95 wars in 5 years

[johnny_bi]

In the period between 1990 and 1995, 71 states were involved in 95 wars that made 5 and a half millions of kills. (according to the International Peace Research Institute from Oslo)

In this period of time, the average is about more than 55 simultaneous wars per year (57, 55, 64, etc).

In your opinion, is this (the fact that there were so many wars) just the effect of media, in the sense that we found out about them, or this situation is “normal” for the humankind? Are we doomed to fight against each other in our way to the future? Any comments would be appreciated?

[Geto-Dacul]

Seems that globalization is working only in the minds of some people!

Getu'

[PanzerKing]

QUOTE

Seems that globalization is working only in the minds of some people!  :lol:   Getu'

Is globalization your middle name or something!?! :wink:

[Geto-Dacul]

PanzerKing wrote :

QUOTE

Is globalization your middle name or something!?!

Getu'

[Indrid]

what about the period between 2000-2003? do you have any data?

[johnny_bi]

Unfortunatelly, for the moment, I do not have... But I do not think that the figures are pretty encouraging...

[Indrid]

i think we should start counting wars per month not per year...unfortunately

[Dr_V]

There are a few factors that make those conflicts unavoidable in general.

One of the most important is the uncontrolled expansion of the human population on Earth. Now we're about 6.5 bilions and multiplicate further, while the max. number that Earth can sustain normally is under 5 bilion. This leads not only to an accelerated degrading of the natural and climathic balance, but also to an increase of the numbers of people living in deep poverty. This leads to insatisfaction and useless conflicts.

Another thing is the lack of a real balance of power woldwide. Since the braking of the USSR, America has no longer a 1st enemy, there are no more "bad guys" and "good guys". As the common American citisen won't be glad to pay big money for a big army if that's not really needed, they need a new foe. In my oppinion, trying to create this foe in the Islamic people (as terrorists) was a huge mistake, as the Arabs are fannatic and violent people and, even if they realise they have no chance of winning this war, they now have a motive to unleash that stupid Jihad (holy war) and the dammage worldwide will be much bigger that the Americans are expecting. I don't say that there are no terrorists, just that they are now encouraged to be more aggressive that usual, as the whole mass-media covers their acts. The most effective anti-terrorist weapon is to ignore them, not to give them new reasons to attack.

Last, but not least, the very kind of western type echonomy is based today on the existance of many dominated areas where people are relatively poor. If you manage to be impartial, you'll notice that America itself lacks the resources to be the world leader, without "subdued" countryes it would fall quickly. The same rule applies to the UK or Japan and even to the EU members taken one by one. If by a chance the 3rd world would suddenly prosper, today's leades will be in a deep s***. But, of course, they make really good efforts to keep the others lower. Those "efforts" are echonomical, but also military, starting a little war here and there, always far away from their borders, or encouraging a cyvil war in a 3rd world country, or financing some "rebels" if a satelite country starts to improve its echonomy too fast. Are the Arabs trying to rise the price of oil? OK, let's start a war in that area and push them down a bit! :evil:

You see, the real problem here is that the big western powers stopped trying to evolve themselves and limited to attempting to push back the others. The stagnation involves slow recession worldwide and that fieres the conflicts. I see the stage for another major war, let's hope at least that it won't be an athomic one and that those idiots won't sterilyse the wohe planet by bombing before taking a minute to thing at what they're doing! :x

This is a topic we can debate forever, the things are very complex, but here I tried to underlign some of the most important causes. If you're interested, we can develop this analisys further. Maybe we have an echonomist proffessional amongst the members here, to elaborate those things. Well, I rest for now, we'll see.

[Indrid]

I liked the part about the earth being able to sustain 5 billion at most. do you have anything in mind? 8) however, i believe 5 billion is too much. let`s take the side of the planet now. if you had 10 flies moving on your face, you could probably resist , no problem. 50 flies is too much! but what if there would be no flies at all? :question: