Somalia Is Dying. Does Anyone Care?

Remember Rwanda? When the world looked the other way and the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people took place? Later, way too late, world leaders, like Clinton, apologized.

What is happening in Somalia right now, 12 Million human beings may starve to death, is beyond human imagination. The horror, the tragedy, the magnitude of the suffering. It's not possible to absorb it, especially from a distance.



Actress Kristin Davis Breaks Down Over Conditions in Somalia



The US has important business, elsewhere. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, killing people, with drones and bombs.

Imagine if instead, we were saving lives?

An apology from this President after the fact, will be as comforting to the dead and their surviving loved ones, as Clinton's apology to Rwanda was! :cry:


The question in the article below is for Canada, which is also receiving criticism for its lack of interest in the plight of the people of Somalia:.




Somalia Is Dying. Why Don't We Care?



Yes, why the discrepancy? Is it racism? Or classism? Or both? Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur ...

After Rwanda we were never supposed to let it happen again.

I know this is not of much interest right now with the debt ceiling drama going on in DC using up pretty much all media airtime.

I don't know what to do to help, other than send a donation to the agencies linked in the articles, and spread the word, a little anyhow. The most trustworthy agency for me is https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/





The journey from Liboi to Dadaab, the refugee camps, can take some people up to four days





António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees: "Knowing that children are dying along their journey to safety breaks our hearts. This is turning one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises into a human tragedy of unimaginable proportions.”

people sometimes. I get that there are people who don't care about anything in this world but I am really curious about what motivates someone to stop others from caring ...

It would take about a couple of days of our Afghan operations worth of money to feed these people.

we can use the rest of the days for other countries - maybe even find peace at the end of the year.

I like the idea of leaving Afghanistan and spending the time and money feeding people and saving lives, instead of killing them. But as I said, we have no power to influence our government anymore. They don't care about us either.

I just FB'd the Canadian red cross because they said they would match

gifts but who else? There is a way to donate through a text message but I don't know if that goes through Canada and if it matters anyway?

Tell me what to do. I'll twitter and FB and donate.

the answer. I will try to find out. Just guessing, but I don't see why it would matter if it goes through Canada? That sounds like a very good opportunity though, to have your donation doubled.

I will see what I can find out and thank you for the info on that :-)

getting supplies through. You are correct that the Govt. of Canada is matching funds donated for Somalia.

Red Cross commits $1 Million to relief efforts in Kenya and Somalia

If our country is not even paying attention to our own food supply, do you think the average American even knows where Somalia is located?

"the world’s worst humanitarian crises" are being ignored... I am ashamed to call myself an American.

American culture and the aspiration for material things has created this blind eye for caring for our fellow Earthlings.

Then people will care. Until then, hey, didn't they shoot down a chopper? I think I saw that in Blackhawk Down.

:sarcasm: (as if that were needed)

Seriously, if that's what it takes to get more white people to listen, go for it.

I don't care if they use porn actors, comedians, baseball players and the presidents of anime fan clubs to get the message out, so just it gets out.

http://www.rescue.org/ is very trustworthy too.

http://www.mercycorps.org/

I usually try to steer clear of religious organizations, but I make an exception for this group. They do fine work.

Where is Israel, Sweden, Norway, UK, etc?

I get the article and agree with it - but the question is, where is the rest of the world??

But we are spending trillions on wars that are doing no good for the planet or for the US. And I live here. Canadians are also not doing much, as the second article points out.

Some of the reason has to do with their and our 'conflicts' in those countries. Colonialism created the problems in Somalia to begin with, and in Rwanda and elsewhere. The British, the Belgians, the French, all are responsible for much of the suffering in African countries.

And now we are doing the same thing, in the ME. We had the power and the money to change the course of history after WW11. Instead we chose to repeat it.

From what I understand, they are giving more than what the aid agencies were expecting from Canada. It's the people who have not been contributing for some reason. I personally think there are a lot of people who don't want to donate because they don't trust they dollars will get to those who need it because of the situation. Also, I think the fact that it's summer and in Canada, we basically cease to do much in summer, means less donations. It's a depressing situation for sure. I plan on donating, but just have to make sure I get my cheque this month first. With the gov't matching donations it would be stupid and cruel not to.

reluctant to donate to the big charities after what happened in Haiti and here, with Katarina. Millions, perhaps hundreds of millions were donated, but not much seems to have been done for the people.

Downthread someone made a good suggestion. Two DUers actually said they sponsor children and/or families. That way they know the money goes directly to help those people. It's not going to help millions of people, but you can only do so much as an individual. I've thought about it before and now feel like it may be the only way for me to do something concrete. These tragedies are so overwhelming you feel so helpless.

Glad the Canadian Govt is helping and maybe if it gets more coverage, people will be more likely to try to help.

the other part of it is global warming....the consequences will hit the developing world before they hit the developed world....I predict that there will be many, many more droughts and famines.

As for aid - a lot of the US aid has ties - establishment of military bases, etc. I don't know how much the Scandinavian countries are contributing in this particular case but I can say that their foreign aid is much less linked to the military/corporate colonialism than that of the US.

people without too much danger to the aid workers. Good for the people of the UK and the Govt.

I don't believe that the one (America caring) denies the other (Israel, Sweden, etc).


"but the question is, where is the rest of the world??" A quick search on Google revealed quite a number of countries throughout the world contributing aid packages.

It's not that we don't care, but what the ƒµ¢√ are we supposed to do about it, take away Granny's Medicare to feed these people? That's what it's coming down to now.

asses who are sitting on most of the wealth in this country.

At best, it might be possible to do that in 2013, given an extremely favorable outcome to the 2012 elections.

the threat of communists winning the unions and getting working class support was the impetus that moved FDR into his new deal mode. And we don't need to pass any new fancy pants legislation either, Mr. Negativity, we can simply allow Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.

