Gpi Rankings 2008(not So Good...)

[mac1970]

So some study to talk about(Global Peace Index – GPI). Perhaps not so big suprise

but anyway down on the list from 2007. Congo even better

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2008

Many reasons for this as we know...

[cloudhopper]

The individual categories contained in the report are interesting but the methodology is a bit subjective and biased IMO and I wouldn't place much stock in the overall rankings.

[JetsetBkk]

A bit of a coincidence:

2008:

United Kingdom.....49

Mozambique..........50

Laos.....................51

Cyprus..................52

2007:

United Kingdom....49

Mozambique.........50

Cyprus.................51

(Laos not listed in 2007)

I don't believe three countries would be in the same positions two years running. I haven't checked them all, but this looks very suspicious.

[Spee]

So some study to talk about(Global Peace Index – GPI).

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2008

This has come up in threads before and I think the responders either love it or loathe it. Personally, I think it is a load of subjective, left-leaning-biased, propagandized rubbish.

Let's look at some of the countries that are rated as "more peaceful" than Thailand:

- Angola

- Yemen

- Iran

- Rwanda

- Syria

- China

- Cuba

Any "peace measurement index" that places repressive, marxist, communist, radical theocratic countries with brutally violent, biased and discrimatory central governments ahead of a democratic monarchy such as Thailand, smells to high heaven of big, stinky, steaming, rotting piles of steer manure.

Thailand may have have its fair share of problems, but those problems arise largely because of established freedoms and rights, not because of central governments which act so as to repress freedoms and rights.

Which would you choose? Where would you rather live?

Hmmmm ..... lemme t'ink for a sec .... Cuba or LoS .... Syria or LoS .... Iran or LoS .... etc., etc., etc.

Kind of a no-brainer, isn't it?

[myauq]

So some study to talk about(Global Peace Index – GPI).

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2008

This has come up in threads before and I think the responders either love it or loathe it. Personally, I think it is a load of subjective, left-leaning-biased, propagandized rubbish.

Let's look at some of the countries that are rated as "more peaceful" than Thailand:

- Angola

- Yemen

- Iran

- Rwanda

- Syria

- China

- Cuba

Any "peace measurement index" that places repressive, marxist, communist, radical theocratic countries with brutally violent, biased and discrimatory central governments ahead of a democratic monarchy such as Thailand, smells to high heaven of big, stinky, steaming, rotting piles of steer manure.

Thailand may have have its fair share of problems, but those problems arise largely because of established freedoms and rights, not because of central governments which act so as to repress freedoms and rights.

Which would you choose? Where would you rather live?

Hmmmm ..... lemme t'ink for a sec .... Cuba or LoS .... Syria or LoS .... Iran or LoS .... etc., etc., etc.

Kind of a no-brainer, isn't it?

excitement and opportunity has little to do with peace and security. thailand is an exciting place to live, with lots of high-tech gadgets, modern infrastructure, fun places to visit, freedom of expression (to a degree), influx of tourists, media accessibility, etc, etc. that means many people from developed countries like living here. yes.

however, just because we have all those things here doesn't mean it is safer here. cuba is a safer country because people have nothing to do all day, and they have no means or incentive to be violent towards either tourists or themselves. the most dangerous thing you can do in that country is criticise the government, then you end up in jail. the government in cuba, like myanmar and iran, are dangerous, not the people. it is dangerous to criticise ordinary thai people, but it is not dangerous to criticise ordinary cubans or burmese.

in a society like thailand, where cultural and legal issues enable violence, and in many ways protect violent acts (through corruption, poor (non-existent) policing, law courts, media, etc.), it's easy to see why it is a more violent society than a dictatorship. we may have a more so-called open political system in thailand, but cultural and legal issues often compel people to act in non-peaceful ways.

[Spee]

however, just because we have all those things here doesn't mean it is safer here. cuba is a safer country ...

Uhm ... it's a "peace" index, not a "safety" index.

[myauq]

however, just because we have all those things here doesn't mean it is safer here. cuba is a safer country ...

Uhm ... it's a "peace" index, not a "safety" index.

give me a break - safety has EVERYTHING to do with peace! safety is a central element in defining peace, and how you perceive your own safety in relation to either the government and/or other citizens (according to the survey, see below) ....

Methodology and Data Sources

Measures of societal safety and security

Ten of the indicators assess the levels of safety and security in a society (country), ranging from the level of distrust in other citizens, to the level of respect for human rights and the rate of homicides and violent crimes. Crime data is from the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Five of these indicators have been scored by the Economist Intelligence Unit's team of country analysts.

