Both sides have interfered with food shipments. I haven’t been reading up on this particular one, but in conflicts I’ve read about in the past in Africa, I know that seizing food has been a strategy in conflict – everyone needs food, so control of food in a region short of it is power and wealth. Black Hawk Down’s opening scene shows exactly that happening:
A UN source, who asked that their name be withheld due to the subject’s sensitivity, said both warring sides are posing obstacles, trying to prevent food from getting to areas controlled by their rival.
So you’ve got limited options.
One possibility is that the factions are gonna decide that this isn’t a great strategy, like, preserving the value of the civilian populace is important enough not to dick with food. But I assume that they aren’t unaware, and they’ve decided to go ahead with this. Sounds like the conflict’s got an ethnic aspect too, and if factions would rather kill off the other ethnic group rather than just making them submit, you’re probably gonna have a hard time convincing them not to do this.
This isn’t gonna be a peacekeeping mission. Those don’t deal with situations where one is in active opposition to one of the factions, but where both sides want there to not be conflict and just need a neutral party to act as enforcer of a peace agreement or something.
I don’t think that you’re going to have countries willing to enter into the civil war, force both sides to stop disrupting food.
I guess some people could flee the country, but it looks like only a small portion have so far – I’d guess that neighboring counties aren’t too happy about taking them. Looks like Egypt has the most, and it’s less than 1% of the country’s population, with Chad also being close. Sudan is super-poor; WP has them at 185 out of 194 GDP per capita, poorer than North Korea.
Starting in the 1990s, the increase in refugees from Sudan has forced UNHCR RO Cairo to shift its focus from education and training to the care and maintenance of refugees.[12] In Cairo, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) is involved in helping process refugees for resettlement, moving refugees, and assisting with their medical examinations. IOM also conducts cultural orientation for the refugees to prepare them for resettlement in third countries.[12] The UNHCR regional office in Cairo (RO Cairo) is overextended, and after Somalis, the Sudanese (mainly southern Sudanese) represent the largest caseload.[13] A large number of Sudanese refugees in Egypt reflects the fact that many Sudanese travels to Cairo to obtain official recognition of their refugee status from the UNHCR. The Sudanese refugees in Egypt fall under two categories: those who are waiting for their status-determination interview and those who have been rejected or who are self-settled.[14] Between 60 and 70 percent of Sudanese asylum seekers have their applications for refugee status rejected.[14] Rejection and closure of a file have serious psychological and emotional implications for refugees. Many of those rejected, especially men, turn to alcoholism as a way of overcoming their problems. Others become mentally disturbed and there have been reports of suicide or attempted suicide upon receiving news of the rejection.[14] The unity of the family has been challenged by Sudanese refugees’ quest for UNHCR recognition. Women and children wait in Cairo for their UNHCR applications to go through while husbands wait in Sudan.[14] The difficulties of life in Cairo and the inability of some husbands to join their families in Egypt have forced some women refugees to abandon their husbands, remarry, and leave for resettlement.[14] In cases of rejection of a family application at the UNHCR, many men leave their wives and children and look for another single woman with UNHCR status to avoid responsibility.[14] Additionally, UNHCR RO Cairo does not recognize polygamous unions, and as such will not refer polygamists for resettlement to countries where polygamy is not permitted.[14] All of these factors have contributed to the break-up of families, divorce, and the abandonment of children. Finally, the UNHCR identity cards issued to refugees are not always recognized by the Egyptian authority. There have been situations in which people have been taken and detained for three to four days and then released, despite their UNHCR status.[14] A resident permit stamp on a valid Sudanese passport seems to offer more protection for refugees.[14]
Or one side could win and the war end, but as far as I know, that’s not expected to be imminent, and you can’t just wait years for food.
The fact that he waited until right before his reelection campaign to do this is fucked, there’s no reason he couldn’t have done this day one of his presidency, Obama could have done this day one of his presidency.
Whoever does best right before the election has better chances to be elected. We have the same issue in Canada. The prime minister of Quebec is just sending relief checks right before the elections as if it wasn’t clear voter buyout.
On the other hand, these veterans being pardoned 4 years earlier could potentially have cost Biden the election, cost America democracy, cost trans Americans their freedom, and cost West Bank Palestinians their lives. It’s a fucked up calculus but I can’t say I disagree. I blame this failure on the short memories of voters and on those who are working to make a Trump presidency happen.
With the 2024 presidential election coming up and the surgeon general’s declaration, gun policy will certainly be discussed by the candidates, who have differing stances on the issue. President Biden makes gun control a principal issue in his administration, using executive orders, legislation, and public calls on the gun industry to help achieve his goals of reducing the amount of gun violence in the United States.
Former President Trump has not maintained a consistent stance regarding gun policy since 2016. At times, he opposed background checks, assault weapons bans, and red flag laws. However, while in office Trump pledged his support of red flag laws, banned bump stocks, and voiced support for universal background checks.
I think that this might enable them to do some meaningful research into gun violence. Meaningful research that does not exist in the US in 2024 because the NRA lobbies against anyone that attempts to publish data on the subject.
There’s a long list of public entities that are prohibited from publishing this research. Really strange in a country where guns are so available.
No they did not. Tons of research has come out during that time. They put a stop to funding research that held a bias. Which at the time was from the CDC wanting to make shit up to push an anti2a agenda. The head of the CDC stated during that time that they wanted to use research to prove guns are a public health crisis, no matter how the came to that conclusion. They had a ton of really flawed studies as well that were proven to be terrible studies with a major bias. In science you can’t just make studies say what you want without being criticized, and that’s what they did. It’s why the dickey amendment was passed with bipartisan support in 96.
Edit: you can downvote me all you want, this is exactly what happened. This isn’t some fake news shit from the repubs, it’s actual history. It’s not my fault you’ve been fed a lie that the cdc was bared from studying gun violence.
We were just entering the distopian gun fetish hell hole in 96. 2001 pushed us over the edge. Every chaw head feared terrorists and then faux news yelled them into being anxious over their neighbors and urban centers. Science has time and time again shown that faciests are bad and giving them guns is bad for everyone.
It feels right to me. People are being injured, maimed, permanently disabled, and killed. All by a particular piece of readily available technology. When we can point to the single thing that causes all those individual health emergencies, and it’s consistently happening across the country on a daily basis to many many people, in public spaces that are otherwise quite safe, that’s most definitely a public health crisis.
If you look at gun violence the way you look at disease I'm sure there are correllaries. Cycles of one person inflicting pain on a group, and that group transmitting that pain back onto a different group.
cbsnews.com
Hot