NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4350860.stm

Wars around the world are both less frequent and less deadly since the end of the Cold War, a new report claims.

The Human Security Report found a decline in every form of political violence except terrorism since 1992.

The report credits intervention by the United Nations, plus the end of colonialism and the Cold War, as the main reasons for the decline in conflict.

The UK and France have fought the most international wars since 1946, followed by the US and Soviet Union/Russia, the study found.

But there have been ever fewer international wars, with most conflicts now being civil wars.

Major powers have gone longer without fighting a war between each other than at any time in hundreds of years.


It does go on to explain Iraq.

Thoughts?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4350860.stm

Wars around the world are both less frequent and less deadly since the end of the Cold War, a new report claims.

The Human Security Report found a decline in every form of political violence except terrorism since 1992.

The report credits intervention by the United Nations, plus the end of colonialism and the Cold War, as the main reasons for the decline in conflict.

The UK and France have fought the most international wars since 1946, followed by the US and Soviet Union/Russia, the study found.

But there have been ever fewer international wars, with most conflicts now being civil wars.

Major powers have gone longer without fighting a war between each other than at any time in hundreds of years.


It does go on to explain Iraq.

Thoughts?
It's an ongoing trend since we were hunter/gatherers. Most male skeletons from back then show damage from fighting. Contrary to popular beleif, our ancestors weren't peacefull, enlightened, noble savages, but bloodthirsty, murderous, warlike savages. We've gotten more peacefull over time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4350860.stm

Wars around the world are both less frequent and less deadly since the end of the Cold War, a new report claims.

The Human Security Report found a decline in every form of political violence except terrorism since 1992.

The report credits intervention by the United Nations, plus the end of colonialism and the Cold War, as the main reasons for the decline in conflict.

The UK and France have fought the most international wars since 1946, followed by the US and Soviet Union/Russia, the study found.

But there have been ever fewer international wars, with most conflicts now being civil wars.

Major powers have gone longer without fighting a war between each other than at any time in hundreds of years.


It does go on to explain Iraq.

Thoughts?

Woot, UK most international wars! I'm just...so proud *Sniffs*

Woot, UK most international wars! I'm just...so proud *Sniffs*
Anyone else surprised by that too? I was constantly told that U.S. was the one fighting the most wars, but it seems that was sheer rumor.

Hallo? Anyone?

Anyone else surprised by that too? I was constantly told that U.S. was the one fighting the most wars, but it seems that was sheer rumor.

Nah the U.K. does it more, we just do it in our own err...unique way. However, if you count large-scale 'covert' ops (Nicaragua, Cuba...) then the U.S. definately fights more wars.

Anyone else surprised by that too? I was constantly told that U.S. was the one fighting the most wars, but it seems that was sheer rumor.

We were in a lot of the same wars, historically. Plus some extra shit like the Falklands.

In this thread,as in all threads, it becomes clear that my country is the greatest on earth.

We were in a lot of the same wars, historically. Plus some extra shit like the Falklands.

In this thread,as in all threads, it becomes clear that my country is the greatest on earth.

But you guys lost two straight wars against America in less than 50 years - that's got to at least make up for us electing Bush.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4350860.stm

Wars around the world are both less frequent and less deadly since the end of the Cold War, a new report claims.

The Human Security Report found a decline in every form of political violence except terrorism since 1992.

The report credits intervention by the United Nations, plus the end of colonialism and the Cold War, as the main reasons for the decline in conflict.

The UK and France have fought the most international wars since 1946, followed by the US and Soviet Union/Russia, the study found.

But there have been ever fewer international wars, with most conflicts now being civil wars.

Major powers have gone longer without fighting a war between each other than at any time in hundreds of years.


It does go on to explain Iraq.

Thoughts?

Stating what is already apparent. Wars between Nation States have been in decline since the Second World War, with most conflicts being third world civil wars.

We were in a lot of the same wars, historically. Plus some extra shit like the Falklands.

In this thread,as in all threads, it becomes clear that my country is the greatest on earth.
I'm sorry, but can you repeat that without the nationalistic bullshit? Please?

But you guys lost two straight wars against America in less than 50 years - that's got to at least make up for us electing Bush.

Bush senior? Just about;)

(That's a joke, btw. Nobody try engaging me in a political debate about this. I will simply flame you until you go away)

I'm sorry, but can you repeat that without the nationalistic bullshit? Please?

No.

We were in a lot of the same wars, historically. Plus some extra shit like the Falklands.

