Time for "Disaster" Relief?

[John Cole]

The semantics game continues: Genocide in The Sudan (http://www.sundayherald.com/42700)

[Boris]

This is an opportunity for Bush to show some real integrity. This problem should be solved mostly by the Europeans but obviously the US is going to have to provide the impetus to prevent the complete genocide. So far Bush is pretending to be Bill Clinton but hopefully he can right his moral compass.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Yet Sudan sits on the UN Human Rights Council, a position denied to the US because we have the death penalty.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Yet Sudan sits on the UN Human Rights Council, a position denied to the US because we have the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

If memory serves, Kofi Annan and the U.N. were at fault in the Rwandan genocidal debacle too--not just Clinton.

More reason to get rid of the U.N. and form an organization comprised of only free countries.

The U.N. is a bureaucratic nightmare--and a bureaucrat's dream.

[Boris]

Of course many were at fault besides Clinton. But the fact remains that the US could have prevented the disaster at very little cost. You can not really say that the UN was at fault because the organization is impotent to begin with.

[Ray Zee]

we have a so called moral obligation to prevent disasters in the world. which leads to the overpopulation which will lead to greater disasters and possibly the downfall of the human race. where does it stop.

[MMMMMM]

OK. So the UN is largely the USA, constrained by a ton of other nations with other interests, all chiming in with shrill voices on scores of topics. The only real "teeth" the U.N. has is the USA. The USA provides the lion's share of the UN budget. And what do we get out of it? Bullcrap, that's what we get. Better to reform it or do away with it and then maybe we could actually get something done--as Clinton did regarding stopping the Serbian genocide without UN approval.

Powell months ago called the slaughter in Sudan the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. The delay in calling it genocide is tragic and absurd, and another testament to the inherent ills of bureaucracy. The more bureaucracy there is, the more delay and talk instead of action. Layer after layer of bureaucracy, with the UN trying to be the ultimate bureaucratic solution, and the USA dithering, and the people of Sudan dying and suffering.

Maybe someone should just drop a few bomb on the Sudanese governmental heads who are orchestrating this genocide and be done with it. Would peace-keeping troops really work (as if they ever do)? Maybe a threat followed by decapitation of that evil government (if necessary) would be a better and simpler answer. If they don't stop the genocide, they die (the government officials). After all, that's not too different from what effective UN military involvement would eventually get around to meaning anyway. Why not lay it out for them plain and simple up front?

Or alternately, do nothing...because bureaucracy sure as hell isn't going to solve this.

Also, I just read Ray Zee's post. There is a lot of truth to what he says. Maybe the world's population needs to be reduced by about 1/4 and the way to do that is to just let people kill each other off.

[Boris]

There is an inverse relationship between birth rate and quality of life so either way you slice it we should help out in those places where we can prevent a tremendous amount of suffering at very little cost.

[MMMMMM]

This is actually the best post thus far in this thread, better than my post and probably the most important if unpalatable principle underlying this whole thing.

Also, perhaps a large part of the reason they are killing each other off is that they are overpopulated in the first place.

Ray, if you had to guess, what would you say the approximate ideal population of the world would be? That is, a level where modern wonders of science and technology could be maintained and serviced, yet where we wouldn't be overstraining the Earth's capacity or driving each other too crazy.

[Zeno]

I think the French should take the lead on this one, grand moralists that they are.

-Zeno

[cardcounter0]

Do they have any oil?

We are only worried about the plight of poor citizens in countries with oil.

[Boris]

LOL. So you agree then that all the neocon propoganda about spreading democracy being a justicfication for the war in Iraq is just bullshit? Maybe it would have been bettter to give Saddam MORE weapons of mass destruction so he could bomb the hell out of all those millions of people in the immediate vicinity.

[Boris]

Sudan has lots of Oil.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
This is actually the best post thus far in this thread, better than my post and probably the most important if unpalatable principle underlying this whole thing.

Also, perhaps a large part of the reason they are killing each other off is that they are overpopulated in the first place.

Ray, if you had to guess, what would you say the approximate ideal population of the world would be? That is, a level where modern wonders of science and technology could be maintained and serviced, yet where we wouldn't be overstraining the Earth's capacity or driving each other too crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]


Did you notice in the original post how all the groups were defined by religion or tribal affiliation or whatever? That is the problem. the world has no ideal population. Science and technology can't work their wonders where religion or irrational beliefs (like tribal affiliation in a modern world) are in play. People wouldn't drive each other as crazy if they weren't crazy to begin with. There is no ideal population of crazy people. If the world had a group of nutty religious radicals and they wanted the watering hole used by the only other tribe because they thought a prophet had pissed in it, they'd probably kill each other off if there were only 300 people in the world.

[MMMMMM]

I don't see how you are tying those two things together. Further I am not making a definitive statement of belief above, just offering some thoughts.

[MMMMMM]

Good point too. So my question should be revised to presume a relatively sane world population, and I would still wonder what would be the ideal level of population. Even perfectly sane people can be driven rather crazy by too close proximity to others with no breathing room.

[superleeds]

Preventing disasters such as this does not lead to overpopulation. Social, Economic and Education are the reasons for population growth (or lack of).

The world is rich and diverse enough to sustain projected population growths which dwarf the few thousands less that this genocide is helping to create. The real problem with overpopulation is not food, land or water it's the fact that the rich countries will have to give up some of the trough.

[Zeno]

I like HDPM's post and comments. Hit the nail on the head.

Why should the US intervene in a civil war that has been going on in fits and starts for decades – and in a vast country (the largest in Africa I think) with an ill-defined government or central leadership and in the middle of religious/ethnic warfare? The country is huge, largely remote, and the logistics alone of getting in personnel are probably almost impossible.

If nothing is done will the fault be shoved on the US as in the Rwanda affair. Decades of civil war leading to this and the Sudanese bare no responsibility? The questions could go on and on – A US lead intervention in another ‘Arab’ country, moral obligations, will ‘help’ make matters worse, etc.

People enjoy killing each other. Let them have it.

-Zeno

[cardcounter0]

If the country is so remote and large, wouldn't that mean some great no-bid contracts for Halliburton on pipelines and transportation?

Some one alert the White House!

[Ray Zee]

m, i think once the pop. reached a level where no more uncharted places existed, and no more undiscovered large resources are found, the pop. needs to be capped somehow. once we start and we have depleting what is here the world will be a grim place in the future. just because more can be fed or fit in the circle doesnt mean it needs to happen.
a couple of billion might be too much.

the worlds forests and topsoil is getting depleted each year. without those being stable there is no hope for my kind of world. for those that can live on concrete and eat chemically produced food will survive in the future. grim.

[Ray Zee]

if the inverse relationship is true which it is imo, then we should not intervene. but to use that reason makes one look barbaric.

[Cyrus]

"We have a so called moral obligation to prevent disasters in the world. Which leads to the overpopulation which will lead to greater disasters and possibly the downfall of the human race."

Two birds with one stone. Stop over-population and test the new generation of nuclear weaponry on live subjects.

I truly see nothing wrong with the idea. It'll save the UN milions in stupid relief programs, as well.