We can let all the tax cuts expire next year, of course. That will probably cost us the election, but we can do it.

The tee vee won't cover them, of course, so to most people, protests are a non-event.

We might get some coverage on Al Jazeera, but you know the teabaggers won't be watching that.

yes they can influence the baggers.

It is the only thing that has ever worked and it is the only weapon we workers have. We can withdraw our labor and we have strength in numbers - that's it. So that's what we do.

If I were not unemployed and on the verge of homelessness, I'd be sending as much as possible. I wonder if Limbaugh has made an effort to help...

others in need.

But no, we don't need to take away anyone's Medicare. Maybe ending all the wars would be a start. What are they for? Killing people doesn't help end terrorism. Ending those wars would free up our military to help in situations like this. And it would do a lot more to end terrorism than what we are doing now, not to mention the money it would save.

On Texas professor, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, was CHEERED when he brought up using ebola as the means for eliminating 90-percent of humanity.

Culling the Herd by Sheila Samples

Isn't that monstrous human being, Kissenger, wanted for war crimes somewhere?

Why do you think what TPTB are doing to Africa they will not do to us, here?
Isn't the pattern plain enough by now?

Believe me, if it was in our national interest, or in the world's interest, to save the lives of people,
it would be happening AND it would be all over the tv news.

Is is all over tv news?

What does that tell us?

I could never understand why people didn't get that anyone who can drop bombs on human beings without any concerns for innocent people, children etc, simply has no soul and has zero respect of people outside of their own class.

Can't disagree with the rest of what you said either.

There are a number of countries where the malignant old monster can't set foot without fear of being clapped in irons. Spain is, IIRC, one of them, and there are others.

In a way, the way we treat our war criminals is an indicator of what we really are. They are given medals of freedom and asked for advice on 'serious' matters, they are teaching law in our colleges and they are protected from prosecution in other countries, even by their political opponents.

He will die in his luxurious bed and I only hope there really is an after-life where justice is finally done. Unlikely, but I'm clinging to it anyway.

It was a distortion, by some creationists.

What the Texas Academy of Sciences said:

as I was pretty shocked that anyone would advocate those things. But what about Kissenger?

I wouldn't put much past him, but I do think he's yesterday's man, so I'm not going to investigate what's he's said. There's a nice bit of irony that he's been called in to 'clean up' international soccer, though - it shows what a cesspit it's become.

women are the single greatest tools in creating a sustainable future. The more educated a population is, with their basic needs met, the lower the birthrate. A man from Bangladesh once explained to me how the uneducated in his Country believed that more children=more labor, and thus more $$ for the family. The educated, on the other hand, focused on raising just one or two children and working toward giving them an even better education than they themselves had-thus leading to a better future for all. The same once attainable dream that American parents had for their own children.

On top of this, people in third world Nations use only a tiny fraction of the resources that people in developed Countries do. Killing them off does little to "benefit" the environment. Just the opposite; I would expect that desperate times would cause even more environmental destruction.

Dr. Pianka's rebuttal to the charges, his comments were deliberately taken out of context by a group of creationists,including Forrest Mims from the right-wing,fundamentalist Discovery Institute. PZ Myers blog Pharyngula has a discussion about it. . http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/forrest_mims_a_wannabe_bully.php

Didn't remember the controversial source. Do remember talking about it at the time and reading it came from a more scientific review. Here are a few resources from DU:

2006: Univ of Tex professor says 90% of Earth's population should be killed

2007: zdSurvival. Culling the herd

June 2011: Professor Eric R. Pianka explains

There are other examples from DU, these show a bit of the context. The guy was cheered for his depopulation idea.

Care? Does that require money? :sarcasm:

K&R

is the most effective way to help over in that area? My family support a child in Tanzania and one in Kenya. We would like to support another but most of us are struggling.

I support a woman with three kids although she lives in Rwanda. In the past it has been women from Sudan and Somalia. I wish that I could do more but it's hard.

that you can only do so much. If everyone did that, what you are doing, that sounds like the best way to help right now. I would like to do that. I will get some information. Thank you for that information. Does it actually help them? Do you get news of how they are doing? I will do it anyhow, as it can't hurt and I am not that confident that sending money to large charities is the best way, after Haiti and Katrina.

Friday night (yesterday). He was there on the scene and discussed (and showed examples of) the abject misery that these people are facing.

At least this has been addressed on a major network nightly news broadcast. As much as I hated to see the awful plight of these true "Les Misérables", I was glad that it was receiving national attention.

Now, your question, "What can be done?", certainly is quite poignant and pertinent. I hope there is more of an effort here and abroad to step in to ameliorate this horrible situation. :cry:

some media coverage.

As to what can be done, the magnitude of the problem is so great, and as someone else pointed out above, it's not just Somalia, but the whole Horn of Africa, it would probably take the whole first world putting a huge effort in to even make a dent. But to begin with I guess, getting food to the people is a priority and medical supplies and care. Wish I knew, you just feel helpless!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec11/famine2_07-29.html

You hit on it with feeling "helpless." BILLIONS PER WEEK for unnecessary wars, yet all this suffering and death in Africa. Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods, a good portion of the evening news is devoted to American Idol Scotty McWhat's-his-name and "scandal" over UNC football. It's mind-boggling.

The world needs new thinking. The old Colonial ways, that we are continuing, created these problems.

We need a period of enlightenment, a long one, to try to undo the harm that centuries of brutal policies against people of the third world have done. :cry:

must be right wing paradise

One was a cool enough guy who I happened to disagree with a lot, the other was a whole toolbox.

