The US pays about a billion a year to Sudan for this?

[TheGreatGatsby]

Also, as a side note, we don't spend $1billin a year on assistance to Sudan, It is a little over $100 Million (what we gave in 2014).

Between 2005-2010, the US donated $8 billion to Sudan. The 2010 base clip was $420 mil per year; and then stuff gets added.

United States aid to Sudan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And your link-less 2014 figure is BS. Do you have an agenda to be callously throwing out such incorrect numbers?

US to give extra 83m in aid to South Sudan - Al Jazeera English

My source is the US government:

ForeignAssistance.gov

We don't give the Sudan $1 billion every year.

Also worth noting is that South Sudan is a completely different country now.

Those are merely transactional costs and not the amounts of donations (aid), which are well documented.

No they aren't. They are disbursed funds. Read the site.

Dude, I've showed you multiple links showing that the number is way more than what you purport. And I could show you link after link.

This is from your website:

Spent data represents current transactions and may result in negative values in the data. The data shown in the obligated and spent tabs represent an agency’s financial data at a higher level of aggregation with more granular information available on the Transaction tab. Only USAID and USADF are currently reporting transaction data to the Dashboard.

How can aid turn into a negative value? Clearly, this number play; incomplete data and metrics that you clearly don't understand and shouldn't pretend to understand. And you have offered no adequate refutations to the data that is out there. You're just going off of a government website that is incomplete by its own admission as it says only two agencies of presumably many are reporting to it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

We aren't arming anyone, there is an arms embargo against Sudan.

I know we're not. And that's why they're refugees with no recourse. The guys with the guns win. It's easy math.

The influx of guns is what turned long term low scale conflict into genocide. A new influx of guns hasn't solved it.

Yea, let's let the bad guys have their guns; don't arm the good guys and make sure they get some crumbs though and see how it works out.

 

[Osomir]

Also, as a side note, we don't spend $1billin a year on assistance to Sudan, It is a little over $100 Million (what we gave in 2014).

Between 2005-2010, the US donated $8 billion to Sudan. The 2010 base clip was $420 mil per year; and then stuff gets added.

United States aid to Sudan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And your link-less 2014 figure is BS. Do you have an agenda to be callously throwing out such incorrect numbers?

US to give extra 83m in aid to South Sudan - Al Jazeera English

My source is the US government:

ForeignAssistance.gov

We don't give the Sudan $1 billion every year.

Also worth noting is that South Sudan is a completely different country now.

Those are merely transactional costs and not the amounts of donations (aid), which are well documented.

No they aren't. They are disbursed funds. Read the site.

Dude, I've showed you multiple links showing that the number is way more than what you purport. And I could show you link after link.

This is from your website:

Spent data represents current transactions and may result in negative values in the data. The data shown in the obligated and spent tabs represent an agency’s financial data at a higher level of aggregation with more granular information available on the Transaction tab. Only USAID and USADF are currently reporting transaction data to the Dashboard.

How can aid turn into a negative value? Clearly, this number play; incomplete data and metrics that you clearly don't understand and shouldn't pretend to understand. And you have offered no adequate refutations to the data that is out there. You're just going off of a government websit that is incomplete by its own admission as it says only two agencies of presumably many are reporting to it.

You have shown no data for 2014 or for planned expenditures in 2015. Disbursements and transactions are what we call the giving of financial and material aid and services. This is straight from the government citing its aid disbursement (click on the disbursement tab) to the Sudan area in 2014 and detailing what it was spent on. Aid figures can be negative if our obligations do not meet dispersed funds or in financial book keeping if dispersed funds exceed planned funds. It depends on what negative value you want to look at. That isn't applicable to the cited disbursement rates though that you see on that page.

 

[Osomir]

We aren't arming anyone, there is an arms embargo against Sudan.

I know we're not. And that's why they're refugees with no recourse. The guys with the guns win. It's easy math.

The influx of guns is what turned long term low scale conflict into genocide. A new influx of guns hasn't solved it.

Yea, let's let the bad guys have their guns; don't arm the good guys and make sure they get some crumbs though and see how it works out.

There are no "good guys." That isn't really how most conflict works.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

There are no "good guys." That isn't really how most conflict works.

The innocent citizens are the good guys for purposes of discussion. Don't you f'ing dare try to put everyone else on the same plane with those genocidal maniacs.

