Support NeoGAF

[Ripclawe]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1318628,00.html

American warnings that Darfur is heading for an apocalyptic humanitarian catastrophe have been widely exaggerated by administration officials, it is alleged by international aid workers in Sudan. Washington's desire for a regime change in Khartoum has biased their reports, it is claimed.

While none of the aid workers and officials interviewed by The Observer denied there was a crisis in Darfur - or that killings, rape and a large-scale displacement of population had taken place - many were puzzled that it had become the focus of such hyperbolic warnings when there were crises of similar magnitude in both northern Uganda and eastern Congo.

ah well fuck me then, I guess mass killings, rape and large scale "displacement" by Janjaweed militia backed by the government shouldn't be a big deal.

The sad part is I had a feeling this sort of thing would come up from international aid workers. There is also another part to this but I would get to pissed talking about it.

 

[Socreges]

Don't selectively bold text to contort what was said.

While none of the aid workers and officials interviewed by The Observer denied there was a crisis in Darfur - or that killings, rape and a large-scale displacement of population had taken place - many were puzzled that it had become the focus of such hyperbolic warnings when there were crises of similar magnitude in both northern Uganda and eastern Congo.

 

[Ripclawe]

How can I contort something that is in the text for all to read? I bolded the part where they didn't deny but for some reason can't figure out why everyone is a bit peeved about it. That's the point I am making. Now they are pushing conspiracy theories.

 

[Socreges]

How can I contort something that is in the text for all to read?

By bolding particular text. You know damn well that people generally just read the bolded [seemingly important] parts. Otherwise, why bother bolding anything?

I bolded the part where they didn't deny but for some reason can't figure out why everyone is a bit peeved about it. That's the point I am making. Now they are pushing conspiracy theories.

They are saying that the US is exaggerating figures and what may take place during the rest of the year.

The government's aid agency, USAID, says that between 350,000 and a million people could die in Darfur by the end of the year. Other officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have accused the Sudanese government of presiding over a 'genocide' that could rival those in Bosnia and Rwanda.

...

'It's not disastrous,' said one of those involved in the WFP survey, 'although it certainly was a disaster earlier this year, and if humanitarian assistance declines, this will have very serious negative consequences.'

The UN report appears to confirm food surveys conducted by other agencies in Darfur which also stand in stark contrast to the dire US descriptions of the food crisis.

 

[Ripclawe]

The problem with that is the reports from everyone else says this story is full of crap, and it sounds like WAR MONGERING AMERICA GOING FOR OIL! theories.

http://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2004/10/02/1096688858.htm

Survey confirms disaster in Darfur

2004-10-02 / Associated Press /
The first scientific survey to assess the deadly nature of the conflict in the Sudan's Darfur region has found that death rates there were three to 10 times higher than normally found in sub-Saharan, highlighting the gravity of the crisis.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/109655/1/.html

Darfur violence is "demographic catastrophe": study

or the hundreds of other reports

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=darfur

 

[sonatinas]

Well the UN isnt saying shit ecause the moment they say its a genocide they have to send troops, good luck with that. They will probably send troops to Nigeria before Sudan.

 

[Socreges]

Alright. You didn't make that come across well at all before, though.

Why would international aid lie then and say that the situation is no longer disastrous, when it apparently is? I don't get it.

Btw, that study, while important, shouldn't be considered "scientific". Did they consider that people may have embellished to make the situation seem considerably worse and have someone intervene? Hell, I think that's likely.

Well the UN isnt saying shit ecause the moment they say its a genocide they have to send troops, good luck with that. They will probably send troops to Nigeria before Sudan.

Even the people that conducted that study think:

"Our findings do not in themselves substantiate claims that events in Darfur amount to genocide, not least because this would require demonstration of such an intent on the part of the perpetrators, which is clearly beyond the scope of an epidemiological survey," the study says.

 

[bionic77]

Don't selectively bold text to contort what was said.

I liked it better when Ripclawe would just post the entire article. I have noticed he has a tendency to spin things in how he selects his posts so they fit with his umm, "unique" perspective of the world. I only noticed this after reading a few of the articles in full, 90% of the time I just read what he selects.

What do you say mods, can we go back to the days when Ripclaw would just rip the entire article?

 

[Ripclawe]

Why would international aid lie then and say that the situation is no longer disastrous, when it apparently is? I don't get it.

Simple, they see all this talk about sending troops as some sort of Western Imperial adventure to take over darfur and get the oil and regime change. Its right in the article.