Toolbox found an article written by a couple of other toolboxes talking about a few of the local industries in Somalia - particularly telecommunciations, which actually are doing astonishingly well given the area - and was using this as proof that once you get government out of the way everything becomes all fine and capitalist and yadda yadda yadda. (I think the article may have been referring to Somaliland, which does have a government, but since nobody recognizes said government the author felt free to ignore that.)

Other guy has an uncle who's in Somalia right now on his own initiative doing humanitarian work.

You can say there was a pretty concerted attempt to set someone straight there. It was kind of depressing how unwilling the dumbass was to believe that no, Somalia isn't a libertarian haven of peace and freedom for all and that most of the article he found was profound BS.

I know a lot of people tend to be naive about anything even vaguely near Africa, but I was astonished at the idea that anyone who can read a complete sentence can still think Somalia's a wonderful place these days.

They absolutely adored it and considered it the bastion of free market thought. You can still find their articles online.

The late nineties, I can almost see people trying that now and then, but when you're getting this recent people really didn't have much of an excuse anymore.

The unfettered "free market" is nothing more than rule by warlord and king. They remain delusional. Frankly I think that those in the west who aligned themselves with those ideas wanted to see if the http://www.anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=23">grand experiment would work.

:rofl:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:+antistate.com+somolia">Here's a link with more of their bright eyed visions for Somalia. Laughably they blamed the desire for a government as the cause (Somalia had attempts at democracy ala Sudan, they wanted to partition the land, leave the warlords out of it and have their own democracy, it's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland">Somaliland).

Free market Somalia is in many ways worse than the totalitarian Marxism that they had before. Neither system is desirable though, if you need a state a social democracy is the best route.

That's it in a nutshell. Very succinctly said.

:(

It didn't work out the first time around and we aren't going back there to try to feed them again.

For the people that want to give it another go, are you prepared to fight the warlords over the food that is supposed to be delivered to the people? I think you'll find the American people are not willing to lose one single soldier in Somalia - and they weren't the first time around either.

through the streets naked, cheering his death and desecration didn't exactly help endear many Americans to the cause, either. It's kind of hard to want to help people who are doing that to the very people sent to help them on what was a foreign aid mission.

We didn't leave Somalia because of the loss of the soldiers, which was tragic. If you think that you have not being paying attention to all of our wars. Clearly it didn't pay at the time, to stay in Somalia. But we ARE there now, not to help feed them as far as I know. Have been for a while.

There's a reason the Pentagon and State Department have the notion of the Mogadishu Line. Attempts to intervene in the Rwandan genocide were vetoed because of that, for instance.

Of course, by and large the types of people hostile to doing something about either of those situations are downright enthusiastic about making as much Iraqi or Afghan rubble bounce as they can.

It's some really specific number - eighteen or twenty-one or something like that, but in that range. It originally meant crossing the line from humanitarian work to breaking things and hurting people, but in practice it meant "if the possibility of military casualties greater as a result of an intervention than this number is greater than zero, we will not get involved under any circumstances." It's the reason more forceful interventions in Rwanda were vetoed, for instance - if the US got involved there that line might have been crossed, and the same might eventually happen if other countries got involved there, so any real action got blocked. Same thing in Darfur and most other humanitarian open sores since 1993.

The Balkan intervention wasn't expected to exceed that number (and, more cynically, the locals passed the colour test), so that happened. What's going on in Libya is about the only other time since then; that likely wasn't expected to exceed the number either, and has the added benefit (in political terms) of not being entirely for humanitarian-aid purposes, which have never been popular anyway. That became the case as a result of what happened in Mogadishu, which had the result you see in this thread - people deciding Aidid was typical of the country as a whole, so screw 'em, or something like that.

In a way it makes sense but we don't have to 'go in' in order to help. We could try talking eg, when a disaster is big, to others who may have the trust of whoever is in power. I read today, eg, that the radicals who are now in charge in Somalia, have finally allowed aid into the country. I guess it's no use being in charge of a country if everyone is dead.

We are not trusted now in so many places that we have probably lost the ability to be of much help, even if we wanted to, sadly.

"We didn't leave Somalia because of the loss of the soldiers, which was tragic."

We most certainly DID abandon the efforts in Somalia because of the loss of soldiers. The American public simply wouldn't tolerate it. There was arguably no national security issues at stake when we went. The mass starvation was all over the news and Papa Bush was guilted into going there. The American public wanted to feed people, not fight a war. If they'd thought we'd have a protracted military conflict before the decision was made they would have never supported it in the first place and Clinton would have never had to clean up the mess.

"We are willing to keep losing soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan"

The majority of US voters, like it or not, have either supported or gone along with both those wars. They knew we'd take lots of casualties and effectively given our leaders permission to wage war in both those countries.

"But we ARE there now, not to help feed them as far as I know. Have been for a while."

We have special operations there now as part of the GWOT. Like or not, the public, through the votes they cast, have given our government a blank check to pretty much go kill people anywhere if it's supposedly related to the war on terror.

Americans are simply not willing to wage a war to feed people. ESPECIALLY in Somalia where we already got burned once. So no, the memory of Blackhawk Down and Americans being dragged through the streets in Mogadishu are way too recent for there to be any chance the citizens of the United States authorize helping those starving people again.

been rallied to the cause the usual way, with propaganda, control of the media etc.

What happened to the Contractors in Fallujah was no less tragic and horrific. But the US did not want to leave Iraq and the public, horrified and fed up as they may have been seeing those photos, was rallied with promises of revenge.

The American people also could not understand why the soldiers were attacked having no information at that time about what the US was doing overseas to cause the kind of anger that led to terror attacks.

But, basically I agree with most of what you said. I don't see how we can change things with so much money buying the government.

