Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

respublica.media

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 213 posts

Re: The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

#161

Post by tovej »

anovikov wrote: post #124
tovej wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you under the impression that Sudan was not under British colonial rule for ~50-60 years? This completely wrecked their economy and political structures, with the British intentionally causing divides between ethnic groups in Sudan and Egypt. And are you seriously claiming that this was a good thing? Is this some crazy new neo-conservative take about the West being the only block that can be "civilized"?

Sudan was under British rule and Cyprus was under British rule at the same time. Outcome is vastly different. The Brits brought civilisation and made Cyprus what it is, enabling its current prosperity (only difference between Cyprus and Greece is that Cyprus was a British colony and Greece wasn't). Somehow it didn't happen in Sudan. And no it's not because they handled locals differently. They didn't care about local…

Cyprus is an island. That changes a lot of the dynamics. Also Cyprus has the support of its big brother Greece, which the Greek majority Cypriots wanted to unite with. Sudan had no such partner, because the Egyptian rulers aligned themselves with the British.

I hope you can see that Greece is the key differentiating factor here. Any other argument is disingenuous. Not to mention the racist attitudes of the British empire, that saw Greek Cypriots as a "civilized" nation compared to Sudan.

Re: The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

#162

Post by throwaway27448 »

WarmWash wrote: post #145
ahhhhnoooo wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would. I regularly do. One of the underpinning core beliefs of anarchist theory is "wellbeing for all". Every human deserves the best conditions we can collectively give each other, and we should all be working not for our individual enrichment, but for the enrichment of us all. Some people genuinely believe that helping others get bigger quality of life is more important than helping themselves get rich. It's not…

It's a great idea that never works. Never. Inevitably you end up with people who do the absolute bare minimum to qualify for "the communal take" and a small cadre of power players who carry many multiples of their weight. Eventually the strong players get sick of carrying, and the whole thing collapses. You can have pockets of like minded individuals who understand the give and take, happy communes (which also seem t…

It's hard to say if it never works if all you know is greed and incompetence

> Inevitably you end up with people who do the absolute bare minimum to qualify for "the communal take" and a small cadre of power players who carry many multiples of their weight. Eventually the strong players get sick of carrying, and the whole thing collapses.

What are you citing from? It seems like you're just describing our current model of society rather than the one you say you're criticizing

Re: The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

#163

Post by throwaway27448 »

WarmWash wrote: post #157
ahhhhnoooo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've fed and housed people for decades, provided transportation, donated skills, and rehabilitated wild lands. The people who receive the benefits from that didn't do anything to get them. They simply needed them. If I have extra and you need some, you can have some. Simple as. Most people want to contribute, pay it forward, or give in their own way. Almost no one wants to do nothing to give back. (Usually, the peopl…

OK, that's great and respectable. But you don't address the core problem which is "How do you handle the people faking (often even faking out themselves!) the need for selfish gain?" and "How do you handle the people who see others lying for gain, and they themselves convert from the helpers to the helped"? Most people just sweep this under the rug, because it is an obvious and fatal flaw in the system. It's also ide…

Again, it seems like you're describing capitalism. We can only carry parasites for so long before people realize they contribute nothing to society. One must work to earn their bread! Most of us on this forum distinctly do not

Re: The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

#164

Post by renewiltord »

Vasbarlog wrote: post #147
renewiltord wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Of course Ukraine is a US affair. Only look at who is benefiting when Europe stops getting cheap gas from Russia. Also the tariffs that Trump imposed are just laughable and have no connection to reality. Do you honestly believe that the EU was imposing tariffs to the US to the tune of 39%?!

The EU bans US chicken and has a quota for US beef. We let you sell at a premium rather than ban you. Don’t act as if that’s somehow worse, but I think you could convince Trump that bans are better than tariffs if you like.

Russia/Ukraine is a Europe-internal matter. Soon we will be out of it and the Europeans can solve their own wars. Uncivilized people. You leave them alone for a few years and massive warfare. No doubt you’re prepping the concentration camps again and we’ll have to stop genocide again. But I guess you gotta let them do it first. It’s not our business.

Re: The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

#165

Post by renewiltord »

actionfromafar wrote: post #115
renewiltord wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The US is too large to pretend it can be isolationist.

The Europeans want us out of Europe. So maybe we should go. I think that seems mutually agreeable. Let them slaughter each other again and we can come stop it and pick up the pieces. Again.

Always have to be the adult in the room.

Re: The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

#166

Post by LightBug1 »

nradov wrote: post #122
LightBug1 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think international peacekeepers means? Where do you think they've come from before? How do you think they've been armed before? What have the rules of engagement in previous peacekeeping missions been? I notice you skipped the piece about pressuring the key players, which is much closer to a solution than what you chose to focus on. Any more questions? Because that seems to be all you have. Pop over to C…

What a silly, low-effort comment. It's always sad to see that level of arrogant ignorance on HN. There haven't been many examples of international peacekeepers imposing peace by force. In the few cases where peacekeeping missions sort of worked usually the warring parties already had some sort of truce or at least the major fighting had stopped. Where there was no peace to keep, the international peacekeepers have be…

Welcome to the elite club. You fit right in.

