Should we stop wars in other countries?

[Byron]

Why does the developed world impose their ideals on other countries?

Should we stop wars in other countries?

Doesn't war have a kind of natural function, and in fair wars or over ideals, the fittest survives?

If it is a 'phase' that humanity needs to go through, then it will probably end naturally on its own. The third world and developing countries are still in that phase.


What if some other stronger power came in when America was fighting its Revolutionary War, and Civil War, and broke up the fight? There would be denied a lot of progress and survival of the fittest ideals.


So, what do you think? Does the Western world now have the right to break up fights in other countries, just because it has reached a state of relative peace, and wants everybody else to act the same?

[bman]

You are still in the matrix. Do you seriously believe everything your government tells you ?

What if I told you your government sponsored, created and financed 90++ percent of the wars out there since ww1 ?

Why do you think everyone out there hates America ?

Go out to other countries, learn the culture and stop being cooped up in front if your TV.

[Capstan]

We should stop hunger in our own country.

[lifetimelearner]

since when does war have a natural function ?

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Byron

Why does the developed world impose their ideals on other countries?

Should we stop wars in other countries?

Doesn't war have a kind of natural function, and in fair wars or over ideals, the fittest survives?

If it is a 'phase' that humanity needs to go through, then it will probably end naturally on its own. The third world and developing countries are still in that phase.


What if some other stronger power came in when America was fighting its Revolutionary War, and Civil War, and broke up the fight? There would be denied a lot of progress and survival of the fittest ideals.


So, what do you think? Does the Western world now have the right to break up fights in other countries, just because it has reached a state of relative peace, and wants everybody else to act the same?

Wars are about money, profit. Someone wants profit, and find a way to make money with war.

If it is politically cheaper to make war than making peace, countries go to war. So the way to stop war is to make wars politically expensive.

Wars are always expensive for governments, they create deficits, debt and ultimately hyperinflation and civil war, like it happened in France when they funded US war of independence and then they had a French Revolution. Hyperinflation caused by debt and deficit caused by funding wars also happened before soviet revolution, before chinese revolution, and in Argentina in 1989 when you had 1200% annual inflation, riots and starved people.

Enemies never let themselves to be defeated by the cheap. So expecting a cheap war (from an economical point of view) is unlikely. This is why military experts always watch costs, but politicians do not see economic costs, but political cost.

Politicians and military people think governments were designed for their personal amusement.

Wars are about political prices to pay. Nowadays world is interesting, because an economy that insists in making war is likely to sink. 20th century has witnessed the fall of empires. Every country that has attempted to create an empire after 20th century has ended up divided or facing some ugly crisis. I won't mention examples not to hurt sensitive people.

[Eduard E]

I suppose it's natural for the big powers of an age to meddle in the business of smaller ones. History proves it: conquering, pillaging, converting to a certain religion, or trying to stop wars (which is a twist).

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Eduard E

I suppose it's natural for the big powers of an age to meddle in the business of smaller ones. History proves it: conquering, pillaging, converting to a certain religion, or trying to stop wars (which is a twist).

Yes, but it is because it is politically cheap for politicians to play chess and cause misery to millions.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by bman

Why do you think everyone out there hates America ?

Go out to other countries, learn the culture and stop being cooped up in front if your TV.

Strange how the whole world hates America - the richest country in the world - in a similar fashion that everybody who is poor seems to hate rich people.

It is called "hate the leader" syndrome, and it basically means being jealous (and thus hateful) of people who are more successful than you, and then blaming your failure on their success.

As any successful person will openly tell you, you do not become successful by hating successful people, but by doing whatever it is that's making them successful. For example, the science of economics literally proves that a free market and low regulation (ie Capitalism) results in the most wealth being created for everyone. Many countries could learn from this.

[aggie]

imo, we should only get involved in wars that we can really end and leave the country better than before...this has not always been the case.


some countries where it is a centuries old war for territory by literally a tribe mentality...not so sure.

let's face it we could put a mcd's on every corner and give every one an suv in some countries and we are still always going to be the infidel......