 

[Osomir]

There are no "good guys." That isn't really how most conflict works.

The innocent citizens are the good guys for purposes of discussion. Don't you f'ing dare try to put everyone else on the same plane with those genocidal maniacs.

Conflict isn't that black and white. Those "Genocidal maniacs" that we used to go on about and that you mention are actually now allied with anti-government forces against Bashir. That doesn't make them any less inhumane, nor do the civilian refugees belong to one side or the other; they are civilians. There are also FAR more than two sides in this conflict.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You have shown no data for 2014 or for planned expenditures in 2015. Disbursements and transactions are what we call the giving of financial and material aid and services. This is straight from the government citing its aid disbursement (click on the disbursement tab) to the Sudan area in 2014 and detailing what it was spent on. Aid figures can be negative if our obligations do not meet dispersed funds or in financial book keeping if dispersed funds exceed planned funds. It depends on what negative value you want to look at. That isn't applicable to the cited disbursement rates though that you see on that page.

Okay, then it's a balance sheet thing...credits and debits and not a true measure of cumulative aid...but skipping past the meaningless shop talk....

Look at this gov link: Crisis in South Sudan U.S. Agency for International Development

Does this look like the US donated only $110 million to Sudan in 2014?

$995 million in aid to South Sudan in 2014 and 2015. $278 million in 2015. Basic math calculates to $693 million in 2014. And I'll note that these numbers do not include (North) Sudan or any surrounding areas or possibly any other one time expenditures by our government.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Conflict isn't that black and white. Those "Genocidal maniacs" that we used to go on about and that you mention are actually now allied with anti-government forces against Bashir. That doesn't make them any less inhumane, nor do the civilian refugees belong to one side or the other; they are civilians. There are also FAR more than two sides in this conflict.

It is black and white. When a government is handing down death sentences for not being Muslim, it's f'ing black and white, dude.

 

[Osomir]

You have shown no data for 2014 or for planned expenditures in 2015. Disbursements and transactions are what we call the giving of financial and material aid and services. This is straight from the government citing its aid disbursement (click on the disbursement tab) to the Sudan area in 2014 and detailing what it was spent on. Aid figures can be negative if our obligations do not meet dispersed funds or in financial book keeping if dispersed funds exceed planned funds. It depends on what negative value you want to look at. That isn't applicable to the cited disbursement rates though that you see on that page.

Okay, then it's a balance sheet thing...credits and debits and not a true measure of cumulative aid...but skipping past the meaningless shop talk....

Look at this gov link: Crisis in South Sudan U.S. Agency for International Development

Does this look like the US donated only $110 million to Sudan in 2014?

$995 million in aid to South Sudan in 2014 and 2015. $278 million in 2015. Basic math calculates to $693 million in 2014. And I'll note that these numbers do not include (North) Sudan or any surrounding areas or possibly any other one time expenditures by our government.

Once again i feel the need to point out that Sudan and south sudan are two different countries.

 

[Osomir]

Conflict isn't that black and white. Those "Genocidal maniacs" that we used to go on about and that you mention are actually now allied with anti-government forces against Bashir. That doesn't make them any less inhumane, nor do the civilian refugees belong to one side or the other; they are civilians. There are also FAR more than two sides in this conflict.

It is black and white. When a government is handing down death sentences for not being Muslim, it's f'ing black and white, dude.

That has nothing to do with either the conflict in darfur nor with what we spend aid dollars on.

 

[irosie91]

There are no "good guys." That isn't really how most conflict works.

The innocent citizens are the good guys for purposes of discussion. Don't you f'ing dare try to put everyone else on the same plane with those genocidal maniacs.

Conflict isn't that black and white. Those "Genocidal maniacs" that we used to go on about and that you mention are actually now allied with anti-government forces against Bashir. That doesn't make them any less inhumane, nor do the civilian refugees belong to one side or the other; they are civilians. There are also FAR more than two sides in this conflict.

there are always far more than "TWO SIDES" when muslims engage in their typical filth

 

[Osomir]

There are no "good guys." That isn't really how most conflict works.

The innocent citizens are the good guys for purposes of discussion. Don't you f'ing dare try to put everyone else on the same plane with those genocidal maniacs.