"What happened to the Contractors in Fallujah was no less tragic and horrific. But the US did not want to leave Iraq and the public, horrified and fed up as they may have been seeing those photos, was rallied with promises of revenge"

Yeah, but we were at war in Iraq, the American public expected death and destruction. In Somalia, Americans thought we'd breeze in, throw some food around, feel really good about ourselves and go home. Poppa Bush never explained the risks and the public didn't expect any. Clinton was stuck with a bad situation and it was probably too late to persuade the public.

"The American people also could not understand why the soldiers were attacked having no information at that time about what the US was doing overseas to cause the kind of anger that led to terror attacks."

Yup, your right. To be fair though, these warlords weren't exactly very nice people. As I recall we ratcheted up the military component after some of these warlord groups killed like 20 Pakistani UN peacekeepers. We secured the airbase and the UN was supposed to distribute the food. When the UN came under attack, we pretty much had to respond.

"But, basically I agree with most of what you said. I don't see how we can change things with so much money buying the government."

Disheartening isn't it? The only thing we can do is keep pushing. I think these things tend to move in cycles and, at least if you believe the polls, the pubic may be tiring of our worldwide killing operations in the name of a nonsensical global war on terror.

On top of starvation, drought, and civil war, the Somalian people will now be subjected to the US drone wars.

June 27, 2011 | Filed under: Legacy | Posted by: Oz Conspiracy House

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon is sending nearly $45 million in military equipment, including four small drones, to Uganda and Burundi to help battle the escalating terrorist threat in Somalia.

The latest aid, laid out in documents obtained by The Associated Press, comes as attacks intensify in Somalia against the al-Qaida-linked terror group al-Shabab, including an airstrike late Thursday that hit a militant convoy, killing a number of foreign fighters, according to officials there.

No nation immediately took responsibility for the latest airstrike, though U.S. aircraft have attacked militants in Somalia before.

http://www.ozconspiracyhouse.org/frontend/2011/06/27/us-sending-drones-into-somalia-via-proxy-spending-another-45m-it-does-not-have/?su

US extends drone strikes to Somalia guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 June 2011

The US has conducted its first drone strike on Islamist militants in Somalia, marking the expansion of the pilotless war campaign to a sixth country.

The missile strike on a vehicle in the southern town of Kismayo, reported last week as a helicopter assault, wounded two senior militants with al-Shabab and several foreign fighters according to the Washington Post.

Armed Predator and Reaper drones already operate in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, where they are controlled by the US military or the CIA.

-snip

The US has also flown surveillance drones over Somalia – one was shot down in October 2009 – but now they are being used for assassination. The targets of the 23 June strike were reportedly close to Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula.

and one more article on US "aid" to Somalia

Drones in Somalia
JULY 14, 2011
By Alex Thurston, Guest Blogger

American military involvement in Somalia is increasing. Jeremy Scahill of The Nation reports that the US recently conducted as many as four drone strikes on targets linked to al Shabab, the rebel movement that controls much of southern Somalia. Scahill has, moreover, revealed the existence of a CIA base in the capital Mogadishu, where American operatives train Somali intelligence agents and reportedly participate in interrogations of suspects accused of being terrorists. American officials seem to believe that such involvement is necessary in order to weaken and contain Somalia-based terrorists. Confidence that warfare is changing – in other words, costing the US fewer casualties – appears to encourage the gamble that a light American presence will have minimal political repercussions. Yet Washington, which has misread the political situation in Somalia before, may once again be pursuing short-term military gains at the risk of long-term blowback, both in Somalia and at home.

http://africasacountry.com/2011/07/14/drones-in-somalia/?du

Australia minister pleads for food aid for Somalia (NOT ARMED UNMANNED DRONES!!)

The U.S. last week announced it was giving an additional $28 million in emergency funding on top of the $431 million in assistance already given this year. Rudd suggested that the U.S. and European countries need to do more to avoid a massive number of deaths, despite the financial hardships those regions are experiencing.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-07-24-somalia-famine-food-aid_n.htm?de

Imagine if instead of sending drones, we sent money for food and the people learned to trust us. So sad that Obama is doing this. Especially since many of these countries were hoping that a new Administration would mean huge changes in US foreign policy.

There was a moment in time where he could have done so much good, but it's too late now.



I wonder how many 'renditions' there are to that CIA secret prison in Mogadishu?

I read a story recently about one person who was taken to Somalia to a secret prison. His family did not know what happened to him. Others were also, finally some were released airc and they were able to tell his family where he was.

No wonder the US is not rushing to help, they have other business in Somalia it seems.

Thank you for those links :cry:

Remote wars with unmanned predator drones, undertaken with the belief that there's no risk to our own forces, seems to have led to a greater temptation to undertake armed attacks and assassinations wherever and whenever - no talk needed, just bombs.

Yet, I cannot help but wonder if the "pilots" sitting safely in a computer lit room may not someday be haunted by the horrors they're inflicting on an unknown number of innocent people. As for the enemy they're fighting, how could the enemy - even if they wanted to - surrender to a drone? It's worrisome, however, to think that just like torturing our enemies has become acceptable to some, this impersonal way of killing is becoming acceptable.

"My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest. This can never happen except through non-violence."
Mahatma Gandhi

Benumbed?

“For hundreds of thousands of years the stew in the pot has brewed hatred and resentment that is difficult to stop. If you wish to know why there are disasters of armies and weapons in the world, listen to the piteous cries from the slaughter house at midnight.”
-Chinese proverb

over the past few years. Extra-judicial assassinations, even of US citizens, and even on Democratic boards. Torture no longer evokes the same outrage it used to. And as you say, the unmanned drones are leading to more invasions into more countries, with no risk to pilots. But they are causing huge resentment, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are always consequences even if they are not expected. There seems to be no understanding of how a parent feels when they see their child blown to bits by a foreign invader.

I hope those who operate the drones do develop a conscience someday and are haunted by what they have done. If this doesn't happen, there will be no recognition of the terrible crimes being committed against innocent people.

