4 ms·

> The last 70 or so years have been the most peaceful in human history. IRAQ WAR (2003-2011) WAR IN AFGHANISTAN (2001-PRESENT) GULF WAR (1990-1991) VIETNAM

> The last 70 or so years have been the most peaceful in human history. IRAQ WAR (2003-2011) WAR IN AFGHANISTAN (2001-PRESENT) GULF WAR (1990-1991) VIETNAM WAR (1959-1975) KOREAN WAR (1950-1953) This is ignoring an entire array of coups, rebellions, brutal suppressions and subjugations encompassing basically every country in South America The last 70 years have only seemed peaceful because your the one doing the genocide this time around. Most of the rest of the world would like you to chill.

habibur 5y ago
Relatively is the keyword here.
- swarnie 5y ago
  It'd be nice if OP used the keyword then instead of needing child commentators with clairvoyance to explain then.
  - janto 5y ago
    "the most"
toxik 5y ago
You are surely aware that there were FAR more wars before this. War was basically just a fact of life for most people in most of our settled past.
- swarnie 5y ago
  There have been other periods of global peace caused by domination of a single power, no one else argues that it was a good thing for everyone else involved. I could try and argue India is now a better place because the period know as Pax Britannica almost gave them the toilet but you'd rightly consider me a mad man. Do you think any of the places listed above were improved by being turned in to weapon testing ranges?
  - janto 5y ago
    https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace "This entry presents an empirical perspective on the history of war and peace. We also published a data visualization history of human violence here on OurWorldInData.org which presents empirical data showing that we are now living in the most peaceful time in our species’ existence."
  - toxik 5y ago
    I appreciate the argument, and it holds merit, but I also think that the H-bomb is such a key difference. It’s essentially a stalemate, whereas other periods of non-war* have arisen out of absolute conquest. * Non-war, I think, is a less charged term here, “peace” sounds like an unmistakably good thing, which it isn’t necessarily — or at least there is a long debate to be had about that as well.
redis_mlc 5y ago
Know your history: Both the Korean war and the Vietnam war were a reply to Communist invasions, so China was at fault. The Gulf war was a reply to Hussein occupying Kuwait and attempting to occupy the entire Middle East. The early AFGHANISTAN war was a reply to Al Qaeda. The Iraq war was to finish the hunt for Hussein. Except for the last war, there was no choice. I study war, and countering Communist provocations is a valid reason for the actions the US has taken since 1945. The real question is why Marxists can't admit that.

habibur 5y ago

Relatively is the keyword here.

swarnie 5y ago
It'd be nice if OP used the keyword then instead of needing child commentators with clairvoyance to explain then.
- janto 5y ago
  "the most"

toxik 5y ago

You are surely aware that there were FAR more wars before this. War was basically just a fact of life for most people in most of our settled past.

swarnie 5y ago
There have been other periods of global peace caused by domination of a single power, no one else argues that it was a good thing for everyone else involved. I could try and argue India is now a better place because the period know as Pax Britannica almost gave them the toilet but you'd rightly consider me a mad man. Do you think any of the places listed above were improved by being turned in to weapon testing ranges?
- janto 5y ago
  https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace "This entry presents an empirical perspective on the history of war and peace. We also published a data visualization history of human violence here on OurWorldInData.org which presents empirical data showing that we are now living in the most peaceful time in our species’ existence."
- toxik 5y ago
  I appreciate the argument, and it holds merit, but I also think that the H-bomb is such a key difference. It’s essentially a stalemate, whereas other periods of non-war* have arisen out of absolute conquest. * Non-war, I think, is a less charged term here, “peace” sounds like an unmistakably good thing, which it isn’t necessarily — or at least there is a long debate to be had about that as well.

redis_mlc 5y ago

Know your history: Both the Korean war and the Vietnam war were a reply to Communist invasions, so China was at fault. The Gulf war was a reply to Hussein occupying Kuwait and attempting to occupy the entire Middle East. The early AFGHANISTAN war was a reply to Al Qaeda. The Iraq war was to finish the hunt for Hussein. Except for the last war, there was no choice. I study war, and countering Communist provocations is a valid reason for the actions the US has taken since 1945. The real question is why Marxists can't admit that.