Note, you STILL couldn't bring yourself to the real meat of the argument.

Even your military argument was pathetic.

Enjoy festering.

Re: The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

#167

Post by ahhhhnoooo »

WarmWash wrote: post #157
ahhhhnoooo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've fed and housed people for decades, provided transportation, donated skills, and rehabilitated wild lands. The people who receive the benefits from that didn't do anything to get them. They simply needed them. If I have extra and you need some, you can have some. Simple as. Most people want to contribute, pay it forward, or give in their own way. Almost no one wants to do nothing to give back. (Usually, the peopl…

OK, that's great and respectable. But you don't address the core problem which is "How do you handle the people faking (often even faking out themselves!) the need for selfish gain?" and "How do you handle the people who see others lying for gain, and they themselves convert from the helpers to the helped"? Most people just sweep this under the rug, because it is an obvious and fatal flaw in the system. It's also ide…

It's really important to differentiate mutual aid from charity. They are very different.

Mutual aid is about building community and then sharing your excess with that community. My extra food is not going to random humans, but rather to people I know. Maybe not well, but we know each other. Charity goes out to strangers. You are giving something away, but not building community. Charity doesn't build resiliency, imo, the same way mutual aid does.

I eat the same food I'm serving alongside the people I'm feeding. This is precisely to build that community - I'm not just a faceless person, I'm someone they know.

And how do I cope with people taking more than their fair share? You accept inefficiency. I cannot tell you how many times I've watched someone take food, and immediately walk to the trash and throw it away. Feels bad, but I've got more to share, and because that's a member of my community and not a stranger I can ask them, "Hey, what's up, bud? Didn't like the food, or...?"

And when someone goes to take a huge pile of food, they often look around and realize, "Wait, all the other folks nearby need this food too. Maybe I'll just take a few, because I know who I'm leaving an empty table for."

But you know what? It's really pretty rare. I've seen it, usually when new people show up, or when someone is experiencing a mental health crisis, but whats much more common is people looking at each other and going, "You got enough, brother? Can you share? Sure, let me grab one for you."

You are accurately describing difficulties with charity, imo, though others might disagree with me on that of that. Add community to it, and the calculus changes quite substantially.

Re: The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

#168

Post by Paradigm2020 »

jvanderbot wrote: post #160
sfn42 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was approached on the street by a girl working for a marketing company, wanting me to start a subscription for $20 a month to Save the Children which I think is a pretty well regarded charity. We hit it off and met up later and I asked her about the job. For each person who signs up, she would get about $60. So that's the first three months of my subscription in her pocket. Furthermore, her employer would fly them…

There are many. But it's reductive to the extreme to 1) group charities as "charities" when large "nonprofit / ngo" term is more suitable. 2) assume that wasteful _free_ money to a charity makes the charity less good. If a third party takes 90% of the money they raise and gives 10% to the charity, then that's free money for the charity. It's deceptive, and they are cutting a huge profit on the back of the good work t…

The charities sign a contract with the third parties unfortunately - eg they have permission from the charity.

Here in Europe oxfam for example uses some of these private companies and they get the first year of donations and from the 2nd year it goes to oxfam itself.

Apparently the average person cancels donations after 2,5 years so for a zero marketing budget (for oxfam) they make 1.5 year x your donation.

When I first found out I was disgusted and some majors in countries in Europe have tried to ban such "paid charity workers"... (They tend to operate near train stations etc.

Re: The abandoned war: Why no one is stopping the genocide in Sudan

#170

Post by sfn42 »

jvanderbot wrote: post #160
sfn42 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was approached on the street by a girl working for a marketing company, wanting me to start a subscription for $20 a month to Save the Children which I think is a pretty well regarded charity. We hit it off and met up later and I asked her about the job. For each person who signs up, she would get about $60. So that's the first three months of my subscription in her pocket. Furthermore, her employer would fly them…

There are many. But it's reductive to the extreme to 1) group charities as "charities" when large "nonprofit / ngo" term is more suitable. 2) assume that wasteful _free_ money to a charity makes the charity less good. If a third party takes 90% of the money they raise and gives 10% to the charity, then that's free money for the charity. It's deceptive, and they are cutting a huge profit on the back of the good work t…

The third party is working with the charity(or ngo or whatever). The charity is essentially paying them for marketing, using a huge chunk of the money people think they're giving to charity. The charity is complicit in this deception, and the third party presents themselves as volunteers "Hello, I'm with Save the Children, we do bla bla bla look at this picture of a starving child would you be interested in helping us by giving money every month to give this starving child a better life?"

They don't tell you they're paid to be there. They don't tell you the first year of payments goes directly to a private company.

I looked up Save the Children in some charity index thing a while back and it was listed as something like 94% of the money they receive goes to the stated cause which I doubt includes these marketing costs. You could say this is still worth it because they increase the amount of money the charity receives even if a lot of it goes to the company. But it doesn't seem right to me, not when they deceive people this way.

Post reply on HN