News I'm sorry Sudanese citizens - the world is too whimpy to help you

[member 5645]

I'm sorry Sudanese citizens - the world is too whimpy to help you...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3790559.stm

Sudanese children dying of hunger
Aid workers fear there could be thousands of burials in Darfur
Hundreds of children have started to starve to death in Sudan's war-torn western province of Darfur.

I wonder what it feels like to have to figure out numbers like this, and then have the information fall on many deaf ears:

"If we get relief in, we could lose a third of a million. If we do not, it could be a million," Andrew Natsios, head of the US Agency for International Development told a UN donor conference last week.

 

[kat]

Phat-com'on, you should know by now...it's only majorly newsworthy and important enough for the peace activist to be virulantly vocal on if it involves the U.S., it's corporations or the Joooooos. If you don't believe me take a look at what's newsworthy http://www.marumushi.com/apps/newsmap/newsmap.cfm

 

[russ_watters]

The tumble-weed in this thread speaks volumes...

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Umm, there's a DIFFERENCE...

Sudan is a Civil War.
Iraq is an Invasion.

Can you not distinguish between?

Do you know where Sudan is?
Can you point it out on a map?

 

[studentx]

We're not talking about Iraq here Nommos...
This thread is about Sudan! The land where hundreds of thousands will die because people like you only want to look at Iraq, or more specifically, the places in Iraq where American soldiers are.
I am apalled by your lack of insight in this tragedy on a biblical scale. Calling it civil war is a poor excuse for doing nothing.

 

[member 5645]

Sudan is a Civil War.
Iraq is an Invasion.

Can you not distinguish between?

Do you know where Sudan is?
Can you point it out on a map?

Sudan is as much a civil war as Rwanda was Government supported Arab militias are ethnically cleansing black Africans. Despite a ceasefire, it still is happening. Despite the UN, the US is the only country actively pushing for aide and an intervention to this conflict. There is no excuse for not helping.
IT IS GENOCIDE.
What the hell does Iraq have to do with this thread??NOTHING! Quit trying to change the subject, again.

Yes.
Yes.

 

[amp]

I bet if he shows american corporate interests are responsible for the turmoil in the first place... well you know.

 

[member 5645]

I bet if he shows american corporate interests are responsible for the turmoil in the first place... well you know.

What does this mean? I guess I DON'T know.

The fact is, that apart from the altruistic want to stop another Rwanda, peace in Sudan, and much of northern Africa, BENEFITS US companies because they can then conduct business - in many cases oil business, the very companies there somehow many would LOVE to try to pin this genocide on.

 

[amp]

I don't either. Was there US policies in place to overthrow elected leaders in Sudan? That has been a pattern with the US.

 

[member 5645]

I don't either. Was there US policies in place to overthrow elected leaders in Sudan? That has been a pattern with the US.

I fully fail to see what you are going at - do you have a point? some information? Or are we just turning this thread into a mental masturbation convention.

Perhaps our disgust at Sudan being elected to the UN human rights body is proof!

 

[amp]

Phatmonkey, I don't know the full story with respect to the US and Sudan but this links info does indicate that the US has been hardly altruistic towards Sudan.

Go to: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq16.html#4

Some info on recent policy here: http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0614-BushSudan.html

US policy in recent years has focused on isolation and containment of the Sudanese government. This policy is motivated more by US perceptions that the Sudanese government supports international terrorism than by concern about the civil war. However, the US relationship to Sudan is complicated by economic factors. US corporate and financial interests, for example those which use gum arabic in their products (soft drinks, candy and pharmaceuticals) and US investors in Talisman, the oil company, want the United States to maintain good relations with the Government of Sudan to secure their interests.

 

[member 5645]

Phatmonkey, I don't know the full story with respect to the US and Sudan but this links info does indicate that the US has been hardly altruistic towards Sudan.

Go to: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq16.html#4

Some info on recent policy here: http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0614-BushSudan.html

Most of that article refers to another president, and his order of a single wrongful bombing (not to mention the constant and repeated speculation of WHY said president did said bombing). As we all know, many policies change, especially with political lines. I am talking about stopping genocide, and the lack of action by anyone else in the world.
Luckily, it looks as if the G8 has been pushed to acknowledge the problem today, and are calling for an immediate stop of it.

Also, as I have stated "The fact is, that apart from the altruistic want to stop another Rwanda, peace in Sudan, and much of northern Africa, BENEFITS US companies because they can then conduct business - in many cases oil business, the very companies there somehow many would LOVE to try to pin this genocide on."

