Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
supercar

'Antiwar' People Conveniently Overlook War

Recommended Posts

supercar

Congo war-driven crisis kills 45,000 a month: study

Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:29am EST

KINSHASA (Reuters) - War, disease and malnutrition are killing 45,000 Congolese every month in a conflict-driven humanitarian crisis that has claimed 5.4 million victims in nearly a decade, a survey released on Tuesday said. The International Rescue Committee (IRC), which carried out the study with Australia's Burnet Institute, said Democratic Republic of Congo's 1998-2003 war and its aftermath had caused more deaths than any other conflict since World War Two. "Congo's loss is equivalent to the entire population of Denmark or the state of Colorado perishing within a decade," George Rupp, president of the aid group, said in a statement. The findings were published on the day Congo's government and warring eastern rebel and militia factions were due to sign a ceasefire in the hope of halting fighting in the east which has raged on since the nominal end of the 1998-2003 war. Rupp said that although Congo's war formally ended five years ago, "ongoing strife and poverty continue to take a staggering toll". "The conflict and its aftermath, in terms of fatalities, surpass any other since World War II," he added. Malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition, aggravated by conflict, were the top killers in Congo, the survey said. "Most of the deaths are due to easily treatable and preventable diseases through the collapse of health systems and the disruption of livelihoods," said IRC director of global health programs Richard Brennan, one of the survey's authors. Congo has the lowest spending on health care of any country in the world at an average of just $15 per person per year. "If you're in the United States, we spend $6,000 per person per year," Brennan said. The study was conducted between January 2006 and April 2007 in 14,000 households in all the country's 11 provinces. It updated previous surveys which estimated the toll from Congo's war at around 4 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...280201220080122

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mekorig

I fail to see the relation betewn the "'Antiwar' People" and the aftershocks of the Second Congo Civil War.

Maybe you mean that Congo is more important than Irak, and the people complaining about the Irak war should be busy helpin the DRC to rebuild?

I see a lot of humanitarian organization helping Congo, among them some that also are in Irak, and that oppose the war, like Amesty International.

Supercar, when doing propaganda, try to refine your methods. You still need a lot of practice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

I presume the thrust of your argument here is that "antiwar" people are being hypocritical in not condemning the war in Congo, yes?

Now, would you, then, recommend the US taking military action in Congo? Because that, surely, is the logical position for someone who supports the war in Iraq, as, since the war in Iraq clearly wasn't about Weapons of Mass Destruction, the only possible justification for it must have been on humanitarian grounds, yes? So are we suggesting here that military intervention in Congo is necessary and justified? Because surely, any other position would be hypocritical?

Or, just perhaps, this is just another gratuitous pop at those who don't support the Iraq fiasco.

hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supercar

People who oppose the Iraq war 'claim' they are antiwar,meaning they are against war in general. One of the people who post messages on this forum actaully put this image in their sig:

linked-image

If they are against war why don't they protest the war in Congo? It seems that some people are only antiwar when America is in the war.

I presume the thrust of your argument here is that "antiwar" people are being hypocritical in not condemning the war in Congo, yes?

Now, would you, then, recommend the US taking military action in Congo?

No because I am not pro-war. I am pro-victory in regards to Iraq.

since the war in Iraq clearly wasn't about Weapons of Mass Destruction, the only possible justification for it must have been on humanitarian grounds

The justification for the war was 37 years of terrorist attacks:

In September 1970 three jet aircraft bound for New York City were hijacked by radical Muslims and later blown up at a remote airstrip in Jordan.

September 1972, radical Muslims take 11 Israeli athletes hostage during the Munich Olympics. All 11 Israelis and a German policeman are killed.

In November of 1979,Iranians seized the U.S. Embassy in

Tehran, holding 53 American hostages for 444 days.

Less than four years later, 63 people died when the U.S. Embassy in

Beirut is bombed by radical Muslims.

Scant months later, 242 Americans and 58 French are killed by

simultaneous suicide bombers in the American and French compounds in

Beirut.

March 1984, radical Muslims kidnapped and murdered Political

Officer William Buckley.

One year later, radical Muslims seized the Italian cruise liner the

Achille Lauro and killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old American who

was confined to a wheelchair.

In June of 1985, radical Muslims hijacked a TWA flight

forcing the plane to fly to Beirut. Eight crew members and 145

passengers are held hostage for 17 days, during which time a U.S.

sailor is murdered.

December 1985 radical Muslims make simultaneous attacks on the international airports in Rome and Vienna.

18 people are killed.

April 1986, two U.S. soldiers are killed and 79 are injured when

Libyan nationals detonated bombs in a West Berlin discotheque.

Two years later, Libyans again take American lives when Pan Am Flight

103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. All of the 259 people on board

are killed.

