Who can describe a site, when it can describe itself? DISCLAIMER: for the self-critical, self-aware, self-humored ONLY.
Thousands will die in Sudan, because Iraq conflict wins elections, gains resources
Published on June 3, 2004 By Poi Dog In Current Events


Forget about the election mumbo-jumbo in the United States of America. I'm pushing that topic to the side in favor of humanitarian rights and global samaritanism. Once again, there is another catastophe in Africa; one that has been going on for quite some time, but is now only getting some attention, thanks to a combination of civil war, famine, disease, and government crime. I'm mentioning specifically the country of Sudan.
Sadly, it is only because of an international plea for help by the World Health Organization that this issue is recently making fresh headlines, even though the International Red Cross, the United Nations, and other humanitarian aid groups have been pleading this case for quite some time now.
Before I go into any more details, let me lay down the irony - thick and in your face - on why this particular issue makes me feel ashamed:

1) The 'rescue' and 'restoration of power' to Iraq was labeled as a humanitarian issue of the highest importance, according to the office of the President of the United States. Also cited were the search and seizure of WMD, as well as the dismantling of terrorist organizations. The irony - Arabic peoples are being used in genocidal campaigns in the Sudan, killing tens of thousands outright, while starving and displacing millions more. The number of killed, wounded, displaced, diseased, and starved is happening on a scale that dwarfs the Iraqi campaign. The Sudan has also had quite a history in terms of terrorist training for people around the world, and in particular, the Middle East and Europe.

2) Previous reasons cited by the offices of George W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton for not providing more aid to ravaged African countries were, "not wanting to interfere with international aid groups", "pressuring the need to attack war and famine on an international scale", and "lack of a federal budget needed to stop famine on that large of a scale". The last one was my favorite, coming straight from Dubyah himself. Those same lips keep asking for billions of dollars in Iraq.

3) The financial and personnel and logistical aspects of providing aid, education, and support to African nations is a fraction of the total involvement in Iraq. While we are at 700 dead and rising, the military need is virtually NONEXISTANT in providing help to places such as Sudan. The possibility of using Special Forces to control specific aid stations, as well as military transports needed to ferry supplies, is about the extent of their involvement.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am an average citizen of the United States, and I'm acutely aware of the decision-making errors of those above us, and I'm even more acutely aware of the plight of the global community. It is our tax dollars that are being funneled by the billions, our image that is being smeared, and our ethics that are going down the drain. I would much rather put my effort and vote towards helping the highest amount of people with the best resources. It seems to me that we can do the most good by providing the simplest of education, amenities, and support to African nations. Although it is a blessing that Saddam and his sons are no longer threats to the Kurdish peoples, as well as the Iraqi populace, simple logic states that the greater need lies elsewhere. With this essay in mind, I must ask, "where are our priorities, as a nation?" Must we profit from helping others? Must there be a national crisis in order to activate our passion?

By the way, while you have been reading this article, a hundred people have perished needlessly in various hotspots of Africa, simply from a vital lack of resources.

Comments
on Jun 03, 2004
"but is now only getting some attention, thanks to a combination of civil war, famine, disease, and government crime"
Hey there. Not sure what planet you've been living on these past decades to not know that stuff has always been there for all to see. However, no one gave a crap then, like they still don't now. You're wrong on this. There's another reason it's coming out now and those reasons you stated are not it, since they've been around forever. No, it's something much different that human suffering. It's much worse. I don't know exactly what it is, but it is. Trust me. Peace.
on Jun 03, 2004
"Right or wrong, we got ourselves into the situation in iraq, and we must now see it through to its ideal conclusion. To settle for anything less at this point dishonors the sacrifices of those who have already given their lives in this war"
The same thing was said to Philip Caputo in 1966 and his response still stands. So more have to die. Not your kids of course. But others will have to die, supposedly "for them". Whatev. More US dead, good of you to want to throw more lives away so the lives that have already been thrown away will seem less dead, I suppose. You're wrong.
on Jun 04, 2004
Whew! Who to respond to first? I guess I must first point out the most recent global 'interference' that was in defense of humanity: World War II. The isolationists and Charles Lindbergh's facist and racist views were overturned by the desperation of those who wanted to save the prodigal European family from the Nazi grip. The United States did NOT look towards the liberation of Europe as a strategic resource, such as the Bush Cabinet does towards Iraq. The issue of war simply was a tandem prong of, "hey, these guys are blowing up our merchantmen and ignoring our peaceful status", and "hey, these guys are destroying the democratic world as we know it!". World War II was the birth of the United States assuming the role of protector of humanitarian issues. And that is where our foundation lies. We rescued the poor, the hungry...those seeking refuge and asylum, and we fought against tyranny. Nowhere did I see a clause for oil. It isn't even ours, and never will be. What a disgusting subject to fight and die for! I just found out some more research on the strategic resources of Iraqi oil: 480 billion barrels of oil in the short run, and over 9 TRILLION dollars in oil resources (in today's dollars, of course). And there's a lot more to be found.

But you know what that says to me? Human life is not as important as the gas you put in your car. And if you want to defend that issue, then you should re-evaluate your own ethics. The day I say this stupid 2-dollar-a-gallon petrol proves its worth over one baby in the world is the day I surrender myself.

As for one closing comment on Iraq: 2000 years of holy war and internal struggles cannot be overcome by 2 years of assimilation and redirection. There will be no Hollywood ending to our 'war' with Iraqi dissidents and terrorists. If you want a perfect example, look at the relatively new nation of Israel.

As I tried to sum up before: Educate a man or woman, and you feed generations. Feed a man or woman, and they live for a day uneducated.
on Jun 04, 2004
An insightful article, well written. You may be interested in reading my articles on African Affairs at
adnauseam.joeuser.com
on Jun 04, 2004
A very well written and insightful article!

on Jun 04, 2004
How much money do you think the U.S. government should spend on Sudan?
on Jun 04, 2004
How much money do you think the U.S. government should spend on Sudan?


As little as humanly possible, since that region of the world is constantly plagued by war, famine, corruption in government and a hundred other ills. In order to correct that situation Amerika would have to do what it neither knows how to do nor is willing to do: act like a truly imperial power. The attempt to resolve the situation in Africa through sending good money after bad will have the result that all such interference has: it will make a bad situation worse. It will do so by continuing to pass cash into the hands of corrupt officials; it will do so by providing the means for local warlords to buy armaments and with them continue to rule in their own interest over local populations; it will do so by providing 'aid' rather than good governance. And it will do so because the cheap option ('aid' is cheaper than conquest and rule) is always the shoddy option, and shoddy work always requires redoing and requires it in the short-term, not the long.