I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I returned from Sudan recently [0] and it is a fascinating country full of wonderful people and rich in culture - you will love visiting there! The Sudanese continue to suffer badly economically however, partly as a result of being on the US "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list [0] even though I firmly believe they no longer deserve to be there. Sudan still has many problems to tackle aside from this, but the US continuing to keep them on the terror list is without doubt only serving to make things worse.

Inflation is a huge problem in Sudan, largely brought on due to a lack of foreign exchange and trade (I had to take in enough USD to cover my entire trip). During my two week visit the Sudanese pound was devalued 39% overnight [2] and prices for common items rose noticeably during my stay. I came away feeling a huge amount of empathy for the locals who are finding it increasingly difficult to even afford basics such as bread there.

[0] https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10156632235706760&...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_(U...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-07/sudan-rev...

I guess the votes come based on whether you assume he's being serious or sarcastic and the current opinion you hold of Sudan.

It is hard to judge when made over an impersonal channel like a plain text comment and most people won't check grecy's profile to draw the correct conclusion: not a trace of sarcasm.

I think you misunderstood the ...start asking for receipts part of nkozrya’s comment. nkozrya is not suggesting that U.S. politician’s are never correct in their assessment of evil. nkozrya is suggesting that they aren’t always right. This is hardly a controversial point. Believing otherwise is dangerous. It is critical that we trust but verify claims of our leaders.

>nkozrya is suggesting that they aren’t always right.

Even more so, there are all kinds of "national interests" political/cultural biases, and even personal interests (e.g. Cheney and Halliburton) mixed in their assessments.

They're not some disinterested third parties trying to make the fairest assessment possible for the benefit of mankind, but agents of a top world dog nation-state wanting to get more resources and control, and to further its own prospects.

Your parent wasn't being sarcastic. Check his profile.

I don’t normally check profiles before responding to comments. It appeared to be sarcasm to me. Sudan does have problems (both North and South) and U.S. politicians have commented upon them.

Thanks for letting me know. And that last sentence wasn’t sarcasm on my part!

The danger of the exclamation point!

Isn’t this the guy driving all over Africa in his converted Jeep?

I wouldn’t be surprised if he is being sincere about visiting Sudan

It would appear so. Text again proves to be a poor medium to convey emotions

Looking at his map[1], I think you are correct. He's in Kenya heading toward Sudan. Probably giving South Sudan [2] a wide birth though.

1 http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview

2 https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/south-sudan/safety-...

The fact that some boogiemen are not as terrible as portrayed, or that we shouldn't put too much effort to go after them, does not imply that all boogiemen are actually nice.

There's the fact that nobody appointed them the global cops in charge of boogiemen.

There's also the fact that more often than not, they act based on internal power plays and national interests of its own, and not for some "greater good".

There's also the fact that they have fucked up tons of countries with their interventions -- 4 countries in the last 20 years ago, turning relatively stable regimes into hell-holes of civil war, mayhem, and terrorism.

Not to go into how they have been historically worse than the boogiemen they complain about (from funding dictators, to directly invading countries, toppling democratically elected leaders, and so on).

Actually the world appointed them overlords in the Bretton Woods agreement.

> does not imply that all boogiemen are actually nice. reply

I think that goes without saying. But after fighting ideological / proxy wars against communism, "terrorism" and "hell, just because" I think we need a little more support.

Here we have a long-standing soft war against a country and/or people for whom Western meddling has demonstrably affected their life for the worse. Every time they do anything acting in their own sovereign interest we peg it as evil and impose some wrist-slapping or worse.

I don't for one second believe that the leadership of Iran is "good." Nor do I believe they're inherently evil. We refuse to concede any responsibility in the fate of their land over the last 100 years, continue to box them in and it seems more and more apparent we're keeping them on the hotplate in case we need a new war.

I have a pretty skeptical view of lower-case-l libertarians, most of whom are just using it as a veneer over some otherwise lockstep partisan affiliation. But one thing I've found very encouraging is that movement's general cynicism toward continued world power interventionism.