Btw, that study, while important, shouldn't be considered "scientific". Did they consider that people may have embellished to make the situation seem considerably worse and have someone intervene? Hell, I think that's likely.

As I said before there are hundreds of articles over the last 2-3 days and thousands over the last 6 months that shows this is something that is not being hyped.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...oy_appeals_for_urgent_european_aid_in_darfur/

UN envoy appeals for urgent European aid in Darfur

The genocide argument is basically the UN dragging its ass because if they do agree its "technically" genocide, they have to do something other than pass useless resolutions.

 

[Makura]

This is disgusting. As soon as the U.S calls the situation what it is, it's suddenly a shady neocon plot by Bush & Co.?

 

[Socreges]

Simple, they see all this talk about sending troops as some sort of Western Imperial adventure to take over darfur and get the oil and regime change. Its right in the article.

What is "right in the article" is how they think the US plans on changing the regime. But what I didn't understand is why international aid would protest that. Now, if they think it has to do with oil, which wasn't mentioned, then that's understandable. And I've suddenly become suspicious of the US myself.

As I said before there are hundreds of articles over the last 2-3 days and thousands over the last 6 months that shows this is something that is not being hyped.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...oy_appeals_for_urgent_european_aid_in_darfur/

You had provided two articles on the exact same thing. I addressed how they are not necessarily all that accurate. What I was disputing before, as far as hype is concerned, is how the US has been exaggerating/hyping the situation. Not that the US or the UN shouldn't go in and help.

The genocide argument is basically the UN dragging its ass because if they do agree its "technically" genocide, they have to do something other than pass useless resolutions.

What do you think the US was doing up until recently? Genuinely considering the ordeal? Since early/mid 2003? Fuck no. They knew what was going on. But now the media has gotten hold of the story, domestic outrage has begun taking place, and the US is going to be the hero.

 

[Ripclawe]

What I was disputing before, as far as hype is concerned, is how the US has been exaggerating/hyping the situation. Not that the US or the UN shouldn't go in and help.

There is no evidence until this story with anon sources came up that there was any huge hype, so we have international aid workers and the sudanese government who is claiming this BTW.

You had provided two articles on the exact same thing.

my fault the second article by Agence France Presse had this quote, which I wanted to highlight and didn't.

Sudanese army troops and a pro-government Arab militia, the Janjaweed, have led an anti-rebel offensive. They have been blamed by villagers for carrying out murder, rape, kidnapping, looting and burning.

The European Parliament, German Defence Minister Peter Struck and US Secretary of State Colin Powell, among others, have described these attacks as genocide.

What do you think the US was doing up until recently? Genuinely considering the ordeal? Since early/mid 2003? Fuck no. They knew what was going on. But now the media has gotten hold of the story, domestic outrage has begun taking place, and the US is going to be the hero.

Nobody was focused on it till this summer, and even then its been pulling teeth for the US to get the UN to do anything of substance.

 

[Socreges]

There is no evidence until this story with anon sources came up that there was any huge hype, so we have international aid workers and the sudanese government who is claiming this BTW.

I don't need their claims. This sounds certainly exaggerated to me:

The government's aid agency, USAID, says that between 350,000 and a million people could die in Darfur by the end of the year. Other officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have accused the Sudanese government of presiding over a 'genocide' that could rival those in Bosnia and Rwanda.

...

The most dramatic came from Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, who told UN officials: 'We estimate right now, if we get relief in we'll lose a third of a million people and, if we don't, the death rates could be dramatically higher, approaching a million people.'

That's total BS and you know it.

Nobody was focused on it till this summer, and even then its been pulling teeth for the US to get the UN to do anything of substance.

What I'm trying to have you understand is everything has to do with self-interest. It just so happens that the USA's self-interest came first. You're a realist. This should be a practical assumption for you.

 

[JJConrad]

I don't understand why this is NOW getting so much attention? This has been accuring in that country for several years and all of a sudden its a major issue. Why is the western region getting all this attention, when the southern region recieved very little?

My church supported a missionary in the southern regions of Sudan, in which the military came through, razed several villages and desecrated the church. The missionary had to flee the country and, ultimately, return to the US.

 

[Saturnman]

I don't understand why this is NOW getting so much attention? This has been accuring in that country for several years and all of a sudden its a major issue. Why is the western region getting all this attention, when the southern region recieved very little?

My church supported a missionary in the southern regions of Sudan, in which the military came through, razed several villages and desecrated the church. The missionary had to flee the country and, ultimately, return to the US.

Two words: US elections. It's an issue you can harp on to get a few votes from blacks and religious conservatives.