping" people in need far away but not really helping the intended people.

There are some NGO that are respectable and do good work, but then there are NGO's that counteract any limited success that already ineffective Peacekeeping missions. NGO's should work within an international framework where they work to support the general goal of helping people rather then "helping" people by being counter productive and downright destructive to the overall goal.

I will maintain that the issue is too complex to paint a sweeping picture. What you say is true in some cases but not in others. You cannot even isolate cases with or without natural disasters because political/military/geographic issues are so often inter-related (e.g.: Haiti)

I would rather discuss more specific questions, for example:

-Should Canada accept refugees from Somalia, if so how many?

-Do you agree with today's policies toward Haiti? -or Zimbabwe -Canadian aboriginals... or...?

-What do you think about the work done by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF)? - or the WHO? or Development et Paix...or Amnesty International... or...?

Sympathy solves nothing, actions speak louder then words, being sympathetic while doing nothing well nothing happens.

You are right sympathy in itself solves nothing however sympathy is a pre-requisite to helping others.

[carepov]

I did not say drain BY Refugees, I stated many of the "refugees" drain the system as in they are one of those multiple groups that drain the system rather then the group that does so by itself.

OK sorry I misunderstood.

[Signals.Cpl]

You know a number of refugees? Well , great.

We take slightly less than 10% of the worlds refugees.

You want to argue we take far more of our share then be my guest, I will back you up.

I want to argue that we let people take advantage of our system.I think we should take refugees, only though take the refugees who are legitimate.

[Signals.Cpl]

I will maintain that the issue is too complex to paint a sweeping picture. What you say is true in some cases but not in others. You cannot even isolate cases with or without natural disasters because political/military/geographic issues are so often inter-related (e.g.: Haiti)

I was referring more to developed nations that face natural disasters nations like the US(Katrina) and the Earthquake in Japan, those nations are able to provide for themselves but after the emergency the affected area is in need of assistance and the federal government will not choke off food supply to the are in need in order to control the population.

I would rather discuss more specific questions, for example:

-Should Canada accept refugees from Somalia, if so how many?

We should be very selective when taking refugees from Somalia or nations like that, because it is likely that they aren't really the poor impoverished refugees they are made out to be... plus if they are allowed to stay in Canada it should be under strict conditions where they are in effect forced to become productive members of society.

-Do you agree with today's policies toward Haiti? -or Zimbabwe -Canadian aboriginals... or...?

Can you site specific points? I would rather not engage in a vague discussion about those issues but more specific discussion.

-What do you think about the work done by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF)? - or the WHO? or Development et Paix...or Amnesty International... or...?

I have this belief that doctors without borders and all other medical organizations should cooperate if not merge in order to use their resources more efficiently. I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone who puts themselves in danger while working for little in the way of financial compensation in order to help people, they are truly hero's in my eyes but I still think that there is significant waste and that should be a priority to remove.

Amnesty International, well I have mixed feelings for them, on one level they are fighting for human rights on another level they seem to overdo.

You are right sympathy in itself solves nothing however sympathy is a pre-requisite to helping others.

The will to do something is the pre-requisite to action, and generally the pre-requisite to having the will to act is the self interest. If nations cannot find something in their national interest there is no action e.g.. Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia...

[carepov]

We should be very selective when taking refugees from Somalia or nations like that, because it is likely that they aren't really the poor impoverished refugees they are made out to be... plus if they are allowed to stay in Canada it should be under strict conditions where they are in effect forced to become productive members of society.

You may be right in some cases, but what about those that have been living in camps for months/years, surely the vast majority are authentic refugees, no?

Can you site specific points? I would rather not engage in a vague discussion about those issues but more specific discussion.

OK, I am looking forward to it but not now though...

I have this belief that doctors without borders and all other medical organizations should cooperate if not merge in order to use their resources more efficiently. I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone who puts themselves in danger while working for little in the way of financial compensation in order to help people, they are truly hero's in my eyes but I still think that there is significant waste and that should be a priority to remove.

Amnesty International, well I have mixed feelings for them, on one level they are fighting for human rights on another level they seem to overdo.

I have also felt that many NGO's should merge to be more efficient. I agree on most of your viewpoints here. I will start a discussion on AI soon.

The will to do something is the pre-requisite to action, and generally the pre-requisite to having the will to act is the self interest. If nations cannot find something in their national interest there is no action e.g.. Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia...

Again, I agree but that was not my point. All I am saying is: "If we had more sympathy for people suffering - especially for children and other powerless people - the world would be a better and less unjust place." Do you agree?

Also, of course a country can (and should) develop a will to act based on self-interest and humanitarian reasons.

[Signals.Cpl]

You may be right in some cases, but what about those that have been living in camps for months/years, surely the vast majority are authentic refugees, no?

My question would be how many of those legitimate refugees actualy come to Canada? I have nothing against helping refugees, the problem is when those that come to Canada by and large are not the once that need the most help.

Again, I agree but that was not my point. All I am saying is: "If we had more sympathy for people suffering - especially for children and other powerless people - the world would be a better and less unjust place." Do you agree?

I dont think there is a shortage of sympathy in our country or in the world in general, the problem is that most people do not turn smpathy in to action. The west in general is risk averse, for example a PK mission in Rwanda, the Hutu's knew that killing 10 Belgians would almsot certainly guarantee the withdrawal of the Belgian troops, the Belgians themselvs might have had sympathy but they like every other western nation determined that the lives of a few dozen of their soldiers was not a price they were willing to pay even if it meant saving the lives of over 800,000 thousand innocent men, women and children. People had sympathy but it didnt make a bit of difference. If we can get sympathy in to our international relations then we can make a change until then sympathy plays no part.