 

[amp]

Ok, I get it. Too bad for the Sudanese though.

 

[member 5645]

Ok, I get it. Too bad for the Sudanese though.

It is too bad. The first post I made puts the 'good' number at 1/3 million.

 

[member 5645]

Speaking of the recent G8 development, the EU is finally stepping in as well! Better late than never!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3794041.stm

 

[selfAdjoint]

Gee, sounds just like Bosnia. Wait till the ethnic cleansing is over, then step into look shocked.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Western militaries should be stepping into stop the fighting and escort humanitarian aid.

I'm kinda disgusted by the attempts to turn this thread into ideological bickering, meanwhile these people are suffering and dying.

The G8 stuff seems rather weak. Urging probably won't help much. At least the EU is giving money to fund observers, but that is not nearly enough. I think that a Western military presence is required.

 

[Loren Booda]

For those who wish to donate, can someone post a contact list to legitimate charities (like the Red Cross International Response Fund) operating in southern Sudan? Also, do any of you remember the Biblical-proportion wanderings of the Sudanese "Lost Boys" featured on 60 minutes?

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Donations?

Posted by phatmonkey;
“Most of that article refers to another president, and his order of a single wrongful bombing (not to mention the constant and repeated speculation of WHY said president did said bombing). As we all know, many policies change, especially with political lines. I am talking about stopping genocide, and the lack of action by anyone else in the world.”

A single wrongful bombing?
You mean, like the World Trade Towers?
Anyway, its well established that the Sudanese DID NOT bomb the USA Embassies. Well-established.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

Yeh, got a pharmaceutical plant (Nice…)

http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/1998/p8r08-20.htm

Osama, mentioned once more…(circa 1998)
http://www.marxist.com/Africa/usterrorism.html

Yeh, the USA is a real hero in the Sudan…

http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=2982

“In a separate development, on Tuesday the US took Sudan off its list of countries deemed uncooperative in the war against terrorism, but kept it on a list of "state sponsors of terrorism". Boucher said Sudan had taken a number of positive steps on cooperation against terrorism over the past few years, but remained on the state terrorism list because of the presence of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Sudan, "and some other concerns".
He cautioned that even if ongoing peace talks between the government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army succeeded, Sudan should not expect "a significant flow" of aid or assistance until "their [government's] behaviour in Darfur has changed".”

That is called blackmailing a Nation with “aid” tied to military expenditure…

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

If You Americans REALLY CARE...

If you really care (which I know - you DON'T!);
Then donate here;
http://gbgm-umc.org/umcor/emergency/sudan.stm

I donated a lousy twenty bucks last year...

Can anybody else on this Forum make this claim?
Geez, I'm an uncaring Nazi...

 

[member 5645]

Nommos - I'm biting my tongue here, but do not being derailing my thread. Most of what you just posted is straw man garbage. No one in this thread has made the claims you are attempting to argue against.
And to add to that, you are in NO position to tell me if I really care about this matter or not.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

So you've donated?

Oh yeh, a reference to a Sudanese newspaper is uncalled for.
The horses mouth hurts...

 

[Loren Booda]

I'm donating $50, earmarked for Sudan, to the Red Cross International Response Fund. Can anyone beat that?

 

[member 5645]

So you've donated?

Oh yeh, a reference to a Sudanese newspaper is uncalled for.
The horses mouth hurts...

Start using the quotes button so that dialogue may continue...


You responded to a supposed accusation that the Sudanese bombed the USA embassy. I have not, and cannot find anyone else, in this thread that has said otherwise. PLease stop trying to change the subject.

I have no idea what else you are talking about.

Yes I have donated.
Loren, I'm going to do something uncharacteristic of me and not tell you my amount, as to not compete on this (although I do see the good spirit in your 'dare' to beat you).
I'm happy if anyone assists at all. Glad you could help nommos.

 

[member 5645]

“In a separate development, on Tuesday the US took Sudan off its list of countries deemed uncooperative in the war against terrorism, but kept it on a list of "state sponsors of terrorism". Boucher said Sudan had taken a number of positive steps on cooperation against terrorism over the past few years, but remained on the state terrorism list because of the presence of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Sudan, "and some other concerns".
He cautioned that even if ongoing peace talks between the government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army succeeded, Sudan should not expect "a significant flow" of aid or assistance until "their [government's] behaviour in Darfur has changed".”

