Why civilians suffer more once a war is over | Margaret Bourdeaux 

i think like you do.

It's just some offended rightists, special snowflakes probably again TRIGGERED by FEMINISTS. ... It's (not) a joke, btw.

Alex Under Yeah, it's so funny, but it's not a joke.

how.... how does this have anything to do with feminism?

tubeyoukonto Actually it has no direct mention of feminism and that's why this is so funny. Like, the doctor happens to be a woman and some people went crazy. This has much to do with feminism (gender equallity) in a more broad expectrum and I could wright a huge thing to explain all, but I'll just lol. If you scroll down on the comments section I hope you'll understand what I'm talking about.

tubeyoukonto I think you came late, bc the comment I was talking about got deleted, but it was a man gertting crazy talking about feminists, things that aren't worth to mention.

Only if ignorance and greed disappears

i like the way you think.

Getting killed in an airstrike is better than not having healthcare lol.

the ones who can read clearly have the advantage

Healthcare may return some day. Life will not.

+DataStorm I'm a little annoyed about the part where she said medical need were more important than security she might have meant then the army but I would much rather miss out on getting my medicine then get shanked by some neighbor who wants my food

Ah, soldiers say it needs more soldiers, and police wants more police. Yep. its a huge portfolio what people need and that can't be provided within a short notice. And it costs a lot to build all that up.

Not that I know much about the dynamics of after war conflict. I imagine that it is both a dangerous and amazing period of flux. The old institutions have been torn down and destroyed and it could have been for legitimate reasons that the government was corrupt. It could also be anarchy and the destruction is misguided. Social institutions are only necessary for large scale organisation the kind of scale that governments run on. People have survived long before these institutions were created before mass scale policing / healthcare was the norm. Smaller tight nit communities looked after themselves and it was even possible for them to live in peace with other neighbouring communities. The fear of being shanked by some neighbour is a mental thing. The reality is that even with police a neighbour could become violently aggressive it is that we have become accustomed to defining safety and thereby feeling safe by having a police force enforce laws and patrol the community and yet violence is rampant throughout policed societies and if outright suppression is not being used then exploitation through political and economic means is employed. It's obviously stupid to argue that Health care systems do not help but at what cost are they helpful? What are the necessary factors to having a national or global health system and is it worth it? I think the outside world see's after war conflict and compares it to what we're used to and is shocked to see everything that is lacking. But do we take the time to see the freedoms created by not being under a government, governments are in the business of governing and they will attempt to hold this power position as long as they can when they collapse all the governments around this place see it as a new place to import their ideals and moral values / rules. I think it should be up to the people of that land to decide how they wish to live and that interference into re-institutionalising that land into governance as soon as possible to bring order to their chaos is the kind of misguided western approach that saw Christianity wipe out major portions of indigenous people and their cultures in the "new world" and we carry it on today under the guise of helping. How about we let the people who suffered all the hardships have the opportunity to self organise and redefine how they wish to live rather than acting like we're they're parents and must provide care, we smother the possibility of a new style of living that can only come out of a land removed from the political game.

Soren Sorensen i don't believe she is trying to belittle the trauma and sacrifice soldiers go through during and after war. i think she is trying to also bring some light to something we don't think about after the outright violence of war is over: the daily lives of citizens trying to put their country and community back together. both are incredibly hard to go through and deal with, during and after the fact. i think she's trying to shed some light on the total cost of war on people instead of just looking at death count and dollars of damage.

+Jan Jappie It is.

Duck dumb smart ppl Im not bored f-off it s 25%. Math for 10 years old.

nice troll dude, but you are not funny..

5 - 1 is like 100% - 20% and we are at 4 again

so if (4+1) is what already happenned, and (4+1) is 100% at the moment you are talking about it , 1 can't be equal to 25% of the whole thing

math is hard 4 * 1.25 = 5