In this thread,as in all threads, it becomes clear that my country is the greatest on earth.


Maybe 250 years ago. Now your little country is reduced to being the "yes man" for the big bad U.S.A. We need a token "ally" since we're trying to change the image that we do everything unilaterally.

Plus some extra shit like the Falklands.
.

Yeah, REAL challenging stuff the Malvinas. Remind me again WHY you had to sail to the opposite end of the earth to fight over a few rocks.... sorry and sheep too...;)

Maybe 250 years ago. Now your little country is reduced to being the "yes man" for the big bad U.S.A. We need a token "ally" since we're trying to change the image that we do everything unilaterally.

Yes, yes, whatever, you dumb fuck. Don't let me distract you with my healthy doses of reality. Just put your face back between your sisters thighs and everything will be fine.

Yeah, REAL challenging stuff the Malvinas. Remind me again WHY you had to sail to the opposite end of the earth to fight over a few rocks.... sorry and sheep too...;)

Because they are ours, and Argentina sucks. Plus, nobody fucks with us and gets away with it. we're the best country ever.

nobody fucks with us and gets away with it.

Ireland did
;)

Yes, yes, whatever, you dumb fuck. Don't let me distract you with my healthy doses of reality. Just put your face back between your sisters thighs and everything will be fine.
Well that was fast, you have no self-control do you?

Ireland did
;)

Yeah, but Ireland is hot.

Ireland did
;)
Blair did.

Well that was fast, you have no self-control do you?

No, but I do live in a fucking great country.

Blair did.

What? He's one of us? The wanker that he is.

(see what I did there?)

Blair did.

Touche :D

The UK and France have fought the most international wars since 1946, followed by the US and Soviet Union/Russia, the study found.

Damn that warmongering US. Why can't it learn to be peaceful like France?

No, but I do live in a fucking great country.
You've already proven that by showing that you had to resort to flaming to back that up. ;)

I think the problem with this thread is that some people (not naming names) can't recognise a bit of irony to save their lives.

Damn that warmongering US. Why can't it learn to be peaceful like France?
Although, just for fairness, many of the US interventions weren't actually "wars" as such.

That being said, I can't think of all the French conflicts: Vietnam comes to mind, Algeria and presumably something else in Africa. And they recently bombed the crap out of Cote-d-Ivoire's airforce.
And they were involved in Korea and the Second Gulf War (the first one was Iran vs Iraq).

You've already proven that by showing that you had to resort to flaming to back that up. ;)

Precisely.

I think the problem with this thread is that some people (not naming names) can't recognise a bit of irony to save their lives.

Name names already, man.

Don't worry, I'm not talking about you.

Don't worry, I'm not talking about you.

Cool. But who are you talking about? I wanna know! I do accept TGs, if you really don't want to say.

Maybe 250 years ago. Now your little country is reduced to being the "yes man" for the big bad U.S.A. We need a token "ally" since we're trying to change the image that we do everything unilaterally.
As much as I hate to admit it, he's right. Our country's run by a man who sends our troops to die so he can fellate Bush.

As much as I hate to admit it, he's right. Our country's run by a man who sends our troops to die so he can fellate Bush.

Oh for the love of God.

You're as damn ignorant as he is. Go back to picking your nose and eating it; this attempt at rational thought suggests it is not your thing.

Yes, yes, whatever, you dumb fuck. Don't let me distract you with my healthy doses of reality. Just put your face back between your sisters thighs and everything will be fine.


Wow, I seem to have touched a nerve. It's ok, really. We'll let you say that you helped. We let you take over that one Shi'a town didn't we?

And it's YOUR sister's face, between MY thighs.

:D

Oh for the love of God.

You're as damn ignorant as he is. Go back to picking your nose and eating it; this attempt at rational thought suggests it is not your thing.
This is perfectly rational. Blair has sold our country's international dignity and turned us into a sattellite of the US. If this wasn't the case we would have never gone into Iraq. It wasn't our war, and Blair is sending our troops to die in a conflict that has nothing to do with us.

It wasn't our war, and Blair is sending our troops to die in a conflict that has nothing to do with us.
And he's annoying the hell out of your real friends across the channel.

Wow, I seem to have touched a nerve. It's ok, really. We'll let you say that you helped. We let you take over that one Shi'a town didn't we?

And it's YOUR sister's face, between MY thighs.

:D

You've never seen my sister, have you? I mean, the guys at the morgue did their best, but there wasn't much of her face left after the boiling acid.

