11/10-10/17 #1

For my paper I am writing about how climate change has affected the Darfur crisis and how the lack of rain and vegetation in the last 40 years and how the Arabs and Africans need to put aside their differences in order to work on the problems plaguing their towns and villages. If I wanted to incorporate a naysayer argument in my paper I would debate that while desertification has caused the two sides to have to share resources more and therefore cause more violence from people that getting what they want. I would discuss that eventually water is going to run out anyway and that two sides of people that already hate each other are most likely going to run into violence sometime. If someone was to naysay me like that I would point out that while two ethnicities that disagree with each other throughout history are bound to fight every once in awhile I would point out that many of the differences this time around such as the farmers land being shrunk due to less rainfall the last 50 years and also the underground wells drying up so it makes village people travel even farther to get water. Then lastly, I believe that the U.N. needs to become more involved in the humanitarian efforts there and to also have troops there in a peacekeeping capacity so they can make sure the genocide stops and prevents further incidents. What a naysayer would say to that is that civil wars need to be solved within the country to be able to have an everlasting peace accord. Also that when outside countries get involved sometimes it isn’t in the best interest of most of the population and that country is just helping to better themselves.