Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndgenz28
Well I don't think it would be war like that, it would be more like when they tell the leaders to leave the country and never come back. Like what happened to the Marcos's
Member his wife, Emelda or something, 10,000 pairs of designer shoes while the rest of the country went barefoot n hungry.
I would never suggest more should die. If the people went bloodthirsty, stop it, but if they want a real democratic change, we should not stop it.
|
Then choose your words better. A revolt is different from a civil war is different from a military coup. When I hear "civil war" I think of armed conflict of rebels vs loyalsists. And the civilian death toll wouldn't come from bloody rampages either, at least most of them wouldn't. It would come from disease, dehydration, and hunger. These are the biggest causes of death under any anarchy situation. The longer it takes to re-establish the status quo, the more people will die. When there are tens of thousands in a tent city, drinking contaminated water, disease is rampant. Without food they are also weak. Without medical facilities, many of these people die from treatable diseases. So anything that disrupts progress out of those camps or worsens the conditions in those camps will cost thousands of lives. And the removal of the current government will delay the rebuilding and likely cause the bulk of the aid (people, money, supplies, and equipment) to disappear.
Now is not the time to sit back and let the people rise up. Get them back on their feet first. Then let the people do what they wish.