Yrys
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
Global Peace Index Rankings
- Thread starter Yrys
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Military capability/sophistication: 3
So if we fought with sticks and stones, we'd be considered more peaceful? Wow what a BS study.. Its the fact we have a modern army and the heavy weapons that ensure peace here in Canada.
On a side note, I wonder how much Canadian blood was spilled in war to allow those European countries in the top 10 to be peaceful?
So if we fought with sticks and stones, we'd be considered more peaceful? Wow what a BS study.. Its the fact we have a modern army and the heavy weapons that ensure peace here in Canada.
On a side note, I wonder how much Canadian blood was spilled in war to allow those European countries in the top 10 to be peaceful?
NL_engineer
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
well we ranked higher then the Swiss ;D what more can you ask for ;D
Wow, if this is not THE stupidest study I've seen grown-ups perform, it surely "ranks" highly among them, along with freedomhouse! This makes me doubt whether it is truly grown ups that perform these studies. They really need to make these people take some formal logic classes! Problems with the rankings I could observe within minutes, not even looking deeply into them:
1) A qualitative assessment of the level of distrust in other citizens…. Uhm…. OK? What does this have to do with anything. Such things are cultural and have nothing to do with whether a country is peaceful or not.
2) Number of internal security officers and police….. Do police make the country less or more peaceful? I'm not sure which one they assumed, but neither could be used linearly as an assesment, as I would assume police make a country MORE peaceful up to a point, untill there are too many of them and corruption becomes a problem.... so a down-ward-opening parobolilc shaped curve with "peacefulness" as a function of the number of officers employed would be appropriate. This is logic they teach in Microeconomics 1 when talking about the production curve (in the case of a police officer, he 'produces' peace), but I guess "The Economist" doesn't actually employ economists... or at least the IU... what a shame! Rather, the study takes on a linear relationship which is wrong either way, whether positive or negative.
3) Ease of access to weapons… the issue of whether weapons make a country more or less safe is still up for debate with no clear conclusions… this argument assumes a premise to be true that is not necessarily so. I also have issue with trusting the EIU on this, given that it is a rather wrapped up in the stars and stripes.
4) Most of the assessment is “qualitative”, rather than quantitative… so basically, it is some British dude’s opinion. Even if opinion polls were used, they should be worldwide for a proper assessment, as some people tend to be “patriotic”, at times. (Respect for Human Rights, Political Instability, Level of violent crime, potential for terrorist acts, etc… the list of these ‘assessments’, possibly sucked out of some fat dude’s thumb, goes on and on) I mean “potential for terrorist acts”???? Please… why not use the number of terrorist acts that have taken place or have been prevented… anything that is less… well qualitative!
5) “UN Deployments” …. Uhm… don’t those make the world more peaceful? Or does us having troops active in some part of the world make us less peaceful? I could argue it either way to suit my objectives.... point made?
6) Relations with neighbouring countries…. Given that this is a qualitative assement, I won’t stress the stupidity of this claim that one country’s relationship is more peaceful than another… how about some numbers? Enough of this opinion BS already!
7) Political Democracy Index (again the EIU…. Sheesh! How about some diversity?)
8) Electoral Process… “qualitative”
9) Foreign Direct Investment as a measure of “peacefulness”? Wow… so if a country lets us set up shop there they are peaceful, if they don’t they are not peaceful? Makes sense! How delightfully capitalist of the authors to assert such a ridiculous claim! I'm not saying that FDI is not beneficial for a country, but it has NOTHING to do with "peace", unless you really stretch the logic chain.... "M+X as a measure of GDP"… well this is not AS bad, at least there is no agenda here, but still, does it seem irrelevant to the point of the study, at least a bit?
10) Importance of religion in national life…. Uhm… ok? Seems a bit improper but I’ll give them that much… I mean the crusades and all… religion was a cause for conflict throughout history. I would not send such a message to the locals in the country I am “peacekeeping”, though, the message that it is religion that makes them “not peaceful”…. This is why we have cultural training! But a valid point, I concede, however improper.
11) “Willingness to fight”…lawl
12) Nominal GDP?????? YESSSS, of course, it all makes sense nowww… it’s the waaaaars that make the money go round…. or is it the other way around??? I'm confused! off-top?