We have used Drones in Somalia which may explain why President Obama has not reacted very strongly to this disaster, telling Ethiopia eg, to 'do more' to help their neighbor. I wonder if he is aware that Ethiopians are no better off and not exactly allies of Somalia.

For a short time in 2006 the Somalis did have peace and relative prosperity. In 2006 the Somalis defeated the warlords, but President Bush hired the Ethiopians (and the warlords) to overthrow the moderate Islamic government that defeated the warlords.

The Somalis defeated the Ethiopians and now more radical Muslims have control of much of Somalia.

Unfortunately President Obama has also taken the war path and has attacked Somalia with drones. Also, President Obama is supporting the same Muslims that President Bush got the Ethiopians to overthrow.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20100901gd.html

Bush got the Ethiopians to overthrow'. Talk about misguided Foreign Policy. I'm glad he's supporting them, but sending in Drones is not going to help anything and I think the use of those horrorible, terrifying, cowardly weapons which have only increased under this administration, is for profit.

I guess brown and black people make good target practice. Shame on him for choosing more violence rather than what he promised. I think he might have had a chance of doing some good there if he had demonstrated his policies were going to be different to Bush's.

I guess we really can't help there now ... too much distrust of our motives.

Either way, the memory of our last nightmarish attempt to feed starving people in Somalia is still too fresh in the public's mind. There is simply no way the United States will embark on a mission to help the people of Somalia.

We will keep slaughtering people via drone and special forces, but that's about it.

You can spew THAT swill while you are aware we are bleeding in Iraq and Afghanistan?

have vowed to attack aid groups. If the US sends troops, those troops will face attack and will fight back. There will be another fight, war in the limited view of some. People that want intervention must realize that the outcome could be war and dying due to war.

Actually the radicals have gone beyond vowing, and I read that aid workers have been killed. I also read that the Islamic radicals have been burning food and medical supplies. It is not a simple situation of just sending food to Somalia. It looks like food is being sent, but it just can't get to the people.

Famines have been with us forever, and the further away, the more likely that the "western world" will ignore it for as long as possible.

Charity is an admirable trait, but it's often given grudgingly, too late and in amounts too small to ever make a lasting change.

Famines tend to be political as well, and oftentimes there IS enough food within the country, but rebellions & wars within make transport of food impossible , and in some cases it's deliberate. If you can starve your opponents, they are less able to fight you...and once you "win", you have less poor people to support:(

Westerners also like to be praised endlessly and acknowledged for their largesse, so when a disparate group of people somewhere, whose language they do not understand, and whose local leaders they do not trust, need assistance, it's often late-in -coming..if ever, especially if that area of the world has no valuable resources to "swap".

Is the utter lawlessness and lack of government. It's highly dangerous in many areas for aid workers, and then you have warlords who control all the of the resources or steal the aid. Much of the Horn of Africa has that problem - war and violence is the biggest problem they have; famine is a result of the war and violence - not just lack of rain.

Using starvation as yet another weapon.

after all, last time we were there we were told to get out, and had a solider dragged through the street.

desecrating the bodies of people on foreign aid missions doesn't tend to make those people want to help you.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to be physically present to give aid in that environment because I would be afraid for my damn life.

the people who need the most help are the victims of the people who would also hurt the people who want to help from outside.

Frankly we can't even agree on something as simple as a debt ceiling increase. We also have soldiers in 2/3 countries along with all their equipment. It needs to fall on another country to get in there, wipe out the war lords and religious freaks and get those folks some food and medicine. Just emergency rations won't be enough though. These people need the safety to start farming again.

What about China? South Africa? Iran? Europe? South America? Russia? India?

In my own perfect world we would be out of Iraq, Libya and all the Afghani women would have a free passage to evolved country of their choice as we left there too. Then perhaps we could go to where we were really needed in the world.

with his failed 'WOT' just when it was beginning to stabilize with a government that was Somalian, but Islamic, and the US under Bush, didn't want an Islamic Govt there. What business it was of his, I don't know, but getting Somalia's old enemies, the Ethiopians, to invade and topple the govt, let to the most radical group taking over.

I'm sure we are not popular there and I believe we are still intervening in the country.

Somalia is the result of incredibly bad policies, going back to when European Colonialists were there, used up whatever resources they had, and then left it to devolve into chaos. Much like we did in Afghanistan.

The radical leaders have now granted permission for aid groups to come in to the country, so I suppose we could donate money at least, to those who are getting in.

Not sure where you got that information.

an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006, which overthrew the Islamic Courts Union. The Islamic Courts Union had defeated the warlords in much of the country and life in Somalia was greatly improving.

The US's role in Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia (which was already suspected) was exposed through Wikileaks: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7505855-wikileaks-finally-releases-documents-on-the-us-operation-in-somalia

Thanks to President George W Bush, and exacerbated by the drought, life in Somalia is much worse now.

It was a civil war at that point.

Regarding 2006: I'm not sure a takeover by fuckers who believe in stoning a woman for adultery is exactly "greatly improving."

who seemed to be talking about 2006 when George W Bush intervened through Ethiopia. That is the time that the more moderate Muslims had control and had greatly improved things relative to time periods both before and after.

In 1992 the warlords had control of much of Somalia.

President George W Bush made things far worse, We had no business telling the Somalis how to run their country. George W Bush's excuse for destroying Somali was that they allegedly had a couple of wanted terrorists. Well the US has far more than a couple of wanted terrorist and it would be outrageous for anyone to destroy the US.

We helped save a lot of lives from famine in 1992-1993, but it was unwise for GW Bush to make that commitment so late in his term. Clinton got bad advice from the military and expanded the mission into nation building.