[Piercetheveil]

Curtis,

The dynamic is much more complex than hating America because it is the richest country. It is not hate the leader syndrome.

As far as the survival of the fittest comment I think you will find that little gem has been outpaced on many levels due to our progress in technology and knowledge. The weakest Do survive and reproduce. Hell, developed nations would call survival of the fittest inhumane.

To the question: Should we stop wars?

I should stop the warring within myself. As I begin to be more peaceful with me I can help those around to that extent. No more.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

the richest country in the world

Are you serious about this??

You are just joking right?

Or meaning, the richest country in the world that is a democracy and is not in Europe? Because than you are right...

Richest Countries of the World

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Eduard E

I suppose it's natural for the big powers of an age to meddle in the business of smaller ones. History proves it: conquering, pillaging, converting to a certain religion, or trying to stop wars (which is a twist).

I remember hearing we had to kill them to save them and we had to burn the village to save them from the days of the Vietnam war. I also recall the 1st World War as being advertised as the war to end all wars. Starting a war to end a war does not make any more sense today than it made in the past.

[Double]

I think for sake of clarity, you should replace the word war with "acts of violence".

But are acts of violence always a bad thing? Not if they are used in self-defence if you ask me. So its not a yes or no case you see

I will ad however that attempting to stop violence by using violence - which is whats going on in Afghanistan among other places - will fail, because your not really stopping violence by using it yourself.

[Jaiysun4]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Strange how the whole world hates America - the richest country in the world - in a similar fashion that everybody who is poor seems to hate rich people.

It is called "hate the leader" syndrome, and it basically means being jealous (and thus hateful) of people who are more successful than you, and then blaming your failure on their success.

As any successful person will openly tell you, you do not become successful by hating successful people, but by doing whatever it is that's making them successful. For example, the science of economics literally proves that a free market and low regulation (ie Capitalism) results in the most wealth being created for everyone. Many countries could learn from this.

Haha i love the arrogance, "they are all jealous and hate us because we are better than them, go America!"

What is "success" then to you? Being the richest country in the world, evidently. But this ignores many important questions...

How did the USA become so rich? Answer - by countless wars and destruction of other economies, governments etc to further their own ends. This divine free market, that turns dust into gold, is actually a hypocrisy, theres no free market for goods entering the USA at all. Thats why theres loads of those old fashioned washing machines and chyslers for gods sake, they would never survive any free market!

The free market is actually a code name for getting poor countries to allow US compaines to come in and take their assets, and farm them for personal gain. That's it. These countries in my opinion should own their own wealth and nationalise, but then they risk war with America or a proxy (e.g. Venezuela). Imagine for example, if say, Oman owned all the oil and mines etc in Amercia, bought it on the cheap because Oman is 10x richer, meaning America stays poor because its assets are owned by foriegners. Would you like that!?
"The free market is king, everyone should follow it" Oman would cry, but the poor would not be happy.

What is the point of being "the greatest" if all the wealth is in the hands of a few? Answer - You can do it! Live the American Dream...only if you come from a rich family and are prepared to compete and trample over other people and do questionable things to get there, if necessary.

Is America's economy really that great? Sure, it owes trillions of dollars, is a complete slave to china, the dollar is falling and is in serious danger of a complete crash. Fantastic!

Do people really see America as the most successful? No, lots of people couldnt care less they are occupied with their own country etc. Most people think their own country is the best. But history will have shown many peoples an American influence of genocide, destruction and support for terror groups (south America, middle east, South Asia) etc. They are right to judge on this, not American people of course , but never to trust the government and if possible group against obviously self-interested and malevolent entities.

But final point - you say to become successful you copy the actions of the best. God help us because you will see China launching multiple wars on a constant basis for the next 60 years if this is true.

In Summary, stop attacking and killing people for your own gain, stop the wars!

[Brutha]

Or meaning, the richest country in the world that is a democracy and is not in Europe? Because than you are right...

I think Singapore is just as democratic as the US. In Singapore they even have something called the rule of law with the US abondend in the last years.

