UN says largest humanitarian crisis since 1945

[brewer]

Quote: "...without collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to death" and "many more will suffer and die from disease."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...0-19-12-59

I don't think any of us want to see innocent people starve or die from preventable disease. But part of me has a problem with this. The aid needed is in four countries who are waging internal war. I know, I know, those that will suffer are not necessarily the ones continuing the conflict. 

Here is the question, my problem. If the world supplies the aid (and we certainly have the ability) will this in some way be subsidizing the conflicts? If the population begins to die off will there be additional internal pressure to stop the conflicts? If the world supplies the aid does this allow the conflicts to continue?

I don't even pretend to know what the conflicts are about. If they are for resources and supplying the aid will reduce/stop the fighting, then step up world. However, if it is political/religious/non resource related and aid is supplied, did the world just remove one/several reason(s) for the internal struggle to stop? Plus, will this create more conflict as the powerful within the countries seek to control the aid sent. 

Those in power that are causing the conflicts don't seem to be that concerned. Quote: "...all parties to the conflict are arbitrarily denying sustained humanitarian access and politicize aid," he said, warning if that behavior doesn't change now "they must be held accountable for the inevitable famine, unnecessary deaths and associated amplification in suffering that will follow."

This always causes me internal conflict. Maybe I'm just an ass.

[Minimalist]

I know, I know, those that will suffer are not necessarily the ones continuing the conflict.

And the ones who benefit will not be the ones suffering, either.  Throwing money at problems rarely solves them.

[KUSA]

Throwing money at problems rarely solves them.

That sounds Republican.

[Rev. Rye]

Plus, will this create more conflict as the powerful within the countries seek to control the aid sent. 

I'm not sure about most of the questions, but I know for a fact that shit like this does happen. Just to use one example, in 1972, Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, was hit by a devastating earthquake, and, despite a huge outpouring of relief and charity, a good-sized portion of it still has yet to be rebuilt, largely because the nation's de facto president Anastasio Somoza Debayle wound up pocketing the vast majority of it, including most of the funds, and even sold the blood plasma that had been donated (and not even considered for use) because, apparently, embezzlement wasn't enough for him.

And this isn't even close to the only time this happens, especially given that in 2011, Wikileaks cables showed a lot of foreign aid to African countries ends up squarely in the pockets of corrupt governments. There is no reason to believe it won't happen again.

[Anomalocaris]

Throwing money at problems rarely solves them.

That sounds Republican.

No, that just sounds pragmatic.To sound republican one has to also say "but throwing money instead at rich fuckers will always solve any problem, and if it doesn't, throw money at the rich fuckers anyway and fuck the problem"

[Minimalist]

Throwing money at problems rarely solves them.

That sounds Republican.

What are you shitting me?  The motherfuckers plan to throw billions at the richest shits in the country to make health care for the poor go away.  Throwing money at the rich is all they can fucking do.

---

Stephen O'Brien told the U.N. Security Council that "without collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to death" and "many more will suffer and die from disease."

Ooh.  4 more countries for us to invade... and watch our men get  shot at by all sides.

[KUSA]

That sounds Republican.

What are you shitting me?  The motherfuckers plan to throw billions at the richest shits in the country to make health care for the poor go away.  Throwing money at the rich is all they can fucking do.

But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about throwing money at the poor. So yes, that sounds very republican of you.

[abaris]

But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about throwing money at the poor. So yes, that sounds very republican of you.

It's not your money anymore. It would be tax money, and the US makes a conscious decision of throwing the bulk of tax payers money at the military industrial complex. To the point of millions of people at home don't have health insuance and potholes not getting fixed in the streets.

The only question remaining is who's bruning your tax payer money. I for one rather see it used on poor people than on some shiny new missile.

[Minimalist]

What are you shitting me?  The motherfuckers plan to throw billions at the richest shits in the country to make health care for the poor go away.  Throwing money at the rich is all they can fucking do.

But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about throwing money at the poor. So yes, that sounds very republican of you.

When Dubya was in office the republicunts spent money like drunken sailors.  You better go back and check your history.

[KUSA]

But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about throwing money at the poor. So yes, that sounds very republican of you.

When Dubya was in office the republicunts spent money like drunken sailors.  You better go back and check your history.

On poor people?