American people are facing high unemployment. The futures of american people are cloudy, their children face semi-permanent unemployment and lower standards of living. People know their donated money is producing results. I am sorry lady, aid agencies will likely not be left free to solve the crisis, people that have guns in Somalia don't want that because a solution to the crisis weakens their power. Then what?

I saw an interview early in the morning (around 5 o'clock) with a woman whose name I don't remember and whose organization I forget, but she stated that Somalia is the most dangerous place to try to send food relief supplies. She mentioned the number killed in the effort (I think 14) just trying to bring food into Somalia.

The news clip that I saw mentioned the huge numbers of women and children trying to get to a tent city/relief center and talked about women picking up women's children, when their mothers had died trying to get them to that point.

Colonialism aside... they're no better or worse than other places in Africa for that, though it wasn't good.

Drought hit them hard in the seventies. In response, they moved many people to the coast, where they took up fishing and shellfish harvesting. Their government failed a couple of decades ago. Without a national government or military, the first world (this may offer a hint as to why so little aid is forthcoming...) looted their fishing grounds, inside the 12-mile coastal limit, pretty much to extinction. They also used the Somalian coast for a toxic waste dump, of which thousands of barrels filled with miscellaneous toxic waste - solvents, heavy metals, pesticides, etc. were washed up, broken, on the beach by hurricanes.

This is when they turned to piracy, which grew naturally out of attempts to defend their boats, their fishing grounds, and their lives. For a while, piracy was pretty much the only going industry on the coast, but it's not something a nation can live on.

The droughts haven't ended, but have gotten progressively worse.

Any suggestions for what to do beyond "feed them so that they don't die of starvation right now"? Is there a plan beyond dispersing them to wherever in the world they can find places? I think this is why there's this mythology of it being impossible to help Africa. If the plan is for Africa to submit to resource extraction, then they're going to die anyways. There's more people than the country can support as a colony. Does anyone have a serious plan for Somalia to join the first world?

------------------

It's past depressing. It's past apathy. It's past despair. For me, it's just coming to terms with the fact that the class of people currently running the world will do this sort of thing, over and over. They don't mind it. That's what we get for letting them rule.

Yes, but we never have much choice. It always comes down to two choices made for us by the rulers of the world.

Good synopsis of what has brought Somalia to this point. In my view, Somalia should be held up as an example of Western Colonial failure. Not for the West of course. But eventually, it will affect the whole world as more states sink into this kind of anarchy and destruction.

Sooner or later something will have to be done. But continuing the old Colonial policies as we are doing, will only result in more Somalias.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Bosnians are white and so they got help. Rwandans aren't, so nobody cared.

Text "FOOD" to UNICEF (864233) to donate $10.

Text "AID" to (27722) to make a $10 donation to the World Food Programme

in all seriousness...

It's time they practiced what they preach.

:cry:

Since the government was overthrown in 1991, it's been in the throes of terrible poverty, famine and despair. To single out "this year" as the worst year, is disingenuous and paints DUers as racist, narrow-minded and blind. We are nothing of the sort.

Somalia is a long term disaster and countries are providing dollars as they can annually, unlike the 1-time tsunami of Japan. Over the long haul of 20+ years, 1st world countries are going to provide many, many more billions of dollars to Somalia than they are to Japan (for example)

Unrec.

the environmentalists and anti-war people of DU despise. The first thing that need to happen is that warlords must be eliminated, how ever that happens. Second, farming zones must be set up around the country in a way that those zones can be irrigated efficiently. Third roads must be built so that products from the ag zones can be transported to the regions where those products are used. Fourth, the US and the West must have a troop presence large enough to deter bad asses from Fing up progress.

"Anarcho-libertarian paradise" everyone is referring to is Somaliland, which has been spared US intervention,

and Puntland which has a piracy-based economy and is doing "not as bad" as a result.

But presumably those places are also subject to the current famine, since Ethiopia is also under the same famine.

So why aren't we negotiating with Somaliland authorities to bring aid agencies thru there,

instead of via traditional Somali enemies Kenya and Ethiopia?

However, as anarchists have claimed, what you have in Somalia proper is not societal anarchy but military anarchy, i.e. endless warfare.

As for irrigation, there is only so much you can do to turn the desert into lush farmland.

Global Warming will turn much of Africa and Asia and parts of the US into a desert or mediterranean climate in the next 50 years, eliminating forests and traditional farmlands and replacing them with industrial drought-resistant crops. The powers that be, of course, do not fear this prospect. It's more profitable to farm when you have a closed system where you have to purchase water, where only a single provider is growing the food using tenant farm hands, and you can control the price of food. Like in California.

In the chapter on the telescope effect in the Hidden Brain http://www.hiddenbrain.org/about-the-book
a case is made that the more the number of people or subjects in a story the more the brain tunes out. Or, if there is just one subject in a story, the brain is ready-made to focus and relate to the individual's situation. Like the brain cannot handle, by design, that much empathy at once and does not get as involved intellectually and emotionally.

enormous human tragedies like this, you find it hard to grasp them. If we focused on and maybe followed one or two stories though, it might help people to become more interested, not to tune out, to want to know how they are doing. But to do that, there would have to be a will to humanize people and that would make our WOT, which requires not feeling any guilt when we send in drones to kill them, more difficult.

Thank you for the link. I think it does explain the feeling of not being able to fully process the horror of such an enormous tragedy.

it is the media's job to get the individual stories out to keep the public informed.

The military, and supported businesses, know this well now, and the media is censored and directed as they decide on what to focus or to look away from. They exploit the knowledge of how the brain functions quite well now.

The book has some very interesting findings and I would welcome some discussions thereon.

also. Maybe start a thread on it? In these times with so many disasters around the world, it seems very relevant. If you do, PM me and I will definitely read, comment and rec it.