And he's annoying the hell out of your real friends across the channel.
They're not our real friends. All they want to do is run our country via the EU and rob us of our sovereignty.

They're not our real friends. All they want to do is run our country via the EU and rob us of our sovereignty.
That's right. We're evil Vampires and we want to suck you blooood!!!

:rolleyes:

This is perfectly rational. Blair has sold our country's international dignity and turned us into a sattellite of the US. If this wasn't the case we would have never gone into Iraq. It wasn't our war, and Blair is sending our troops to die in a conflict that has nothing to do with us.

Yes, of course, the only reason we went to war in Iraq was so Blair could fellate Bush, and because Blair hates us.

Really, with insights like that, why are you here when you could be dazzling the world of politics?

Oh, right, it's because you're a retarded horsefucker.

Oh, right, it's because you're a retarded horsefucker.


Ok, chill the fuck out.

Here, fluffles to the both of you :fluffle: :fluffle:

That's right. We're evil Vampires and we want to suck you blooood!!!

:rolleyes:
You can't deny that a lot of EU governments (Especially France and Germany, the most influential in the EU) want to take our sovereignty. Mainstream politicians in these countries make no secret of their ultimate aim of a European superstate. Under that superstate our interests would be completely sidelined.

Yes, of course, the only reason we went to war in Iraq was so Blair could fellate Bush, and because Blair hates us.

Really, with insights like that, why are you here when you could be dazzling the world of politics?

Oh, right, it's because you're a retarded horsefucker.
I never said Blair hates us, he just doesn't care about us. Blair has delusions that being sycophantic towards the US is going to increase his influence over them. He's just trying to increase his own personal power base. But all the US is doing is using him, and we're not getting anything in return.

One more thing, I have an inkling through your eloquent way of criticism that I may have touched a raw nerve.

You can't deny that a lot of EU governments (Especially France and Germany, the most influential in the EU) want to take our sovereignty. Mainstream politicians in these countries make no secret of their ultimate aim of a European superstate. Under that superstate our interests would be completely sidelined.


You can't prove it... we can't disprove it... ain't trusting politicians great :p :D

You can't deny that a lot of EU governments (Especially France and Germany, the most influential in the EU) want to take our sovereignty.
Watch me.

Mainstream politicians in these countries make no secret of their ultimate aim of a European superstate. Under that superstate our interests would be completely sidelined.
No they wouldn't. Britain has interests no different from any other European country.
In fact, it is in Britain's interest to remain something of a player on the world stage, and alone they're not going to make it. The Yanks, China, India and over time Indonesia, Brazil, perhaps even Nigeria or Egypt are all going to overtake you if we don't work together.

And if nations with a history like France's or Germany's can put their foolish pride aside and be realistic about this, then I really don't see why we have to leave Britain standing in the rain.

I never said Blair hates us, he just doesn't care about us. Blair has delusions that being sycophantic towards the US is going to increase his influence over them. He's just trying to increase his own personal power base.

Source? Evidence? Anything?

One more thing, I have an inkling through your eloquent way of criticism that I may have touched a raw nerve.
Ok, chill the fuck out.

Have either of you ever posted on the same thread as me before? I would guess no.

And if nations with a history like France's or Germany's can put their foolish pride aside and be realistic about this, then I really don't see why we have to leave Britain standing in the rain.

But Britian is better than France and Germany. We're the best country ever.

But Britian is better than France and Germany. We're the best country ever.
I like Sarcasm. :)

Have either of you ever posted on the same thread as me before? I would guess no.
Yeah, i have.

Regardless of you're sarcasm- calling someone a

retarded horsefucker.

is out of line.

I like Sarcasm. :)

Great, me too. I also like how my country is the best ever.

Regardless of you're sarcasm- calling someone a

retarded horsefucker

is out of line.

it's "your", not "you're", and bye, then.

You can't prove it... we can't disprove it... ain't trusting politicians great :p :D
I recall a German politician a couple of years back saying that a federal Europe was the ultimate aim. I think he was a foreign minister or something. And just look at the recent developments in European politics - the creation of a European Rapid Reaction Force, increasing enroachment on our home affairs, the French and German attempts at the European constitution. All of these have gone far beyond economic integration.