That is called blackmailing a Nation with “aid” tied to military expenditure…

Good for the US government! It'd be a shame to let the SUdanese Government use Aid to fund and support other militias that are performing genocide against the populous.
Reward those governments that act inline, not those that act contrary to your values - ie genocide.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I've got to agree with phatmonky.

 

[Adam]

I never give money to religious organisations. They should be taxed.

However, since I sometimes apply for jobs overseas (I enjoy travel), I am applying for some Red Cross jobs.

 

[revelator]

I've been reading Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance, and he points out that in most cases of "American humanitarian intervention" atrocities tend to escalate after and during any American interventions. He cites Nicaragua as one example, and a few others which I don't recognize off the top of my head. I don't have the book handy at the moment, or I would reference it. If anyone is interested I could post the relevant passages once I get home.

To get to the point of my post, does anyone have comments on Chomsky's statements?

 

[russ_watters]

To get to the point of my post, does anyone have comments on Chomsky's statements?

His statements are self-evident: adding more violence in an effort to speed the end of a crisis is still adding more violence.

Hypothetically, if 1,000 people a day are dying in a genocide and outsiders kill 2,000 people per day for 2 weeks in stopping the genocide, how long does it take before the net result is saved lives?

Is return-on-investment calculus moral in these situations? IMO, it is.

 

[Dissident Dan]

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2668200

 

[kyleb]

Is return-on-investment calculus moral in these situations? IMO, it is.

if you are a moral relativist it is. otherwise, killing inocent people is always immoral.

 

[Njorl]

if you are a moral relativist it is. otherwise, killing inocent people is always immoral.

If you take in more calories than you need, or calories in an inefficient fomat, you raise the price of food and starve someone to death.

If you use more energy than you need, you raise the price of feul and freeze someone to death.

If you buy more clothing than you need, you raise the profitability of textile manufacture, and make slave laborers in China, who have a high death rate, more possible.

If you own possessions, and expect them to be protected by police, you make necessary police who will inevitably kill innocent people by mistake.

If you are not a self-sufficient hermit living on land nobody else wants, you are killing innocent people. The question is not should we refrain from killing. It is, what do we do to make our killing acceptable. Welcome to the real world. If you've read this, you've contributed to someone's death somewhere. Have you contributed enough to life to make it worthwhile?

Njorl

 

[kyleb]

thank you Njorl, for your very absurd example of moral relativism.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If you take in more calories than you need, or calories in an inefficient fomat, you raise the price of food and starve someone to death.

If you use more energy than you need, you raise the price of feul and freeze someone to death.

If you buy more clothing than you need, you raise the profitability of textile manufacture, and make slave laborers in China, who have a high death rate, more possible.

If you own possessions, and expect them to be protected by police, you make necessary police who will inevitably kill innocent people by mistake.

If you are not a self-sufficient hermit living on land nobody else wants, you are killing innocent people. The question is not should we refrain from killing. It is, what do we do to make our killing acceptable. Welcome to the real world. If you've read this, you've contributed to someone's death somewhere. Have you contributed enough to life to make it worthwhile?

Njorl

Nonsense. This is bad economics. The idea that every time I turn around or consume any food or energy, some person dies as a result just won't fly. There are huge slops in the international balance of payments, and things in the fifth or sixth decimal place cannot be counted up. And most people do not starve to death - where they do it's more due to local distribution than supply. Likewise nobody is freezing to death because I drive to the store. You are just waving your hands and making horrors up.

 

[Loren Booda]

If you do nothing, what happens?

 

[BoulderHead]

If you do nothing, what happens?

Then you're still killing people by not producing, haha!

I always insisted on working gratis, and wouldn't let anyone pay me, let alone consider a raise. I felt guilty knowing the cost of my labor would be passed along to the ultimate consumers, destroying them.

 

[Njorl]

Nonsense. This is bad economics. The idea that every time I turn around or consume any food or energy, some person dies as a result just won't fly. There are huge slops in the international balance of payments, and things in the fifth or sixth decimal place cannot be counted up. And most people do not starve to death - where they do it's more due to local distribution than supply. Likewise nobody is freezing to death because I drive to the store. You are just waving your hands and making horrors up.

So Adam Smith was wrong! There is no law of supply and demand. Fascinating. You should publish your results.

Just because the effect is small does not mean it does not exist. Effects in "the fifth or sixth decimal place" in a population of billions, affect thousands to tens of thousands of people. I think the effect is significantly smaller than you state, but it is not negligible or non-existant.

While it is true that most starvation occurs during famine, and most famine is due to violent disruption of distribution, other starvation does occur.

