5 ms·
> I’d personally hazard a guess nothing short of military intervention can stop something like this Please don't guess, then? The famine started because of a m
by csomar 2y ago
> I’d personally hazard a guess nothing short of military intervention can stop something like this
Please don't guess, then? The famine started because of a military intervention gone south. The reality is that the Sudanese are a victim of circumstance. A war between some Arab rulers over who controls the Sudan.
- JohnMakin 2y agoLuckily my thoughts on this site don’t dictate what international governments do, but thanks for your input?
- istinetz 2y agoIf you don't want your opinion to be critiqued, you can simply not post.
- JohnMakin 2y agoThere’s no critique though - simply tone policing while trying to push another argument entirely. I’m not even making whatever argument is being “critiqued” here. It’s simply bad posting.
- wolfram74 2y agobut there was a critique, your proposal was "something something let an army fix it" and they provided context "something something various armies caused it."
- stale2002 2y agoThen that would be an unrelated critique/strawman that doesn't accurately respond to what they said. They did not propose to fix it via an army. Instead they said "nothing short of military intervention can stop something like this" That is not a recommendation. Instead it is describing how difficult the problem is to solve. They then followed it up by saying "but that has its whole slew of unintended side effects". This is significantly hedging the claim, saying that the military could actually make things worse! Maybe one of the side effects that he is saying could happen is exactly the issue brought up, meaning that the famine would get worse. Therefore bringing this up as a possibility is not a critique, and actually agrees with the original statement. And they also previously had said "I’ll let people smarter and more powerful than me debate what could/should be done". That statement explicitly saying that they aren't proposing things. They even finished up the statement by saying "a conversation needs to be had very soon how this should be handled ", which only suggesting that this should be talked about, because he quite clearly thinks that this is a complicated and difficult problem to solve, for which a military intervention could very well not be a good idea! If you actually read the original statement it is extremely conservative in its statements, and you have to almost intentionally be obtuse to attack such a hedging non recommendation that merely describes how bad and hard it is to solve!
- DangitBobby 2y agoInstead of being an asshole, people could just respond to the idea.
- sorokod 2y agoYou make it sound as if it is not a civil war waged by the Sudanese on the Sudanese.
- jazzyjackson 2y agoI don't know anything about it but I would be surprised if each side of the war manufactured their own guns. Foreign powers love to throw a fight.
- sorokod 2y agoThe vultures are there as they always are in such circumstances, what is your point?
- jazzyjackson 2y agoThat the people shipping weapons to one side or another are not merely vultures but foreigners who nonetheless have an interest in the civil war's outcome, making it not solely Sudanese vs Sudanese
- valval 2y agoI think it might be a bit more transactional than that. Arms sellers sell arms, no matter the side.
- fennecfoxy 2y agoHow much personal responsibility do you assign, then? Perhaps if you're handed a gun by an arms executive and go and shoot your neighbour did you shoot them because A: you are diminished and suggestible and couldn't help but be influenced by the vulture B: you had planned to do that anyway but lacked the tools to. It's interesting where to draw the line though, because it's relevant in the context of violent/-ist content as well - Relevant to the BS going on in the UK atm; we can claim that a "call to violence" is illegal as it well should be, but there is also the personal responsibility of those involved and that is why they're receiving sentences for participating in violent riots.
- mikrotikker 2y agoAt it's heart it's a Christianity vs Islam thing and should be a lesson in the failings of Multiculturalism and a vision of Europe's future.
- _heimdall 2y agoThis ignores historic examples of societies with multiple cultures, religions, etc living peacefully. It doesn't always end well, but are you proposing the solution is to ensure that societies never try?
- arresin 2y ago> This ignores historic examples of societies with multiple cultures, religions, etc living peacefully. Can you give me some examples? My own knowledge of history goes like this: proximity (between cultures / ethnicities) = war.
- aa-jv 2y agoVienna, Austria: doing fine.
- _heimdall 2y agoPlenty of countries and societies have a mix of different cultures and religions without it triggering a war anything like what Sudan is going through today. I have lived in the US and the Netherlands. I can say both have a mix of both cultures and religions without widespread famine and bloody civil wars.
- valval 2y agoI imagine Sudan was the same before the famine and bloody civil wars started.
- thomassmith65 2y agoPretty much every nation on earth contains multiple ethnicities. That's the reality but generally foreigners are ignorant of these sorts of details for faraway places - eg: Sami in Sweden, Druze in Israel, Catalonians in Spain, and on and on. So, as far as I am aware, any nation that is currently at peace can serve as an example. Maybe it's the other way around: the more any two groups get along, the less we consider them meaningfully distinct.