Strange how the whole world hates America - the richest country in the world - in a similar fashion that everybody who is poor seems to hate rich people.

It's really strange how Americans don't understand that some people in other parts have a problem with them killing through their war in Iraq that they sold based on lies more people than died in the genocide in Rwanda.
Or with their contempt for the geneva convention (and that includes the present administration which doesn't feel bound by it).

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think Singapore is just as democratic as the US. In Singapore they even have something called the rule of law with the US abondend in the last years.

I agree Singapore and some other nations have rule of law and the United States is moving farther away from the ROL. The Patriot Act is an abomination and the majority of Americans are following the Pied Piper like the rats from Hamilin.

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's really strange how Americans don't understand that some people in other parts have a problem with them killing through their war in Iraq that they sold based on lies more people than died in the genocide in Rwanda.

I opposed the war in Iraq vigorously and had some uncertainty about the war in Afghanistan, as I have been a solider and know some realities of war that the general public and many policy makers only understand from third or fourth hand sources.

Do you belief the intelligence sources cited as as reason for the war in Iraq were lies made up of whole cloth, a failure of intelligence interpretation of both of the above?

Originally Posted by Brutha

Or with their contempt for the geneva convention (and that includes the present administration which doesn't feel bound by it).

I have stated from the start of hostilities in Afghanistan of my belief that most if not all of those incarcerated in Guantanamo should be subject to the rules set fourth in the Geneva convention.

I hope that my country can find a path back to the rule of law and increasing freedom soon.

[Aleksander Krstic]

I got soul

[Brutha]

Do you belief the intelligence sources cited as as reason for the war in Iraq were lies made up of whole cloth, a failure of intelligence interpretation of both of the above?

I think that the revelation of the British investigation shows pretty clearly that the reason they decided to attack Iraq hadn't anything to do with WMDs.

The Patriot Act is an abomination and the majority of Americans are following the Pied Piper like the rats from Hamilin.

It's also the business of sovereign immunity where Obama claims you can only sue the government over illegal wiretaps when the government agrees to be sued.
If something like illegal wiretaps can't be trialed out by a court there's per definition no rule of law.
Either the government can break laws about wiretaps without having to face a court over it or it can't.

I have stated from the start of hostilities in Afghanistan of my belief that most if not all of those incarcerated in Guantanamo should be subject to the rules set fourth in the Geneva convention.

Additionally the Geneva convention gives a country the obligation to investigate and prosecute people who tortured.
Threatening a UK court when they want to release evidence over torture with US withdrawal of information about possible future terrorist attacks on the UK also goes very much against spirit of the Geneva convention.
The Obama administration does not only violate the Geneva convention themselves when they refuse to release information about torture and trial their torturers they also blackmail other countries like the UK to violate the Geneva convention as well.

[ahazaq2]

Curtis2011's post just made me RAGE.

Why does the developed world impose their ideals on other countries?

Should we stop wars in other countries?

Where does the developed world impose their ideals on other countries? (serious question)

Doesn't war have a kind of natural function, and in fair wars or over ideals, the fittest survives?

I really don't know. On the one hand, it seems like throughout history things have been getting better (in general), but on the other hand I can think of plenty of examples of people being oppressed by other countries. I'm leaning towards saying that war doesn't have a pro-ideal natural function.

What if some other stronger power came in when America was fighting its Revolutionary War, and Civil War, and broke up the fight? There would be denied a lot of progress and survival of the fittest ideals

.

Well, with the revolutionary war there was no real ideological conflict. So with the civil war, let's pretend that Prussia pops in and stops the war. I have no idea. Again, on one hand I think the South would see that the North makes more money anyways (there is some absurd figure that only like 5% of southerners owned slaves). But then, it's also possible that the South keeps slaves.

So, what do you think? Does the Western world now have the right to break up fights in other countries, just because it has reached a state of relative peace, and wants everybody else to act the same?

