April 28, 2006

Darfur: Just When We Thought Things Couldn't Get Worse...

The UN is cutting in half its daily rations in Sudan's Darfur region due to a severe funding shortfall.

"This is one of the hardest decisions I have ever made," James Morris, head of the UN's World Food Programme, said.

From May the ration will be half the minimum amount required by each day. The cut comes as the UN said Darfur's malnutrition rates are rising again.

Nearly 3m in Darfur are totally reliant on food aid after being driven off their land by three years of conflict. [BBC]

Meanwhile, the leaders of the free world are more concerned about Iran enriching a little uranium that COULD possibly cause the deaths of just as many people, oh say, about 50 years from now.

Why not help those people who are dying RIGHT NOW?! Why not mobilize the most powerful countries for a worthy cause like this?! WHY WHY WHY?!

Maybe because making a big fuss about Iran will make gas prices go through the ROOF, giving Exxon Mobil and their buddies (including Bush & Co.) something to rave about...to the tune of $8 Billion to be specific.

[related post]
[technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ]

Labels:

5 Comments:

At 12:23 PM, Blogger Abed. Hamdan said...

Hey !! slow down... "they" might be monitoring you ;)

 
At 12:58 PM, Blogger Tommy said...

Gee, and what is Arab League going to do about it. Has that organization ever taken in a lead? Even in a Muslim-on-Muslim issue?

Oh, I forgot, the Arab League is too busy engaging in apologetics for Khartoum and telling the rest of the world to take a "wait and see" attitude to the situation in Darfur. Of course, your disgust with their behavior is notably absent. Once again, it falls on the shoulders of "Evil Western Civilization" you criticize so often, to provide an answer. How typical.

Meanwhile, the leaders of the free world are more concerned about Iran enriching a little uranium that COULD possibly cause the deaths of just as many people, oh say, about 50 years from now.

Really, 50 years? Thats an estimate I've never heard anyone suggest before.
Would you like to be held to that estimate?

Try 3-12 years depending on who you believe.

The number of lives that would be jeopardized in a nuclear war with Iran would far exceed the number of peole in Darfur, BTW.

 
At 1:22 PM, Blogger moi said...

Abed, hehe, *evil smile*

Tommy, I never had faith in the Arab League and I won't start today. It's an incapacitated body of old fools. I didn't mention the Arab/Muslim role because I was referring to the inaction of the countries that claim to be concerned with the most important issue on the international scene today.

I am just as disgusted with the Arab/Muslim position as I am with the position of the most powerful countries of the West. Nations such as UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia would gladly pour their money into building the tallest tower or making the biggest french fry before they think about standing up for the rights of the innocent in Darfur. I do wonder, however, if we had more democratic nations in the Middle East where citizens can really speak out, would my fellow Arab and Muslim brethren call for an end to the genocide in Darfur? I don't want to use lack of democracy as an excuse, because from what I can see in the West, democracy hasn't helped that many people speak out about Darfur either.

I don't really know what the solution is. Is the world we are living in really THAT devoid of emotions so as to watch humans being butchered, raped, and starved and continue to turn a blind eye?!


Really, 50 years? Thats an estimate I've never heard anyone suggest before.
Would you like to be held to that estimate?


No, thankfully, I'm not George W. Bush, and I don't have to be held accountable for numbers or statements I make that could threaten the lives of millions of people across the world.
Clearly, I didn't use that number as an exact estimate, and I wouldn't trust most "experts" on this issue either because many claimed to know for sure that Iraq was only "months away" from producing a nuclear bomb. We all know how that one turned out.

 
At 2:05 PM, Blogger Tommy said...

OK, moi. I'm sorry if I came off a little harsh.

Frankly (and I've said to others before), I think the United States should step in unilaterally. The United Nations is as incompetant and useless as ever. Nothing new there.

We should do with Darfur what we did with Kurdish northern Iraq throughout the 90s. We should arm the Darfurians so they can defend themselves. We should provide air support to ensure that the Janjaweed or Sudanese army cannot mount large attacks against the people in Darfur. This would include making Darfur a 'no-fly zone' to would also ensure that the Sudanese military could not provide air support to the Janjaweed. Darfur would remain largely autonomous from Sudan until the situation can be peacefully resolved.

In the mean time, we would provide food aid until the Darfurians can get back to leading normal lives.

All of this could be done with just a little air support, a few special operations people to provide military training to Darfurian men of fighting age, and would not bog us down in another insurgency.

It would be the African equivalent of Iraqi Kurdistan all over again.

Of course, that would be the sort of radical action the United Nations would condemn us for. "America! Acting like a cowboy again!" So I don't think anything of this nature is going to happen at this point, unfortunately.

 
At 5:36 PM, Blogger Christopher Brown said...

Lets face the facts. Darfur is not an oil rich area. And the other thing we need to remember is that Kanye West was right "George Bush doesn't care about Black people!" Although, the UN and other nations don't care about Darfur either so there is plenty of blame to go around.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home