And I don't trust politicians. Never, under any circumstances, should they be trusted.

it's "your", not "you're", and bye, then.
Oh no.... my grammatical mistake :eek: :eek: :eek:
Woe is me.... i'm melting...melting.....melllttttttiiiiinnnggggg

. And just look at the recent developments in European politics - the creation of a European Rapid Reaction Force, increasing enroachment on our home affairs, the French and German attempts at the European constitution.


Which was supposed to be a counter to NATO... good IMO.

And it was a lot more than just a Franco-German thing, a lot of European govts were for it.

I recall a German politician a couple of years back saying that a federal Europe was the ultimate aim. I think he was a foreign minister or something.
Two things:
1) I agree with that statement.
2) Sounds like something Joschka Fischer would say. But he's not exactly representative (he grew up throwing stones at policemen, and he took his oath for his first term as minister in sneakers).

But Britian is better than France and Germany.

You'll get no argument from me about that.

We're the best country ever.

Um, no. We'll let you say you're second best though. Good doggie.

Oh no.... my grammatical mistake :eek: :eek: :eek:
Woe is me.... i'm melting...melting.....melllttttttiiiiinnnggggg

Another victory for the Heron-Marked Warriors. Don't fuck with me, or you lose.

You'll get no argument from me about that.
Keep out of it, American.

See how it feels?

Another victory for the Heron-Marked Warriors. Don't fuck with me, or you lose.

Well i'm going to hug you, and you can't stop me... nah nah :p

*Gives big squishy hug to Heron-Marked Warriors*

You'll get no argument from me about that.

Excellent.

Um, no. We'll let you say you're second best though. Good doggie.

Yeah, okay. [/humouring you

Which was supposed to be a counter to NATO... good IMO.

And it was a lot more than just a Franco-German thing, a lot of European govts were for it.
I have no interest in countering NATO. My only interest is leaving it. It's a Cold War relic that offers us no benefits in the modern world. As for the rapid reaction force, I believe our country should be completely 100% neutral unless we're attacked. We would never be able to achieve it if we went committing our troops to European command.

Well i'm going to hug you, and you can't stop me... nah nah :p

*Gives big squishy hug to Heron-Marked Warriors*

Do you have breasts?

Keep out of it, American.


Don't, you'll make me blush...

It's a Cold War relic that offers us no benefits in the modern world.

Bosnia.

Do you have breasts?

*Strokes chin*

Rats. I was hoping you did.

How about a manly handshake instead?

Bosnia.
What about Bosnia? We should've kept out of it. It wasn't our war so it shouldn't have been our problem.

What about Bosnia? We should've kept out of it. It wasn't our war so it shouldn't have been our problem.

What about Bosnia...?

Anyone else want to fill this guy in?

We would never be able to achieve it if we went committing our troops to European command.
Think about it: Why not? Why wouldn't Europe stay neutral?

Germany doesn't go to war anymore, France would seldomly go these days, and even if it wanted, it could be outvoted, the Eastern countries have no colonial interests, and you can ignore Spain, Italy and Greece.

What, you mean wars are less deadly now? Thanks for the update, BBC!

You might want to do a story about how there are more airplanes now than in 1914!

*Strokes chin*

Rats. I was hoping you did.

How about a manly handshake instead?

Who says I don't?

That's right, me. Handshake it is.

What about Bosnia? We should've kept out of it. It wasn't our war so it shouldn't have been our problem.

As if I didn't already know, you have once again proved that you are dumb as shit and twice as disgusting.

I think wars are less frequent due to commerce. For instance, some fear a war between the US and China. It's entirely possible, but if either one wants to do it, they have to consider that they are throwing hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain. The same has happened between many nations.
I've also noticed that the nature of wars have changed. Nowadays, they almost always civil, and the uprising is always initiated by a disadvantaged, often rural group against a more elitist and urban one. What does that tell you?

This thread delivers.

Think about it: Why not? Why wouldn't Europe stay neutral?

Germany doesn't go to war anymore, France would seldomly go these days, and even if it wanted, it could be outvoted, the Eastern countries have no colonial interests, and you can ignore Spain, Italy and Greece.
Maybe they don't at the moment, but that doesn't rule out us getting involved in conflicts in the future. Especially if other European countries want us to get involved in the Balkans if trouble flares up again there.

As if I didn't already know, you have once again proved that you are dumb as shit and twice as disgusting.
And you have once again proved yourself to be the ultimate charmer.

Maybe they don't at the moment, but that doesn't rule out us getting involved in conflicts in the future. Especially if other European countries want us to get involved in the Balkans if trouble flares up again there.
It seems like you really have no idea what happened in the Balkans, do you?

