Comments:Red Cross appeals for US$33 million in food relief for Zimbabwe
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
Unintended consequences edit
In the usual course of events, oppressive governments would have problems with unrest when policy is so perverted that it effectively starves the citizens. Aid of this kind has the effect of placating the oppressed, stabilizing tyrannical regimes and subsidizing their inefficient and backward policies by freeing them from the consequences. Maybe with the relief from the burden of supplying any food whatsoever, the Zimbabwean regime can move more political cronies onto the land occupied by its few remaining productive private farming operations and lay waste all the agricultural production of what should by rights be the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa, rather than just most of it. The most endearing aspect of this possibility is that it would have no ultimate effect on the food supply and the same number of people would starve anyway. 209.30.92.75 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)