BTW, I drive to work each day alone, am overweight and eat meat. I like to think that I do more good than harm, though. Since it is not humanly possible to avoid harming others, I believe doing more good is the only alternative.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Then you're still killing people by not producing, haha!

I always insisted on working gratis, and wouldn't let anyone pay me, let alone consider a raise. I felt guilty knowing the cost of my labor would be passed along to the ultimate consumers, destroying them.

By providing free labor, you are undercutting those who need to work for a living. You have to figure out the exact magic value to be paid so that you are not gouging your employer or undercutting other laborers, otherwise you are EVIL

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

So Adam Smith was wrong! There is no law of supply and demand. Fascinating. You should publish your results.

Just because the effect is small does not mean it does not exist. Effects in "the fifth or sixth decimal place" in a population of billions, affect thousands to tens of thousands of people. I think the effect is significantly smaller than you state, but it is not negligible or non-existant.

While it is true that most starvation occurs during famine, and most famine is due to violent disruption of distribution, other starvation does occur.

BTW, I drive to work each day alone, am overweight and eat meat. I like to think that I do more good than harm, though. Since it is not humanly possible to avoid harming others, I believe doing more good is the only alternative.

Njorl

But isn't the fault in your thinking, that you require a zero sum wealth model?? Simply, that for that to all be true, there can be only a set amount of wealth - but your last statement of 'doing more good' seems to counter that. Either that or you believe that 'doing good' for others is really 'dong bad' to yourself, or another select group.

If 'doing good' offsets 'doing bad' (existing), then the inverse must be true that if something bad is happening to me then something good is happening to someone else. Unless you agree that wealth can be created, not transferred, and then we see the flaw in this whole thinking.

If I do good for someone, you are also saying that I must be doing bad for someone else (taking away to give to another in essence). Are you suggesting we all just share the weight of poor lifestyle at different points in time, as we transfer said burden?

According to you If I exist, I must be taking from someone else. But that is a fallacy so long as wealth, and thus products and services, can be created - not just transferred.

 

[member 5645]

By providing free labor, you are undercutting those who need to work for a living. You have to figure out the exact magic value to be paid so that you are not gouging your employer or undercutting other laborers, otherwise you are EVIL

Njorl

Is this sarcasm?

 

[BoulderHead]

By providing free labor, you are undercutting those who need to work for a living. You have to figure out the exact magic value to be paid so that you are not gouging your employer or undercutting other laborers, otherwise you are EVIL

Njorl

Njorl,
Do you recommend a ball of some kind for determining that exact magic value?

Actually, I'm more interested to hear your opinion as to government effectively diminishing purchasing power of money through inflation, and starving people, than I am to have the above question answered.

 

[Njorl]

Is this sarcasm?

Yes.

The point is, that one can't be a perfectly moral being. For one thing, one can't know how, and if one did know how, one would fail anyway. One is always harming the innocent.

Since doing harm is unavoidable, a moral calculus is justified. The ultimate example, killing innocents for the greater good, was celebrated with great pomp less than two week ago. We celebrated the successful landing at Normandy, where an estimated 14,000 innocent French civilians were killed.

I will concede this. When one decides to indulge in moral mathmatics, one damn well better get it right.

Njorl

 

[selfAdjoint]

So Adam Smith was wrong! There is no law of supply and demand. Fascinating. You should publish your results.

It's well known. It's called inelasticity, and it effects all kinds of commodities. Econ 101 is not the last word.

 

[Njorl]

But isn't the fault in your thinking, that you require a zero sum wealth model?? Simply, that for that to all be true, there can be only a set amount of wealth - but your last statement of 'doing more good' seems to counter that. Either that or you believe that 'doing good' for others is really 'dong bad' to yourself, or another select group.

If 'doing good' offsets 'doing bad' (existing), then the inverse must be true that if something bad is happening to me then something good is happening to someone else. Unless you agree that wealth can be created, not transferred, and then we see the flaw in this whole thinking.

If I do good for someone, you are also saying that I must be doing bad for someone else (taking away to give to another in essence). Are you suggesting we all just share the weight of poor lifestyle at different points in time, as we transfer said burden?

According to you If I exist, I must be taking from someone else. But that is a fallacy so long as wealth, and thus products and services, can be created - not just transferred.

I certainly do agree that we are not in an economic zero-sum-game. Wealth can certainly be created. While eating a BigMac does not create wealth, living in a free, economically advanced society, of which BigMac consumption is a part, is ammenable to an atmosphere that is likely to be conducive to wealth creation.