I'm not sure that we can really draw accurate historical examples. Today, I don't think there are too many huge good vs. evil battles in the world (like slavery or nazism). It's more like.... power struggles.

[Captain Drywall]

Originally Posted by bman

You are still in the matrix. Do you seriously believe everything your government tells you ?

What if I told you your government sponsored, created and financed 90++ percent of the wars out there since ww1 ?

Why do you think everyone out there hates America ?

Go out to other countries, learn the culture and stop being cooped up in front if your TV.

Go gentle, you've just told a child there is no Santa. This will take time to digest. Children who are abused don't know it. They defend the parents, even blame themselves. In this case USA.gov is the parent.

[The Rock]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Are you serious about this??

You are just joking right?

Or meaning, the richest country in the world that is a democracy and is not in Europe? Because than you are right...

Richest Countries of the World

He's talking about overall wealth. GDP Per Capita isn't really an accurate way to tell whether a country is the richest or not as its skewed in favor of smaller nations. It's easier for a country with a small population to get a higher GDP per capita than a country with a 300+ million population.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Are you serious about this??

You are just joking right?

Or meaning, the richest country in the world that is a democracy and is not in Europe? Because than you are right...

Richest Countries of the World

I think this is what he was referring to:


Top 10 Richest Countries by Estimated 2009 GDP
China, the world’s third-largest economy is set to grow its production by almost 10% this year. Because Japan will realize a more modest 1.4% gain, China is on target to leapfrog the Land of the Rising Sun and assume second place. The U.S. economy will contract 1.8% for 2009, and remain the richest nation on the planet in terms of GDP.

1. United States … US$14.003 trillion (down 1.8% from 2008)

2. Japan … $4.993 trillion (up 1.4%)

3. China … $4.833 trillion (up 9.8%)

4. Germany … $3.060 trillion (down 16.6%)

5. France … $2.499 trillion (down 12.8%)

6. United Kingdom … $2.007 trillion (down 24.9%)

7. Italy … $1.988 trillion (down 14.1%)

8. Spain … $1.397 trillion (down 13.3%)

9. Brazil … $1.269 trillion (down 19.3%)

10. Canada … $1.229 trillion (down 18.6%)



Read more at Suite101: GDP Estimates for Richest Countries in 2009: Latest International Monetary Fund Wealth Predictions by Country GDP Estimates for Richest Countries in 2009: Latest International Monetary Fund Wealth Predictions by Country

[JMan]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Are you serious about this??

You are just joking right?

Or meaning, the richest country in the world that is a democracy and is not in Europe? Because than you are right...

Richest Countries of the World

Or maybe this: World Top Ten Foreign Aid Donor Countries

World Top Ten Foreign Aid Donor Countries Country In Billion Dollars


United States 12.9
Japan 9.2
Germany 5.4
France 5.2
United Kingdom 4.8
Netherlands 3.4
Italy 2.3
Canada 2.0
Sweden 1.8
Norway 1.8

[JMan]

Originally Posted by bman

You are still in the matrix. Do you seriously believe everything your government tells you ?

Yeah, these are the basics American school children are taught:

The American Revolution

From 1775 to 1782, the Americans faced off against the largest empire in the world. Led by General Washington they won. Learn about the causes of the war, and follow each battle in this section.

The War of 1812

Some call it the Second War of Independence, for when it ended and the US had fought Great Britain to a stalemate, America's independence was assured. Each of the major events in this war are covered.

Mexican-American War

Learn how the dispute over Texas joining the Union resulted in US conquest of California and the balance of the Southwest

The Civil War

It was America's bloodiest war as brother fought brother. Learn about the battles, read first hand accounts, and even watch a multimedia presentation.

The Spanish-American War
America became a world power with its victory over the Spanish in this war. Learn about the major events in this war in the section.


World War I

Millions died in the fields of Europe, sometimes while fighting over a few disputed yards. Learn about the major battles and events in this the first major war of the century.


World War II

It was a war like no other, and covered all corners of the gobe. Learn about the major battles of the war in this section.
The Korean War

South Korea

Some call it the forgotten war, but for two years America fought a full fledged war to keep South Korea free. Find out about all the battles of America's forgotten war.