On February 26, 1993, for the first time,radical Muslims strike

on American soil when a car bomb explodes in the garage of the World

Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,000.

On April 14, 1993, Iraqi intelligence operatives attempted to

assassinate former President Bush.

In 1995, a car bomb exploded at a U.S. military complex in Riyadh

Saudi Arabia by radical Muslims. One U.S. citizen is killed.

Seven months later a truck bomb detonated outside the Khobar Towers

in Dhahram, Saudi Arabia by radical Muslims. Nineteen Airmen are killed and 515 people are

wounded.

In August of 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania fall

victim to coordinated attacks by radical Muslims. Over 300 are killed.

Two years latter,radical Muslims ram a small watercraft laden with explosives

into the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

Finally, September 11, 2001,radical Muslims hijack two airliners that hit the World

Trade Center towers. Another plane crashed into the Pentagon and a

fourth plane, headed for either the White House or U.S. Capitol

Building in Washington, D.C., crashed in a Pennsylvania cornfield. All

told, 3,025 perish.

Or, just perhaps, this is just another gratuitous pop at those who don't support the Iraq fiasco.

hmmm.

Classic case of psychological projection.

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection" [1][2]

According to Corey Mixon, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else.

To understand the process, consider a person in a couple who has thoughts of infidelity. Instead of dealing with these undesirable thoughts consciously, he or she subconsciously projects these feelings onto the other person, and begins to think that the other has thoughts of infidelity and may be having an affair. In this way one can see that projection is related to denial, arguably the only defense mechanism that is more primitive than projection. Those who project deny a part of themselves that is desperate to come to the surface. In this case, they cannot face their own feelings of infidelity and therefore project them onto the other person.

Common Definitions:

"Projection is the opposite defense mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

"Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies."

"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest."

"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others.

"An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as an antagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way."

Wikipedia

Your claim that my post is a 'gratuitous pop at those who don't support the Iraq' is a subconscious admission on your part that your post is a 'gratuitous pop' at those who want victory in the Iraq war.

the Iraq fiasco

Yeah let's look at some of the 'fiascos':

Success- invasion of Iraq

Success- destruction of Iraq's armed forces

Success- occupation of Iraq's capitol city

Success- occupation of all of Iraq

Success- removal of Iraq's government

Success- free elections

Success- capture of Saddam Hussein

Success- death of Uday and Qusay Hussein

Success- death of Al-Zarqawi

Success- capture of 50 out 55 on Iraq's 'Most Wanted' list

Success- introduction of new Iraqi currency

Success- formation of the new Iraqi Army

Success- Iraqi army operates independantly

Success- more free elections

Success- formation of new Iraqi government

Success- regime change

Success- more free elections

Success- practically no violence in the Kurdish region

Success- 85% of eligible voters cast votes in the most recent elections

Success- invasion of Iraq prompts Libya to give up it's WMD

Success- 70% drop in violence since Surge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon Monkey

A lot of troubles around the world receive little or no attention on these boards unless, like you said, the US/UK can be blamed in some way. There is a common denominator to all of the serious conflicts and it isn't the western powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shush_rules
The justification for the war was 37 years of terrorist attacks:

In that case its a good thing that America bombed Baghdad and its peaceful civilians, after declaring war on Iraq, otherwise they would be no better then the terrorists that have been attacking them for 37 years....oh wait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco

Supercar,

You appear to lay ALL terrorist attacks at the feet of Iraq, as justification for invading it. This is patent nonsense.

Iraq was contained and had no known links with Al Qaeda. It had no WMD. There can be no "success" in any of the points that you mention you are simply projecting what you consider to be "success", based on irrational sabre rattling and an inadequate knowledge of the situation.

Who is your next target Supercar, it's bound to be Middle Eastern, Iran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

why are we comparing the congo to iraq?... :wacko: isnt the congo a civil war?...helped along by the french...i dont remember the scare tactics from that one....he can reach the US with drones and spray you..gw bush....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis
The justification for the war was 37 years of terrorist attacks:

A lot of references to "radical muslims"; not much mention, however, of Iraq. Not all radical Muslims came from Iraq; in fact, pre-invasion, there were hardly any.

Success- invasion of Iraq

Success- destruction of Iraq's armed forces

Success- occupation of Iraq's capitol city

Success- occupation of all of Iraq

Success- removal of Iraq's government

Success- free elections

Success- capture of Saddam Hussein

Success- death of Uday and Qusay Hussein

Success- death of Al-Zarqawi

Success- capture of 50 out 55 on Iraq's 'Most Wanted' list

Success- introduction of new Iraqi currency

Success- formation of the new Iraqi Army

Success- Iraqi army operates independantly

Success- more free elections

Success- formation of new Iraqi government

Success- regime change

Success- more free elections

Success- practically no violence in the Kurdish region

Success- 85% of eligible voters cast votes in the most recent elections

Success- invasion of Iraq prompts Libya to give up it's WMD

Success- 70% drop in violence since Surge

Success: several hundred thousand Iraqis (at the most conservative estimate, in fact, quite probably over a million by now), and well over 3000 American service personnel, killed, so far.