As far as the media, they do what they are told, it seems. The photo of that little girl would never be shown today. Our wars are completely sanitized. We never see the grieving mothers of the children killed by our bombs. Dahr Jamail used to post photos from Iraq, but only online.

I used to post them on Rightwing boards to force them to look at what they supported. As you can imagine, it enraged them. They did NOT want to see the result of their glorious WOT. They just wanted to keep the illusion that we were there to 'save the Iraqi people from Saddam'.

Let me know if you do decide to start a thread ...

Indeed, even if we could feed all of these people today, tomorrow all of their problems are still there. Caring too much about this can put people in a permanent state of despair.

think can at least help a few people and make it possible for those who want to help but feel a sense of despair by the sheer magnitude of the problem. I think I will take their advice. They are donating monthly money that goes to specific children who then receive medical care, an education etc. And it doesn't take a lot. If many people did it, at least some of those who need help would be getting it. It's something tangible anyhow, not nearly enough, but something possible.

Americans en masse, fat and happy, are trampling each other to save $10 on an LCD TV. When one person is trampled, it's news.

When 5 of 6 children in a family are trampled by the other refugees behind them it "sucks", too bad.

doesn't give a shit. ESPECIALLY if it's black people we're talking about.

The US went into Somalia to save starving people during Somalia's last mass starvation. That intervention ended with dead, naked young americans being dragged through the streets by some of the very people that they helped saved. The memory of what happened last time is burned into the minds of any american that was old enough to understand what happened. American people is justifiably hesitant to get involved in Somalia again if there is even the remotest possibility that fighting and troops will be needed, which with islamic radicals holding sway, is a very real possibility.

gifts but who else? There is a way to donate through a text message but I don't know if that goes through Canada and if it matters anyway?

Tell me what to do. I'll twitter and FB and donate.

We are liberals.

Only the heartless don't care.

They are part of the first wave of what will end up being billions of deaths this century.

or other cases because those countries that can are going to start hoarding their resources for their own people.

the bad people can erode so many lives. Remember to tell your children that this is unacceptable... No ifs ands or buts... Our children will listen...

US, people are hungry. There are homeless in most cities across the US. There are millions who are jobless, whose unemployment benefits (their sole source of income) has run out.

There is talk, even today, of US citizens not getting their SS dollars, of military personnel not getting their pay, and so on.

There is only so much the people can be expected to do.

Yes, people care. But those people simply cannot right ALL the wrongs that exist. The rope they are hanging on is stretched too thin.

I have a question for the very DU members that always eviscerate the US for being the world's policeman. I noticed many of the DU variety posting. Why is it that the US and american people must step in front once again? Why not call upon people like Chavez, countries like Sweden to take the lead? My neighbors and fellow citizens are working through unemployment and financial crisis of their own, many are going hungry. It is not that they don't care, it is more that their capacity to help is strained to it's limit.

The human population in this part of the world has exceeded the Carrying Capacity of an Ecosystem. Watch the interviews on TV. Every woman who is questioned talks about her 5, 6 or 7 children. What is happening in Somalia is perfectly predictable.

Should we help the people there with this famine? Absolutely. We should also make sure birth control is available so we're not dealing with the exact same problem 20 years from now.

projects. Some security pact with African Union nations to prevent return of warlords and radicals. Most of the very changes that DU members that are mostly posting and alluding to lack of caring despise.

...like groups. Even if it meant some people would say, then, that my help for them was "supporting Al-Qaeda"-like groups. No society is homogeneous and "Al-Qaeda" is just the wests' Emmanuel Goldstein.

OOH TERRORISTS!

I don't see radicals changing their behavior due to starving people, in particular if those people are not of their clan, or religious persuasion. I will be called blood thirsty, but I am of the view that good things don't happen until bad people are eliminated. If Somalia is to become capable of feeding itself after being helped out of it's latest famine, some of the people holding millions hostage must be removed from the picture by aggressive covert means.

You don't need a significant military presence, indeed, Somaliland's army (and perhaps Ethopia's UN backed peace keeping forces) should be enough. This may be wild eyed optimism, however, but they should be fed, just because there are possible elements does not mean that those elements represent the Somali's in total. Somaliland would do it if you just promised to grant them the right to have a state.

They generally won't because they're worried it'll start a secession cascade, or using ridiculous sophistry like saying "you can't secede because there's nothing to secede from," but when the place has been autonomous in any practical way that matters for twenty years officially noting the fact is just a little overdue. They have something there and it's generally working.

It could take another decade, but it's feasible.

But what am I gona do about it?

Other than for a few rich people, the greater quantities of our resources, our treasure - our collections of wealth - do little to make this world a better place. Catastrophes like this happen - or are allowed to happen - simply because a few people want to maintain the advantage. Where are the Saudi princes and their great pride? How about all those wonderful new millionaires made on Wall Street? Those high and mighty banks hoarding all the money to themselves? Do you think they have any sense of obligation to the world that gave them what they have in the first place? Do they have any vision for this world that involves the elimination of poverty, starvation, disease, and war? Or are they too busy with their harems, their fancy new cars, their jewelry, their mansions, their jets, their vacation plans? The world is suffering because of them. How much longer will we let them continue while millions suffer for want of just the basic necessities?

But the USA is dying, and that has me preoccupied.

this country is falling apart at the seams. Until we can fix our own economy, we are unable to help. Help takes money, and we have none.

If so, I bet you'll get a lot of people here who "care". See, the internet is chock-full of "supporters" of various people and things. It doesn't matter that they don't actually support these people or things, but they write little posts about them, and then they feel better - hell, they can feel double-better if someone disagrees and they can then write a very indignant post as a response. That's real caring these days.

Seriously though, you hit the nail on the head there.

We should just ignore them? The media too?

You responded to a comment that outright insulted me and everyone on this thread by agreeing fully with the comment.