• 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
  

-----

how many of these indicators don't apply to thailand?

[HS Mauberley]

Which would you choose? Where would you rather live?

Hmmmm ..... lemme t'ink for a sec .... Cuba or LoS .... Syria or LoS .... Iran or LoS .... etc., etc., etc.

Kind of a no-brainer, isn't it?

Whilst I admire your determination to put grubby, ignorant, infantile right-wing ideology before all else, I'm afraid that the survey isn't for favourite holiday destinations.

[Spee]

Crime data is from the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Five of these indicators have been scored by the Economist Intelligence Unit's team of country analysts.

• 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
  

-----

This precisely why this survey is a joke and the United Nations has been a complete failure in an attempt to be a world governing body.

Places like Syria and Cuba have very stable governments, but neither government is desirable by people seeking personal and economic freedom.

Places like China has extremely low likelihood ot violent demonstrations. But on the other hand, the government doesn't allow people the freedom to hold any anti-government demonstrations at all.

The US has relatively high homicide and incarceration rates, but it arguably the most stable system of government in history and offers more personal and economic freedom than any society in history.

I could go on and on with many more examples. The bottom line is the survey, like the UN, are a joke, especially in consideration of the way things are in Thailand compared to other places.

The most important thing is to distinguish the differences when problems arise because of EXISTENCE of societal freedoms and when other problems are suppressed because of LACK of societal freedoms. This survey and the UN do neither, which makes them both very impractical and very wrong.

[h90]

So some study to talk about(Global Peace Index – GPI).

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2008

This has come up in threads before and I think the responders either love it or loathe it. Personally, I think it is a load of subjective, left-leaning-biased, propagandized rubbish.

Let's look at some of the countries that are rated as "more peaceful" than Thailand:

- Angola

- Yemen

- Iran

- Rwanda

- Syria

- China

- Cuba

Any "peace measurement index" that places repressive, marxist, communist, radical theocratic countries with brutally violent, biased and discrimatory central governments ahead of a democratic monarchy such as Thailand, smells to high heaven of big, stinky, steaming, rotting piles of steer manure.

Thailand may have have its fair share of problems, but those problems arise largely because of established freedoms and rights, not because of central governments which act so as to repress freedoms and rights.

Which would you choose? Where would you rather live?

Hmmmm ..... lemme t'ink for a sec .... Cuba or LoS .... Syria or LoS .... Iran or LoS .... etc., etc., etc.

Kind of a no-brainer, isn't it?

Well Cuba and Iran are pretty much OK. But Rwanda and Angola???

[myauq]

Crime data is from the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Five of these indicators have been scored by the Economist Intelligence Unit's team of country analysts.

• 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
  

-----

This precisely why this survey is a joke and the United Nations has been a complete failure in an attempt to be a world governing body.

Places like Syria and Cuba have very stable governments, but neither government is desirable by people seeking personal and economic freedom.

Places like China has extremely low likelihood ot violent demonstrations. But on the other hand, the government doesn't allow people the freedom to hold any anti-government demonstrations at all.

The US has relatively high homicide and incarceration rates, but it arguably the most stable system of government in history and offers more personal and economic freedom than any society in history.

I could go on and on with many more examples. The bottom line is the survey, like the UN, are a joke, especially in consideration of the way things are in Thailand compared to other places.

The most important thing is to distinguish the differences when problems arise because of EXISTENCE of societal freedoms and when other problems are suppressed because of LACK of societal freedoms. This survey and the UN do neither, which makes them both very impractical and very wrong.

i think the survey is produced by an ngo called vision of humanity, not the un. they may use statistics from the un, but the un's feable and ineffective structure or lack of effective diplomacy around the world to change repressive regimes has nothing to do with this survey.

i can't imagine why the un's office of drugs and crime would have any ideological agenda in producing data for this survey, or want to favour any particular country or government with their findings.

peace and freedom, whilst they are both very important to human development, ARE NOT the same thing. havanna is waay more peaceful than bangkok, but cuban's have less freedom....

this is not a freedom and liberty index.

[HS Mauberley]

these indicators have been scored by the Economist Intelligence Unit's team of country analysts.

If the analysis was done by The Economist, hardly a haven for bearded lefties, then I can't see what people like Spee have to whinge about; I would have thought that The Economist's neo-liberal '<deleted>-the-poor-let's-make-some-money' angle on the world would have been entirely in tune with his own. The facts are the facts and even the magical thinking of neo-cons can't change that.