Success?

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob26003

It's a little hard to focus on the Congo when we are wasting 10 Billion a month policing a sectarian rivalry in Iraq.

Money that is needed at home to build infrastructure etc, and lift us out of this deficit and aid Bush's failing economy.

But, if you care more about Iraq than Americans than that is your perogative. I disagree.

We have what now? 50 Million American with no health coverage?

200,000 homeless veterans?

Slums as far as the eye can see.

10 Billion a month!!!!!!!!!!!! that is badly needed at home. To help AMERICA and AMERICANS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn

that 10 billion a month wouldnt be spent on the US anyway, governments never do, before Iraq war the US must of had 10 billion a month going spare because there was no war, but did they spend it or save it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

People are anti-war when it comes to Iraq because thr should have never ever happened in the first place. America was tricked,lied to and fooled into this war. No wonder people are against it. The congo, what the hell has the congo got to do about anti war. Of course what is going on there is damn awful but that is an internal problem. I would have rather seen America in the Congo helping out rather then being in Iraq. The Iraqi war was a very foolish endevour. So glad Canada stayed out of that one phew !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Cradle of Fish

Firstly, supercar: Why do you regurgitate the excuses for the war which have all been proven false? Iraq had nothing to do with most of those terrorist attacks. It's a mandate for war against radical muslims who wish to do us harm, yes, not for war against Saddam. That said, he did shelter one of the men responsible for the first WTC bombing, along with several other terrorists, and he did give money to the families of palestinian suicide bombers so thats reason enough to include him in the 'war on terror' plan. They should have told the truth, that Iraq was a failed state soon to be inherited by a dictator worse than the one that was in power at the time, probably after a power struggle that leaves a fair few people dead. Why was it a failed state? Because we left it without taking out Saddam in 1991, if we'd done it then, sure it would have been a bloody war, but it would have been far better than it is right now, and we could have removed a safe haven for terrorists and put in it's place a fairly secular democracy. Iraq was a problem we couldn't avoid, the US meddled there for decades, then abandoned our allies there, our paths were bound to cross again.

Secondly, whats wrong with being anti-war? War is one of the most horrible thing a person can experience, it should be avoided except in the most extreme circumstance. You should never be eager to go to war, no matter how patriotic it makes you look. Now, as for the troubles in Africa, why aren't the pro-war crowd pushing to intervene there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atheist God
Congo war-driven crisis kills 45,000 a month: study

Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:29am EST

KINSHASA (Reuters) - War, disease and malnutrition are killing 45,000 Congolese every month in a conflict-driven humanitarian crisis that has claimed 5.4 million victims in nearly a decade, a survey released on Tuesday said. The International Rescue Committee (IRC), which carried out the study with Australia's Burnet Institute, said Democratic Republic of Congo's 1998-2003 war and its aftermath had caused more deaths than any other conflict since World War Two. "Congo's loss is equivalent to the entire population of Denmark or the state of Colorado perishing within a decade," George Rupp, president of the aid group, said in a statement. The findings were published on the day Congo's government and warring eastern rebel and militia factions were due to sign a ceasefire in the hope of halting fighting in the east which has raged on since the nominal end of the 1998-2003 war. Rupp said that although Congo's war formally ended five years ago, "ongoing strife and poverty continue to take a staggering toll". "The conflict and its aftermath, in terms of fatalities, surpass any other since World War II," he added. Malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition, aggravated by conflict, were the top killers in Congo, the survey said. "Most of the deaths are due to easily treatable and preventable diseases through the collapse of health systems and the disruption of livelihoods," said IRC director of global health programs Richard Brennan, one of the survey's authors. Congo has the lowest spending on health care of any country in the world at an average of just $15 per person per year. "If you're in the United States, we spend $6,000 per person per year," Brennan said. The study was conducted between January 2006 and April 2007 in 14,000 households in all the country's 11 provinces. It updated previous surveys which estimated the toll from Congo's war at around 4 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...280201220080122

Well unless you call a draft I have a feeling soldiers will be busy in Iraq for quite some time.

Global powers don't care about Congo and thats why the mainstream media doesn't talk about it much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ourmoonlitsun
People who oppose the Iraq war 'claim' they are antiwar,meaning they are against war in general. One of the people who post messages on this forum actaully put this image in their sig:

linked-image

If they are against war why don't they protest the war in Congo? It seems that some people are only antiwar when America is in the war.

