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

There is a section of the article covering precisely this, headed "The external actors: arms to both sides"

This war is not even known about by the general public. The question is why not? I believe the actors of the war nobody hates or loves outside of Africa. Nobody knows them. If it would be Americans, Chinese, Israelis, or Russians involved, the war would be in the news.

Dont wanne be the devils advocate here, but reality is that even if you find something "looking legit" in terms of donation, especially in such regions the most money will be "lost" halfway, and even if some will reach the destination it is more than rare that it will even help to benefit those suffering, and not land in the pockets of a few "in power" or just used to buy more weapons to kill more people.....

Yes helping is a good thing, tho reality is its not as "easy" as transfer some money. Tho respecting your good intentions

My neighbour who is a nurse did stints there while working for the International Red Cross, it was either 3 or 6 months.

https://www.icrc.org/en/where-we-work/sudan

Try Share The Meal[1]. It's quite easy to use and I think it has an impact. Sadly also a way to keep in touch with devastating news like this one

[1]: https://sharethemeal.org/en-us

It would probably be better to donate to the people in your immediate circle of family and friends

"The world" cares about some more than others. That's why the plight of the Palestinians is daily on the news, while that of the Yazidis or Druze is not.

There are other countries and coalitions in the world that aren't the United States. Humanity fought and ended wars for thousands of years before the United States ever existed.

It's really hard to cry victim about others misrepresenting Trump's motives for the Iran war as oil, oil, oil when the US did in fact launch a military attack on a country - within the last six months - where the subsequent negotiated agreement on oil rights was quite literally described by the White House press secretary as "the president’s control of Venezuela’s oil" [1] and just a few weeks later the president held a public, televised conference with Chevron and ExxonMobil executives in the White House where he pitched them on investing in the Venezuelan oil industry [2]

[1] https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/trump-venezuela-oil-...

[2] https://youtu.be/sD4x6T-u4XY

then bloody stop sending troops to all other countries under whatever pretexts.

If the article called for direct military intervention, I missed it.

Exactly this, the same "The Guardian" that routinely complains that any western/US military intervention in Africa is "western colonialism" is now begging for western/US military intervention.

Typical example:

> Colonialism in Africa is still alive and well

> Today’s waves of migration are a direct result of Britain’s disastrous intervention in the ousting and killing of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

> The current situation is down to the failure of western powers, particularly the US and British governments, who feel they’re the custodians of almighty power and believed could do as they wished in Africa without any blowback.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/colonialism-in...

No one is saying the US should send troops to Sudan. But it has made the situation for civilians much much worse by gutting USAID, and it could flex its might to force diplomatic solutions to end the fighting, but it's not.

If Sudan had oil though, we'd probably have already see the US militarily involved.

That's probably because:

A. Our tactics would constitute an invasion B. We would try to seize oil or other natural resources while we were there. C. The president would literally say something like this on national television.