Conflict isn't that black and white. Those "Genocidal maniacs" that we used to go on about and that you mention are actually now allied with anti-government forces against Bashir. That doesn't make them any less inhumane, nor do the civilian refugees belong to one side or the other; they are civilians. There are also FAR more than two sides in this conflict.

there are always far more than "TWO SIDES" when muslims engage in their typical filth

That has little to do with the conflict which has heavy historical roots and is more ethnic and nation / tribal based. The same sort of violence that we can and have seen in non-Islamic regions as well. Your hatred of Muslims blinds you and makes you a poor analyst of conflict.

 

[irosie91]

There are no "good guys." That isn't really how most conflict works.

The innocent citizens are the good guys for purposes of discussion. Don't you f'ing dare try to put everyone else on the same plane with those genocidal maniacs.

Conflict isn't that black and white. Those "Genocidal maniacs" that we used to go on about and that you mention are actually now allied with anti-government forces against Bashir. That doesn't make them any less inhumane, nor do the civilian refugees belong to one side or the other; they are civilians. There are also FAR more than two sides in this conflict.

there are always far more than "TWO SIDES" when muslims engage in their typical filth

That has little to do with the conflict which has heavy historical roots and is more ethnic and nation / tribal based. The same sort of violence that we can and have seen in non-Islamic regions as well. Your hatred of Muslims blinds you and makes you a poor analyst of conflict.

your response is idiotic----the manner in which muslims HISTORICALLY engage in conflict has everything to do with the manner in which muslims are engaging in
conflict today. I am an excellent analyst of the current conflict-----so good at it
that I predicted more than a year ago that the situation now taking place
between Sunnis and Shiites would manifest IN YEMEN. ----While all sorts of
idiots were LAUDING the glories of the "arab spring"-----I was correctly
predicting the now ongoing blood bath--------where were you? I have to admit
that I did not know that SALEH would collapse in the arms of the Iranian
scum. Where were you? Your assertion that I hate muslims is really stupid.
I can predict the behavior of muslims because I "hate" them ? If I hated them
I would not have developed so deep an understanding of their culture----I got
it first hand------socializing with muslim colleagues whom I did not hate at all.
----true that I was not impressed with their "culture"-----I considered
them to be victims of it. Long age (almost 50 years ago) when I
came into contact with lots of muslims------(the flower child era) I
was convinced that the aggressiveness and hatreds they expressed
would EVAPORATE ----I was that silly back then

 

[Osomir]

your response is idiotic----the manner in which muslims HISTORICALLY engage in conflict has everything to do with the manner in which muslims are engaging in
conflict today.

Conflict isn't that uniform, not even in Muslim regions. The notion that Muslims engage in a singular way of fighting is a bit naive, and that attribute has led you to misidentify the issues surrounding Sudanese conflicts. Much like our black and white portrayal of conflict that we tend to rely on in mainstream reporting has caused our previous poster here to misidentify actors within Sudanese conflicts (and understandably so).

That same fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of conflict is also why you weren't able to "foresee" Saleh's moves in Yemen or the moves of some non-Shia elites, despite the fact that Zaidi political blocks have a long history of working with Shafi family groups during conflict and times of political expansion and especially during the periods of greatest north/south Yemeni divides.

Your dislike of Islam causes you to engage in high levels of generalizations and those generalizations subsequently limit your ability to engage in robust analysis. To you Islam has to be this one thing (a monolith) and when its expressions or adherents don't react within the confines of that monolith you have a hard time conceptualizing it and try to force it into your model. This is only doable to a certain extent and generally yields sub-par analytical results while leaving many key details unexplained and unaccounted for.

 

[irosie91]

your response is idiotic----the manner in which muslims HISTORICALLY engage in conflict has everything to do with the manner in which muslims are engaging in
conflict today.

Conflict isn't that uniform, not even in Muslim regions. The notion that Muslims engage in a singular way of fighting is a bit naive, and that attribute has led you to misidentify the issues surrounding Sudanese conflicts. Much like our black and white portrayal of conflict that we tend to rely on in mainstream reporting has caused our previous poster here to misidentify actors within Sudanese conflicts (and understandably so).

That same fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of conflict is also why you weren't able to "foresee" Saleh's moves in Yemen or the moves of some non-Shia elites, despite the fact that Zaidi political blocks have a long history of working with Shafi family groups during conflict and times of political expansion and especially during the periods of greatest north/south Yemeni divides.