No because I am not pro-war. I am pro-victory in regards to Iraq.

I can't believe I'm letting myself get baited into this, but...

That's a crude generalization to state that "People who oppose the Iraq war 'claim' they are antiwar, meaning they are against war in general"--I oppose the Iraq war, and I always have, though I wouldn't say I oppose the need for all wars. The way you make it sound, I oppose the Iraq war simply because it's a war, and that is completely not true; I oppose the Iraq war because it was a ridiculous pursuit comprised of misinformation and changing motives: first we were told there were links to Al-Qaeda; then we were told they had weapons of mass destruction; finally, the reasoning behind the war settled on liberating the Iraqi people. When it comes to war, it is my belief you need to have a damn good reason for engaging, and changing your tune between three different shaky motives simply didn't cut it for me. Why? Because, as your OP highlights, there are atrocities occurring all over this planet...it might be a good idea to be a bit more choosy.

And good to see you are "pro-victory in regards to Iraq"...because, you know, I must then be "pro-defeat in regards to Iraq" because I oppose it :rolleyes: . Is that really your logic? Anytime we wage a war everyone falls into "pro-victory" or "pro-defeat" camps? It's really that black and white for you? No question of morality or ethical basis for the war in general, just win or lose? Personally, I just oppose the whole war, and because of that I feel "victory" or "defeat," the war is a bad idea. Your statement is rather hollow: good luck finding people that are truly "pro-defeat" when it comes to Iraq and hope we just miserably fail...I oppose the war, but I don't hope for all of our troops and forces to be brutally defeated. Making such a correlation would be a bit of flawed logic.

The world is a spectrum of gray. Those who spew propaganda try to make it black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis
Iraq was a problem we couldn't avoid, the US meddled there for decades, then abandoned our allies there, our paths were bound to cross again.

... one of whom , of course, at least while he was at war with Iran, was one Saddam Hussein...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis
No because I am not pro-war. I am pro-victory in regards to Iraq.

...

Your claim that my post is a 'gratuitous pop at those who don't support the Iraq' is a subconscious admission on your part that your post is a 'gratuitous pop' at those who want victory in the Iraq war.

I'm very pleased that you want victory in Iraq.

However, I thought the "mission had been accomplished" a good five years ago, according to the President ... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

Supercar, perhaps you could back up your claim that "antiwar" people are conveniently overlooking war in the congo? That is a pretty serious accusation and and appears to be baseless to me unless you can back it up with some kind of data. I would hate to think that you are guilty of purposely flambating, but it certainly looks that way right now.

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cradle of Fish
... one of whom , of course, at least while he was at war with Iran, was one Saddam Hussein...

He was more of a puppet, I mainly mean the Kurds who we abandoned to a massacre. They've definitely bounced back, but if we leave now their fledgling democracy is just going to be overrun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aztec Warrior
It's a little hard to focus on the Congo when we are wasting 10 Billion a month policing a sectarian rivalry in Iraq.

Money that is needed at home to build infrastructure etc, and lift us out of this deficit and aid Bush's failing economy.

But, if you care more about Iraq than Americans than that is your perogative. I disagree.

We have what now? 50 Million American with no health coverage?

200,000 homeless veterans?

Slums as far as the eye can see.

10 Billion a month!!!!!!!!!!!! that is badly needed at home. To help AMERICA and AMERICANS!

I finally agree with Bob. Who really cares about some far away African nation, out of control and probably already receives millions upon millions of US tax payers dollars...to feed their corruption. It NEVER goes to the starving poor people.

Supercar, perhaps you could back up your claim that "antiwar" people are conveniently overlooking war in the congo? That is a pretty serious accusation and and appears to be baseless to me unless you can back it up with some kind of data. I would hate to think that you are guilty of purposely flambating, but it certainly looks that way right now.

You know I agree that the mainstream media has not covered the situation in the Congo well. But maybe that's because there really has not been a huge outcry or massive protests to excite the news outlets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ins0mniac
People who oppose the Iraq war 'claim' they are antiwar,meaning they are against war in general.

Which is a complete generalisation. I don't think it would be the least bit true in most cases of people who oppose the Iraq war. And with that thread of logic torn down, you're entire argument is meaningless. Not to mention that a lot of people AREN'T overlooking other wars. And the fact that protesting in the West about wars that have nothing to do with them, is unlikely to achieve anything so would be a waste of time.

It shows a complete lack of understanding on your part, if anything. If you really want the reasons why most people oppose the war in Iraq, they are not hard to find. And no, I'm not going to go off topic and start another argument about why the Iraq war was a bad idea as it's been covered in so many threads here already.

Edited by Ins0mniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.