At the same time, there are only so many column inches available, and there's only so much effort (and so many lines) one can devote to the regurgitating the broader context (that's generally covered in other articles they run).
The Guardian has article right next to the cholera article titled 'Blame the Saudis for Yemen's cholera outbreak – they are targeting the people'.
More than two years of fighting between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi rebels has crippled the country, causing widespread internal displacement, the collapse of the public health system, and leaving millions on the brink of famine.
It does not, however, mention US/UK support for it. I agree it would be better to connect the dismay that this article engenders in the reader with outrage for our support for Saudi Arabia.
It's not so simple. It's all about influence between Iran (which means Iran, Russia etc block) and Saudi Arabia (which means USA, UK etc side block) in Yemen. You can be on one side or on the other, there is no middle ground there. None of the players really cares about Yemen, on this level game is different, there are no "values" besides influence/money.
However the big news in the UK yesterday was about BAE systems not able to keep everyone working and how hoped for orders from Saudi Arabia would save the day.
So the share price of BAE systems and a few death industry Jobs matters more than cholera.
It's the other way around. We need oil, at least for now, so we have to make sure it makes it to the market and Saudis are the major player when it comes to adjusting prices. In exchange, they buy a lot or favors from the power that be...mainly weapons, that provide jobs for US, UK, Germany etc. US could probably overthrow the Saudis in a week if it wanted, and they know.
weasel statement: They would be fighting anyway, oil or no oil, US or no US involvement.
In general, Shias and Sunnis got along quite peacefully until a few decades ago.
But I mean, they're all Moslems, right? It has to do with who the rightful heir to Mohammed is. Is it Ali, or Abu Bakr? The answer to that question thus says which side of the interpretation of "Shia" or "Sunni" is.
Long story short, it's not resolvable without a great deal of violence. Disagreements about succession are hardly ever peaceful.
Yemen ceased their vaccine campaign against cholera.
Cholera before rehydration salts could be quite deadly-- as recently as 1974, Yemen reported a CFR of 16.67%: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.177
(Some of the numbers reported in that table are oddly high-- Vietnam reported a CFR of 100% in 1954, then 4.32% ten years later. They're not showing the denominator, so the hundred percent figure could be just from a handful of cases. Reminds me of Ebola, which was thought to be a death sentence from the awful CFRs reported from small outbreaks, but brought down to a "mere" 25% with aggressive treatment in Western hospitals.)
I know likewise that our situation is disastrous with an climate crisis, economic crisis, refugee crisis, political crisis and now the worst cholera crisis in history too, but the situation still isn't seriously enough command some sort of action.
I'd be surprised if this were true. Would you have a source for this?
This crisis is entirely man-made. Saudis are crushing the Houthi rebels, indifferent to civlian starvation and disease.
Next month will mark fifty years since the end of the British occupation of Aden. That led to Yemen becoming a Cold War battleground.
Then the Gulf war, where their opposite to the US running Arabian politics led to a drastic cut in aid and the deportation of 800,000 Yemenis. The opposition seems justified when you consider the 10% drop in GDP and l food shortages the unrest caused. Tack on another civil war where the US and Saudis sent military forces to Yemen, and the War on Terror killing more Yemeni civilians.
Hezbollah's slogan mentions "Death to the US" for a reason, the Western involvement in the area has not gone well for them.