Since neither you nor the other commenter know anything about me, what I do, or the other people who posted to this thread, the insult to me and them with which you agreed wholeheartedly was ignored by me. Instead I asked a question. It was not an insult. It was a legitimate question based on your agreement with the statement that anyone posting information about this disaster is only doing to 'feel self-righteous'. How does one spread information about these disasters without 'feeling self-righteous' I was curious to know. But you have chosen to take offense.

Millions of people are facing starvation and most of the people on this thread offered suggestions, links, information about the situation and in some instances, ways to help, and someone who chooses to insult all of them, gets offended by a question. Hilarious. :eyes:

I'll go back to the real world now.

I was giving an actual honest response to your question if anyone cares. I could have given a bull-shit response, but I instead gave a truthful response. If the truth hurts, that's not my fault, and it's certainly not meant as an insult.

Based on this post of yours, however, I could tell you about the ducks that live in the river just down the street from my house. How do you suppose I know they're ducks?

:blush:

I see so many people become overly-passionate about topics here only to jump onto another one once they lose interest in the last. I have simple myopic thoughts. I don't get too excited about many things, but the things that I do care about I keep caring about.

we see everywhere we look. It's not that people lose interest, it's just that there is so much that needs attention and it becomes overwhelming. Still, drawing attention to some of it, every once in a while, might save just one life and if that happen, it was worth it, imho.

board. Much like the motivation of the news media reporting on disasters like Haiti and Katrina eg. Eg, I just found a way, in this thread, that I can do something tangible to help maybe just a few people. So, thanks to that advice, a few children will get help. Of course it won't even begin to solve the enormous probles facing so many people, but we can only do what it is possible for us to do, and that is better than being snide on a message board, and questioning the motivations of decent people who ARE helping in whatever way they can, and then doing NOTHING to help.

And as far as I am concerned, considering the sheer numbers of human beings who may die from starvation, INDIGATION is warranted, but not nearly strong enough to express what people ought to be feeling about this kind of tragedy in a world where dropping bombs is so easy to do, and so much money is available for killing people, but where this kind of tragedy can occur and some people are indignant that it is even reported on.

The irony of your own indignant post was probably missed by you.

I imagine we often feel quite self-righteous ourselves after minimizing and dismissing the concern of others.

Appears to be six of one, and half a dozen of the other... but I'm certain that a well-placed rationalization would fix that right up. :shrug:

a very reliable organization. :-)

The general lawlessness there means that money and food are stolen long before it reaches the people who need it. Not to mention it is extremely dangerous for aid workers to go in there. I am not sure what the answer is, the problems seem intractable.

The Camp Dadaab is in Kenya, so the help reaches the people without dangerous actions. But you are right: we can´t do anything for those who cannot reach Kenya.
Also nutrition and medical equipment is airlifted to Mogadishu. The warlords do not control the whole capital city, so help can be distributed.
While the Government of Germany is not doing enough, IMHO, we are well aware of what is going on. The first reports in the media occured in June. Our local radiostation in Bavaria had a fundraising day in July and could give 10.000.000,00 Euros to an organisation who is already working in the area.

can and hope that some of the help gets through. I know how hopeless it is and how it will be impossible to save so many of these poor people. It is overwhelming for us, but imagine how it must be for them. And what a statement on how we have dealt with this planet over the centuries this is. Maybe if nothing else we could learn something from it and try to change a few things about how we, as human beings, have been operating?

Here and elsewhere?

I imagine there would be a lasting response. :shrug:

Then again, the newly consolidated media DID succeed in keeping the news of Fukushima being worse than Chernobyl out of the Western mind, so maybe they can get people used to the idea of Westerners dying from poverty and starvation, too.

Not saying that getting used to Westerners dying isn't a good side effect. But that's been going on here for quite a while, with over 44,000 Americans dying for lack of healthcare for many years now, and not a peep out of the media about that either. In a sane society that would be given wall-to-wall coverage until Congress did something about it. The fact that it isn't demonstrates who the media works for.

Have you seen "We Are The Whirled" by Mark Fiore yet?

http://www.markfiore.com/political-cartoons/watch-somalia-famine-al-shabab-obama-un-hunger-relief-animated-video-mark-fiore-animation

I just saw it as 'video of the week' on Al Jazeera English's Listening Post and was thinking of it when I read your OP just now.

I tried to rec but found out that I was too late - due to time constraints I don't pop into GD or LBN much these days but the I'm glad I caught this thread in time to give it a kick and help stop it from being archived...

(edit to fix typo)

Will definitely check it out. I love Mark Fiore, thanks for reminding me of him. I guessed you were probably busy these days as I missed seeing your posts in LBN.

Btw, OT for a minute, but you had written a few OPs several months ago about the influence of the Murdoch Empire all over the world. Maybe you should report them now as they are very relevant to what is going on.

Hope all is well with you and your family! :-)

Good idea, unfortunately I can't right now but I'll definitely ruminate on it.

Along with all the good news about the Murdoch's iron grip on UK politics finally being released, have you heard about AJE's recent penetration into the US' information force field? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4943317


Everything's really good, our little one is due in about a month and we're busy nesting.

Hope all is well in your neck of the woods, too... :hi:

Look, I don't approve of US "nation building" efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan, so I don't approve of them in Somalia, either.

Yes, I realize our budget problems stem largely from unfunded wars and out-of-control defense spending. However, with our budget the way it is, we don't need to be spending money to the benefit of other people in other nations. When we have our own Social Security squared away, we can talk about giving money away. When we have health care for everyone in our country that needs it, we can talk about giving money way. Hell, when we actually have a space program again, we can talk about giving money away.

Not every problem in the world is our problem.

Some aid agencies and the do-gooders but no one who can do anything about it cares.