Comments on: David Kilgour’s Generosity http://www.davidswann.ca/blog/2007/12/07/david-kilgours-generosity/ David Swann is the elected member of the Alberta Legislature for Calgary Mountain View and the Liberal Opposition critic for the Executive Council (Premier's office) and Health & Wellness. Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:57:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Curtis Sprissler http://www.davidswann.ca/blog/2007/12/07/david-kilgours-generosity/comment-page-1/#comment-23476 Curtis Sprissler Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:08:36 +0000 http://www.davidswann.ca/blog/2007/12/07/david-kilgours-generosity/#comment-23476 Thanks for taking the time to respond, David... I still find it hard to feel "generous" about sending soldiers to a starving country while burning food in our cars, but I trust you as a politician and an all-around nice guy. Thanks for taking the time to respond, David… I still find it hard to feel “generous” about sending soldiers to a starving country while burning food in our cars, but I trust you as a politician and an all-around nice guy.

]]> By: David Swann http://www.davidswann.ca/blog/2007/12/07/david-kilgours-generosity/comment-page-1/#comment-19244 David Swann Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:32:13 +0000 http://www.davidswann.ca/blog/2007/12/07/david-kilgours-generosity/#comment-19244 I appreciate the perspective you've shared, but respectfully disagree. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group (Wikepedia). Genocide in Darfur was used by U.S. government member Colin Powell first, I believe, after substantial investigation. Romeo Dallaire was initially uncertain that Darfur qualified under this definition and is now quite clearly of the opinion that the Government of Sudan's actions in Darfur constitute genocide. NO doubt food shortage is prevalent, but what is most important is the violent loss of life, children, women and men, which is escalating out of control. There is an opportunity, with sufficient troops, to separate the sides, provide aid again, and move to more constructive peace talks. I believe Canada can make a significant contribution through the UN and should urgently and generously provide such before all hope is lost. David I appreciate the perspective you’ve shared, but respectfully disagree.
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group (Wikepedia). Genocide in Darfur was used by U.S. government member Colin Powell first, I believe, after substantial investigation. Romeo Dallaire was initially uncertain that Darfur qualified under this definition and is now quite clearly of the opinion that the Government of Sudan’s actions in Darfur constitute genocide. NO doubt food shortage is prevalent, but what is most important is the violent loss of life, children, women and men, which is escalating out of control. There is an opportunity, with sufficient troops, to separate the sides, provide aid again, and move to more constructive peace talks.
I believe Canada can make a significant contribution through the UN and should urgently and generously provide such before all hope is lost.
David

]]> By: Curtis Sprissler http://www.davidswann.ca/blog/2007/12/07/david-kilgours-generosity/comment-page-1/#comment-18981 Curtis Sprissler Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:40:45 +0000 http://www.davidswann.ca/blog/2007/12/07/david-kilgours-generosity/#comment-18981 I feel that the Darfur tragedy is being seriously misrepresented and that this could lead to harmful mistaken action. There is not a genocide taking place in Darfur, nor a new civil war. It is an old civil war that has waged for two decades over control of massive oil reserves. (Sudan began exporting oil in 1999.) Sudan is portrayed in our press as a country where Muslim is killing the minority Christians, probably in the interest of adding it to the "war on terror", but in truth it is incredibly diverse, with over 200 ethnic groups. The killing does not match the definition of genocide, but declaring it as such mandates the U.N. to intervene militarily - exactly the thing oil and mining companies would want. Furthermore, the escalation of the civil war is not motivated by racism or cultural intolerance. Violence was exacerbated by two factors: First, Sudan just had massive crop failures and 75% of the country works in agriculture. This caused massive unemployment to coincide with a spike in food prices. Second, industrial nations - like Canada - ignored the pleas of poorer countries whose masses are fed by our surplus grains, and decided to convert our extra food to fuel instead of feeding millions of hungry poor. This will be an increasingly murderous program as food prices rise entirely out of the reach of millions of people. According to the U.N. most of the dead in Sudan are dead of starvation or illness! So what can we do to help? Certainly NOT send troops! Adding more soldiers to a region where farmers are forced to take up arms to feed their families is a recipe for disaster. Starving people can't stop fighting. The only way to help is to feed them. And the only way to do THAT, since our government won't hesitate to commit mass murder for profit, is to conserve energy, and destroy the incentive to turn their food into fuel. I don't trust the UN mission for a number of reasons. First off, their web site lies when it says "it began in 2003 when rebels began attacking the government". In reality, it began suspiciously in the middle of 2002-2004 peace talks that were ending a 20-year civil war by granting the rebels autonomy. For a while there seemed a real risk that peace might break out. Second, the problem is obviously food, so we should be deploying farming vehicles and birth control, not tanks. All Canadian soldiers can do by saving the people from death by the sword is promise them a slow death by starvation. I'll finish by repeating that this is not a genocide. Even the CIA factbook calls it a rebellion. It is a politically motivated civil war. So please, Dr. Swann, don't use the g-word anymore. It's an excuse to avoid saying the f-word: Food. I feel that the Darfur tragedy is being seriously misrepresented and that this could lead to harmful mistaken action.

There is not a genocide taking place in Darfur, nor a new civil war. It is an old civil war that has waged for two decades over control of massive oil reserves. (Sudan began exporting oil in 1999.)

Sudan is portrayed in our press as a country where Muslim is killing the minority Christians, probably in the interest of adding it to the “war on terror”, but in truth it is incredibly diverse, with over 200 ethnic groups. The killing does not match the definition of genocide, but declaring it as such mandates the U.N. to intervene militarily – exactly the thing oil and mining companies would want.

Furthermore, the escalation of the civil war is not motivated by racism or cultural intolerance. Violence was exacerbated by two factors: First, Sudan just had massive crop failures and 75% of the country works in agriculture. This caused massive unemployment to coincide with a spike in food prices. Second, industrial nations – like Canada – ignored the pleas of poorer countries whose masses are fed by our surplus grains, and decided to convert our extra food to fuel instead of feeding millions of hungry poor. This will be an increasingly murderous program as food prices rise entirely out of the reach of millions of people. According to the U.N. most of the dead in Sudan are dead of starvation or illness!

So what can we do to help? Certainly NOT send troops! Adding more soldiers to a region where farmers are forced to take up arms to feed their families is a recipe for disaster. Starving people can’t stop fighting. The only way to help is to feed them. And the only way to do THAT, since our government won’t hesitate to commit mass murder for profit, is to conserve energy, and destroy the incentive to turn their food into fuel.

I don’t trust the UN mission for a number of reasons. First off, their web site lies when it says “it began in 2003 when rebels began attacking the government”. In reality, it began suspiciously in the middle of 2002-2004 peace talks that were ending a 20-year civil war by granting the rebels autonomy. For a while there seemed a real risk that peace might break out. Second, the problem is obviously food, so we should be deploying farming vehicles and birth control, not tanks. All Canadian soldiers can do by saving the people from death by the sword is promise them a slow death by starvation.

I’ll finish by repeating that this is not a genocide. Even the CIA factbook calls it a rebellion. It is a politically motivated civil war. So please, Dr. Swann, don’t use the g-word anymore. It’s an excuse to avoid saying the f-word: Food.

]]>