13) The definition of a "peaceful country" is too vague! Looking at the criteria, the word "passive" may be more appropriate. "The global passivity index"
In conclusion, this study is a complete piece of garbage!
1) A qualitative assessment of the level of distrust in other citizens…. Uhm…. OK? What does this have to do with anything. Such things are cultural and have nothing to do with whether a country is peaceful or not.
2) Number of internal security officers and police….. Do police make the country less or more peaceful? I'm not sure which one they assumed, but neither could be used linearly as an assesment, as I would assume police make a country MORE peaceful up to a point, untill there are too many of them and corruption becomes a problem.... so a down-ward-opening parobolilc shaped curve with "peacefulness" as a function of the number of officers employed would be appropriate. This is logic they teach in Microeconomics 1 when talking about the production curve (in the case of a police officer, he 'produces' peace), but I guess "The Economist" doesn't actually employ economists... or at least the IU... what a shame! Rather, the study takes on a linear relationship which is wrong either way, whether positive or negative.
3) Ease of access to weapons… the issue of whether weapons make a country more or less safe is still up for debate with no clear conclusions… this argument assumes a premise to be true that is not necessarily so. I also have issue with trusting the EIU on this, given that it is a rather wrapped up in the stars and stripes.
4) Most of the assessment is “qualitative”, rather than quantitative… so basically, it is some British dude’s opinion. Even if opinion polls were used, they should be worldwide for a proper assessment, as some people tend to be “patriotic”, at times. (Respect for Human Rights, Political Instability, Level of violent crime, potential for terrorist acts, etc… the list of these ‘assessments’, possibly sucked out of some fat dude’s thumb, goes on and on) I mean “potential for terrorist acts”???? Please… why not use the number of terrorist acts that have taken place or have been prevented… anything that is less… well qualitative!
5) “UN Deployments” …. Uhm… don’t those make the world more peaceful? Or does us having troops active in some part of the world make us less peaceful? I could argue it either way to suit my objectives.... point made?
6) Relations with neighbouring countries…. Given that this is a qualitative assement, I won’t stress the stupidity of this claim that one country’s relationship is more peaceful than another… how about some numbers? Enough of this opinion BS already!
7) Political Democracy Index (again the EIU…. Sheesh! How about some diversity?)
8) Electoral Process… “qualitative”
9) Foreign Direct Investment as a measure of “peacefulness”? Wow… so if a country lets us set up shop there they are peaceful, if they don’t they are not peaceful? Makes sense! How delightfully capitalist of the authors to assert such a ridiculous claim! I'm not saying that FDI is not beneficial for a country, but it has NOTHING to do with "peace", unless you really stretch the logic chain.... "M+X as a measure of GDP"… well this is not AS bad, at least there is no agenda here, but still, does it seem irrelevant to the point of the study, at least a bit?
10) Importance of religion in national life…. Uhm… ok? Seems a bit improper but I’ll give them that much… I mean the crusades and all… religion was a cause for conflict throughout history. I would not send such a message to the locals in the country I am “peacekeeping”, though, the message that it is religion that makes them “not peaceful”…. This is why we have cultural training! But a valid point, I concede, however improper.
11) “Willingness to fight”…lawl
12) Nominal GDP?????? YESSSS, of course, it all makes sense nowww… it’s the waaaaars that make the money go round…. or is it the other way around??? I'm confused! off-top?
13) The definition of a "peaceful country" is too vague! Looking at the criteria, the word "passive" may be more appropriate. "The global passivity index"
In conclusion, this study is a complete piece of garbage!
NL_engineer
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Genocide gets higher then the US:
(Rwanda, Cambodia and Croatia) this guy really knows something : O and another peaceful country, Vietnam : I guess recent history has nothing to do with the rankings :
(Rwanda, Cambodia and Croatia) this guy really knows something : O and another peaceful country, Vietnam : I guess recent history has nothing to do with the rankings :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
NL_engineer said:
Yes that was the main thing I took away from the results. Everything else, meh :-\
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Hmmmm, definately some arguable points in there. Biased as it is, its a starting point, although I'd like to know what events prompted us to drop from 8 to 11 in one year...
Similar threads