And besides, the best way to utlimately end the conflict there is to get everyone in the EU in due time, and then they'll start lobbing words at each other rather than grenades.

And you have once again proved yourself to be the ultimate charmer.

Yay for sarcasm. It doesn't count as good unless you actually have intellect as well, but good effort.

I know its wrong... but i think i love you :D :D

It's not wrong. Just don't try expressing that love physically. Or I'll viciously slander your typos again. And you will melt.

Hmm, that doesn't sound good, me making you melt...

Edit Hey, what the?

It seems like you really have no idea what happened in the Balkans, do you?
Of course I know. The Yugoslav wars, former Yugoslav republics fighting amongst themselves. The conflict in Bosnia with fighting between Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks. No need to patronise me like I'm a child. Am I missi ng something here?

It's not wrong. Just don't try expressing that love physically. Or I'll viciously slander your typos again. And you will melt.

Hmm, that doesn't sound good, me making you melt...

Thats why i deleted it! :p

I have no interest in countering NATO. My only interest is leaving it. It's a Cold War relic that offers us no benefits in the modern world. As for the rapid reaction force, I believe our country should be completely 100% neutral unless we're attacked.
I agree, for my country, the US. Wouldn’t the world be lovely if we we were in charge of our respective countries?

Thats why i deleted it! :p

Aww, dude. My heart is breaking. Do you want me to become a monster who just flames everyone in sight? Do you?

Am I missi ng something here?
Well, apart from the massacres and the genocide, only that no one dragged the UK into the war - they decided that themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/kosovo_profiles/blair.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/kosovo2/269755.stm

Well, apart from the massacres and the genocide, only that no one dragged the UK into the war - they decided that themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/kosovo_profiles/blair.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/kosovo2/269755.stm

In other words, you (not you Leonstein) were against going in to prevent genocide from happening further. The last time Europe faced a genocide was WWII... so you're telling us that you wouldn't go to war with those that perpetrated the Holocaust....

Thats the point.

Well, apart from the massacres and the genocide, only that no one dragged the UK into the war - they decided that themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/kosovo_profiles/blair.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/kosovo2/269755.stm

Now that's how to pwn a dumb fuck.

The last time Europe faced a genocide was WWII... so you're telling us that you wouldn't go to war with those that perpetrated the Holocaust....

Thats the point.

Ignoring the fact no country entered into WWII as a result of genocide or in an attempt to stop genocide, obviously...

Ignoring the fact no country entered into WWII as a result of genocide or in an attempt to stop genocide, obviously...
...obviously....

sshhhh!

Point was- people learned from WWII. A blind eye couldn't be turned AGAIN.

Ignoring the fact no country entered into WWII as a result of genocide or in an attempt to stop genocide, obviously...

The point being that war to prevent genocide is a good thing.

The point being that war to prevent genocide is a good thing.

Avoiding war in the first place if there are other options still open is a better thing. The conclusion I want to draw from this whole 'UK fighting the most wars' is that although we may have moderately capable fighting forces, we would appear to have incompetent diplomats and foreign secretaries.

Avoiding war in the first place if there are other options still open is a better thing. The conclusion I want to draw from this whole 'UK fighting the most wars' is that although we may have moderately capable fighting forces, we would appear to have incompetent diplomats and foreign secretaries.
Genocide though is the one thing where I would acknowledge that diplomacy can only get you so far.
I wasn't prepared to watch diplomats try and get some sort of agreement with Milosevic while people were being murdered in their thousands.

I reckon there should be more pressure on Sudan too.

That being said, that is the only case in which war may be even remotely justified, for want of a better method.

Avoiding war in the first place if there are other options still open is a better thing. The conclusion I want to draw from this whole 'UK fighting the most wars' is that although we may have moderately capable fighting forces, we would appear to have incompetent diplomats and foreign secretaries.

Either that or we're the guys with big enough balls to step up when the time comes.

Either that or we're the guys with big enough balls to step up when the time comes.

Given that a list of the conflicts which have been classified as wars for this survey doesn't seem to be available (and they guys who are handling the publicity for the report can't even put together a functional website), any decision either way is all going to be a matter of conjecture.

Given that a list of the conflicts which have been classified as wars for this survey doesn't seem to be available (and they guys who are handling the publicity for the report can't even put together a functional website), any decision either way is all going to be a matter of conjecture.

true, but I don't let that stop me