Vietnam War

It was the longest war that the United States fought and the only one that the United States lost. Learn about the major battles and events, as well statistics of the war on this site.


Desert Storm

The last war America took part in the 20th century took place when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq. The major events of the war are depicted here.


Operation Enduring Freedom

War came to America on September 11th 2001 with an attack on NY and Washington. Not since the Battle of Antietem had so many Americans perished in a day.


Iraqi Freedom

On March 19th 2003 the United States invaded Iraq to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein. Over three years later, US troops continue to fight an insurgency there.



That's where the link stops. Obviously there's Afghanistan, and it looks like it's moving on to Yemen now as well : Yemen: Strikes Foil Planned al-Qaida Attacks | News | English

Let's not forget Serbia: Clinton's Kosovo Frauds

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Jaiysun4

In Summary, stop attacking and killing people for your own gain, stop the wars!

The U.S. military involvement world wide over time:

List of Use of US Military Outside the US

here's a small portion leading up to 9/11:

1999 -- Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On December 15, 1999, President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that U.S. combat-equipped military personnel continued to serve as part of the NATO-led security force in Kosovo (KFOR). He noted that the American contribution to KFOR in Kosovo was "approximately 8,500 US military personnel." US forces were deployed in a sector centered around "Urosevac in the eastern portion of Kosovo." For US KFOR forces, "maintaining public security is a key task." Other US military personnel are deployed to other countries in the region to serve in administrative and logistics support roles for US forces in KFOR. Of these forces, about 1,500 US military personnel are in Macedonia and Greece, and occasionally in Albania.


1999-2000 -- Iraq. At various times during 1999, and continuing throughout 2000 the United States, together with forces of the coalition enforcing the "no-fly" zones over Iraq, conducted military operations against the Iraqi air defense system on numerous occasions in response to actual or potential threats against aircraft enforcing the "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq.


2000 -- Bosnia. On January 25, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that the US continued to provide combat-equipped US Armed Forces to Bosnia-Herzegovina and other states in the region as part of the NATO led Stabilization Force (SFOR). The President noted that the US force contribution was being reduced from "approximately 6,200 to 4,600 personnel," with the US forces assigned to Multinational Division, North, centered around the city of Tuzla. He added that approximately 1,500 US military personnel were deployed to Hungary, Croatia, and Italy to provide "logistical and other support to SFOR," and that US forces continue to support SFOR in "efforts to apprehend persons indicted for war crimes."


2000 -- East Timor. On February 25, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" that he had authorized the participation of a small number of US military personnel in support of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), which has a mandate to maintain law and order throughout East Timor, and to facilitate establishment of an effective administration there, delivery of humanitarian assistance and support the building of self-government. The President reported that the US contingent was small: three military observers, and one judge advocate. To facilitate and coordinate US military activities in East Timor, the President also authorized the deployment of a support group (USGET), consisting of 30 US personnel. US personnel would be temporarily deployed to East Timor, on a rotational basis, and through periodic ship visits, during which US forces would conduct "humanitarian and assistance activities throughout East Timor." Rotational activities should continue through the summer of 2000.


2000 -- Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000, President Clinton, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" reported to Congress that he had ordered a US Navy patrol craft to deploy to Sierra Leone to be ready to support evacuation operations from that country if needed. He also authorized a US C-17 aircraft to deliver "ammunition, and other supplies and equipment" to Sierra Leone in support of United Nations peacekeeping operations there.


2000 -- Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On June 16, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the US was continuing to provide military personnel to the NATO-led KFOR security force in Kosovo. US forces were numbered at 7,500, but were scheduled to be reduced to 6,000 when ongoing troop rotations were completed. US forces in Kosovo are assigned to a sector centered near Gnjilane in eastern Kosovo. Other US military personnel are deployed to other countries serving in administrative and logistics support roles, with approximately 1,000 US personnel in Macedonia, Albania and Greece.