Your dislike of Islam causes you to engage in high levels of generalizations and those generalizations subsequently limit your ability to engage in robust analysis. To you Islam has to be this one thing (a monolith) and when its expressions or adherents don't react within the confines of that monolith you have a hard time conceptualizing it and try to force it into your model. This is only doable to a certain extent and generally yields sub-par analytical results while leaving many key details unexplained and unaccounted for.

you are quite a joke-----you FOCUSED on my admitted lack of knowledge of the
actual activities and proclivities and agenda of SALEH ----to discredit the FACT
that I have correctly predicted the events of the outcome of the ARAB SPRING
which has been ongoing for more than 4 years. SCIENCE is based on the proof
of theorems capable of PREDICTION--------I won and you lost in the field of analysis of the actual "progress" of the Islamic agenda. I correctly predict and you sputter hackneyed islamo Nazi propaganda

 

[Osomir]

your response is idiotic----the manner in which muslims HISTORICALLY engage in conflict has everything to do with the manner in which muslims are engaging in
conflict today.

Conflict isn't that uniform, not even in Muslim regions. The notion that Muslims engage in a singular way of fighting is a bit naive, and that attribute has led you to misidentify the issues surrounding Sudanese conflicts. Much like our black and white portrayal of conflict that we tend to rely on in mainstream reporting has caused our previous poster here to misidentify actors within Sudanese conflicts (and understandably so).

That same fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of conflict is also why you weren't able to "foresee" Saleh's moves in Yemen or the moves of some non-Shia elites, despite the fact that Zaidi political blocks have a long history of working with Shafi family groups during conflict and times of political expansion and especially during the periods of greatest north/south Yemeni divides.

Your dislike of Islam causes you to engage in high levels of generalizations and those generalizations subsequently limit your ability to engage in robust analysis. To you Islam has to be this one thing (a monolith) and when its expressions or adherents don't react within the confines of that monolith you have a hard time conceptualizing it and try to force it into your model. This is only doable to a certain extent and generally yields sub-par analytical results while leaving many key details unexplained and unaccounted for.

you are quite a joke-----you FOCUSED on my admitted lack of knowledge of the
actual activities and proclivities and agenda of SALEH ----to discredit the FACT
that I have correctly predicted the events of the outcome of the ARAB SPRING
which has been ongoing for more than 4 years. SCIENCE is based on the proof
of theorems capable of PREDICTION--------I won and you lost in the field of analysis of the actual "progress" of the Islamic agenda. I correctly predict and you sputter hackneyed islamo Nazi propaganda

Let me know when you grow up.

 

[irosie91]

your response is idiotic----the manner in which muslims HISTORICALLY engage in conflict has everything to do with the manner in which muslims are engaging in
conflict today.

Conflict isn't that uniform, not even in Muslim regions. The notion that Muslims engage in a singular way of fighting is a bit naive, and that attribute has led you to misidentify the issues surrounding Sudanese conflicts. Much like our black and white portrayal of conflict that we tend to rely on in mainstream reporting has caused our previous poster here to misidentify actors within Sudanese conflicts (and understandably so).

That same fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of conflict is also why you weren't able to "foresee" Saleh's moves in Yemen or the moves of some non-Shia elites, despite the fact that Zaidi political blocks have a long history of working with Shafi family groups during conflict and times of political expansion and especially during the periods of greatest north/south Yemeni divides.

Your dislike of Islam causes you to engage in high levels of generalizations and those generalizations subsequently limit your ability to engage in robust analysis. To you Islam has to be this one thing (a monolith) and when its expressions or adherents don't react within the confines of that monolith you have a hard time conceptualizing it and try to force it into your model. This is only doable to a certain extent and generally yields sub-par analytical results while leaving many key details unexplained and unaccounted for.

you are quite a joke-----you FOCUSED on my admitted lack of knowledge of the
actual activities and proclivities and agenda of SALEH ----to discredit the FACT
that I have correctly predicted the events of the outcome of the ARAB SPRING
which has been ongoing for more than 4 years. SCIENCE is based on the proof
of theorems capable of PREDICTION--------I won and you lost in the field of analysis of the actual "progress" of the Islamic agenda. I correctly predict and you sputter hackneyed islamo Nazi propaganda

Let me know when you grow up.

You are stumped again