The article is not wrong. But the reality is, we’ve tried to help places like a Sudan a lot over the decades. I’d say we helped TOO MUCH.
We sent food aid which made them dependent on us. It didn’t incentivise them to fix their issues, it just made them reliant on outside help. Meanwhile, the population skyrocketed. There’s more mouths to feed, more famine, more conflict.
At some point, a country needs to fix whatever’s broken. And it won’t be pretty; it never is. But I don’t think interfering in an internal conflict like this will do any good to anyone. Can we as the west even reasonably figure out who the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ are in this conflict? Is there even a good or bad side to begin with?
The fighting drew in foreign weapons and money. Outside powers jockeyed to back a victor, secure a foothold in Sudan, and profit from its natural wealth. The country matters globally not just because of its size but because it sits on the Red Sea, a major trade route, and holds immense reserves of gold, oil, and agricultural land.
I mostly agree. I think people got put off when it turns out most donations to African countries in turmoil are embezzled.
However, there is a selective activism and double standard when Palestine gets more attention than Sudan, and the Israel-Palestinian conflict had been going on for as long as the conflict in Sudan and its neighbouring countries.
TBF, seeing as Israel is basically an appendix of the US, it could in theory be controlled via the US. As others here pointed out, no such mechanism in Sudan.
“Have you considered not hand-delivering your family overseas to fight for oil?”
“I would but liberals would invade my home with electric cars and their transgenderism.”
The article is not wrong. But the reality is, we’ve tried to help places like a Sudan a lot over the decades. I’d say we helped TOO MUCH.
We sent food aid which made them dependent on us. It didn’t incentivise them to fix their issues, it just made them reliant on outside help. Meanwhile, the population skyrocketed. There’s more mouths to feed, more famine, more conflict.
At some point, a country needs to fix whatever’s broken. And it won’t be pretty; it never is. But I don’t think interfering in an internal conflict like this will do any good to anyone. Can we as the west even reasonably figure out who the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ are in this conflict? Is there even a good or bad side to begin with?
Youre definition of help needs work
I mostly agree. I think people got put off when it turns out most donations to African countries in turmoil are embezzled.
However, there is a selective activism and double standard when Palestine gets more attention than Sudan, and the Israel-Palestinian conflict had been going on for as long as the conflict in Sudan and its neighbouring countries.
TBF, seeing as Israel is basically an appendix of the US, it could in theory be controlled via the US. As others here pointed out, no such mechanism in Sudan.
You have it backwards, US is a mecha that Israel pilots.
Well, you see, you can’t talk to Israel. But you can talk to the US, who could stop funding Israel at any time.
And even then, you can’t talk to half the US.
“Have you considered not hand-delivering your family overseas to fight for oil?”
“I would but liberals would invade my home with electric cars and their transgenderism.”