2000 -- Bosnia. On July 25, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that combat-equipped US military personnel continued to participate in the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia-Herzegovina, being deployed to Bosnia, and other states in the region in support of peacekeeping efforts in former Yugoslavia. US military personnel levels have been reduced from 6,200 to 4,600. Apart from the forces in Bosnia, approximately 1,000 US personnel continue to be deployed in support roles in Hungary, Croatia, and Italy.


2000 -- East Timor. On August 25, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress,"consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the United States was currently contributing three military observers to the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) that is charged by the UN with restoring and maintaining peace and security there. He also noted that the US was maintaining a military presence in East Timor separate from UNTAET, comprised of about 30 US personnel who facilitate and coordinate US military activities in East Timor and rotational operations of US forces there. US forces currently conduct humanitarian and civic assistance activities for East Timor's citizens. US rotational presence operations in East Timor are presently expected, the President said, to continue through December 2000.


2000 -- Yemen. On October 14, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that on October 12, 2000, in the wake of an attack on the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, he had authorized deployment of about 45 military personnel from US Naval Forces Central Command to Aden to provide "medical, security, and disaster response assistance." The President further reported that on October 13, 2000 about 50 US military security personnel arrived in Aden, and that additional "security elements" may be deployed to the area, to enhance the ability of the US to ensure the security of the USS Cole and the personnel responding to the incident. In addition, two US Navy surface combatant vessels are operating in or near Yemeni territorial waters to provide communications and other support, as required.


2000 -- Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On December 18, 2000, President Clinton reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the United States was continuing to provide approximately 5,600 US military personnel in support of peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led international security force in Kosovo (KFOR). An additional 500 US military personnel are deployed as the National Support Element in Macedonia, with an occasional presence in Albania and Greece. US forces are assigned to a sector centered around Gnjilane in the eastern portion of Kosovo. The President noted that the mission for these US military forces is maintaining a safe and secure environment through conducting "security patrols in urban areas and in the countryside throughout their sector."


2001 -- East Timor. On March 2, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that US armed forces were continuing to support the United Nations peacekeeping effort in East Timor aimed at providing security and maintaining law and order in East Timor, coordinating delivery of humanitarian assistance, and helping establish the basis for self-government in East Timor. The US currently has three military observers attached to the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). The United States also has a separate military presence, the US Support Group East Timor (USGET), of approximately 12 US personnel, including a security detachment, which "facilitates and coordinates" US military activities in East Timor.


2001 -- Yugoslavia/Kosovo. On May 18, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," that the United States was continuing to provide approximately 6,000 US military personnel in support of peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo as part of the NATO-led international security force in Kosovo (KFOR). An additional 500 US military personnel are deployed as the National Support Element in Macedonia, with an occasional presence in Greece and Albania. US forces in Kosovo are assigned to a sector centered around Gnjilane in the eastern portion. President Bush noted that the mission for these US military forces is maintaining a safe and secure environment through conducting security patrols in urban areas and in the countryside through their sector.


2001 -- Bosnia. On July 25, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution, about 3,800 combat-equipped US Armed Forces continued to be deployed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and other regional states as part of the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR). Most were based at Tuzla in Bosnia. About 500 others were based in Hungary, Croatia, and Italy, providing logistical and other support.


2001 -- Iraq. At various times throughout 2001, the United States, together with forces of the coalition enforcing the "no-fly" zones over Iraq, conducted military operations against the Iraqi air defense system on numerous occasions in response to actual or potential threats against aircraft enforcing the "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq.

[conladide]

This great pictures, thank you for sharing them. I will return to post the picture on this forum and you'll find them great.

[Froztwolf]

In a historical context the US is bullying the weak nations no more or less than any other empire in history has done. Look at Rome or the colonial powers that bullied the first Americans. The exact same thing is happening now, only on a more modern scale.

Thankfully the world community has developed in a manner such that violence has actually been going down throughout the ages, even if it is now reported much more than it used to be. This includes war.
See Steven Pinker on the myth of violence | Video on TED.com on this.