I harm the world by eating a BigMac. The free society that let's me eat that BigMac is conducive to my learning physics. The value of the work I do far outweighs the harm of me eating many BigMacs.

Admittedly, I would need to eat more burgers than is humanly possible just make one other person starve, but McDonald's has "Billions served".

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

It's well known. It's called inelasticity, and it effects all kinds of commodities. Econ 101 is not the last word.

I don't see how this applies to the situation at hand. Inelasticity in commodities markets only affects short term prices, not long term production. In the long term commodities supply and demand are the most elastic elements in any economy.

Njorl

 

[BoulderHead]

If you take in more calories than you need, or calories in an inefficient fomat, you raise the price of food and starve someone to death.

There is so much wrong this, I don’t know where to begin. Are you thinking long-term or short-term, for example? In any event, the conclusion is dubious. Assumed is that costs cannot be cut in other spending to allow for basic subsistence. Ignored is potential for pay increase or even taking on part-time work to help make ends meet. Assumed is this person eats the same items or cannot opt for less expensive alternatives where the cost may have actually moved down (the individual may not even like Big Macs, for instance). Overlooked is that purchases by consumers provide manufactures with financial reward and incentive to increase production. Along a similar line, competitors and entrepreneurs may also see a niche for themselves by catering to public demand. There is much more, of course, but this should be enough to cast doubt on your argument, an argument guilty of Fallacy of Presumption.

 

[Loren Booda]

I recall having heard that there's enough food to go around, but getting it to the hungry individuals consistantly is the primary problem. Secondarily, encourage the conditions under which they may produce to feed themselves.

 

[Njorl]

There is so much wrong this, I don’t know where to begin. Are you thinking long-term or short-term, for example?

Long term. A market that caters to luxury eating requires higher food prices. More land must be brought into cultivation. Rents on lands brought into production are higher than rents on lands necessary for subsistance. The higher rent price is not passed on solely to the overconsumer, it is shared equally by all consumers.

In any event, the conclusion is dubious. Assumed is that costs cannot be cut in other spending to allow for basic subsistence.

Since some people do starve for purely economic reasons, your assumption is obviously wrong. I realize that economic starvation is rare, but it does happen. By starvation, I do not mean death from lack of calories, I mean death from other causes due to vulnerability from lack of calories.

Ignored is potential for pay increase or even taking on part-time work to help make ends meet.

While the luxury eater's demand creates some work, and hence some additional pay, it is necessarily less than enough to compensate for the rise in food prices.

Assumed is this person eats the same items or cannot opt for less expensive alternatives where the cost may have actually moved down (the individual may not even like Big Macs, for instance).

Most calories have a fungible nature. Land used for grain for human consumption can be used to grow cattle feed. Land used for legumes can be used to grow strawberries and asparagus. The dissimilarities of the diet are immaterial. Luxury food displaces subsistance food.

Overlooked is that purchases by consumers provide manufactures with financial reward and incentive to increase production. Along a similar line, competitors and entrepreneurs may also see a niche for themselves by catering to public demand.

This was addressed above. The increased production is, by necessity, more expensive than the previous production. Read David Ricardo on rents.

There is much more, of course, but this should be enough to cast doubt on your argument, an argument guilty of Fallacy of Presumption.

No, my argument is accurate. I am not guilty of the fallacy of presumption, provided any people in the world die either directly or indirectly due to the expense of food. Such indirect causes of death could be due to the expense of food preventing expenditures on other necessities of life, such as adequate housing or medical care. Brazil, for example, has a large population in this circumstance, and exports over half a million tons of beef a year.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

I recall having heard that there's enough food to go around, but getting it to the hungry individuals consistantly is the primary problem. Secondarily, encourage the conditions under which they may produce to feed themselves.

That is true. Most hunger is caused by political conditions, not economic conditions, but not all. The validity of my argument requires only some economic hunger to exist.

Remember though, my real argument is that moral calculus is justified because none of us can ever hope to be morally true.

Njorl

 

[selfAdjoint]

That is true. Most hunger is caused by political conditions, not economic conditions, but not all. The validity of my argument requires only some economic hunger to exist.

Remember though, my real argument is that moral calculus is justified because none of us can ever hope to be morally true.

Njorl

Yes and it's just your motivation of that principle that strikes us as unconvincing. You wave your hands and say that if I eat a sandwich, some poor person will starve, and there is no credible causal chain between the premise and the conclusion.