Sure, but while the world waits for another super power to step up lives are being lost. The US could have announced a phase down with a hard pressure campaign to get the other countries to take over with no loss of life.

Instead these are just numbers in a statistic and opportunities for leverage in geopolitics instead of real lives with as much depth and meaning as your own.

So did the US reach an agreement with them first in order to avoid thousands of easily preventable deaths?

So softpower kept all these peole alive?

Ofc this is overly simplistic. There is hard power enabling soft power and there are alturistic extreme radical leftists actively seeking out and staffing such programs.

Also from that URL (with links):

> There is on-the-ground evidence of resulting impacts: Rising malnutrition mortality in northern Nigeria, Somalia, and in the Rohingya refugee camps on the Myanmar border and rising food insecurity in northeast Kenya, in part linked to the global collapse of therapeutic food supply chains. Spiking malaria deaths in northern Cameroon, again linked to breakdown in the global supply of antimalarials, and a risk of reversal in Lesotho’s fight against HIV, part of a broader health crisis across Africa.

"Spiking malaria deaths in northern Cameroon" links to an article[0] which states:

> BOGO, Cameroon, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Nine-month-old baby Mohamat burned with fever for three days before his family took him to the closest health centre in northern Cameroon, but it was too late. He died of malaria that day. Mohamat's death was part of a spike this year in malaria fatalities that local health officials attribute to foreign aid cuts by the United States. Before the cuts, Mohamat might have been diagnosed earlier by one of more than 2,000 U.S.-funded community health workers who would travel over rough dirt roads to reach the region's remotest villages. And at the health centre, he might have been treated with injectable artesunate, a life-saving drug for severe malaria paid for by U.S. funds that is now in short supply. But the centre had none to give out.

So the URL very directly identifies a dead individual, a country and a continent, while also mentioning other cases that we hopefully all can agree will also directly lead to deaths.

Do you take issue with this example? Or why are you stating that they're not "identifying a single dead individual, or country or even continent where these mass deaths are supposed to have occurred"?

[0]: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

By that reasoning you should be suspicious of the claim that cigarette smoking has caused any deaths from lung cancer, since no one has ever identified a single individual whose lung cancer could be proven to be from smoking.

“the total lives at risk from aid cuts to 1.6 million lives lost per year”

It’s a projection, a risk, and a rate, not a claim it has already happened to specific people.

Individual stories spotlighting lives lost in the wake of these cuts aren't hard to find. Do you want me to Google that for you?

I hope such egotistical zero sum thinking leads to the economic isolation of the US. 4chan Fun fact: You and only can make america great again, amirite. Who needs steady deficit funding when you have freedom.

> Do these people not come first?

Not to republicans who have repeatedly voted down measures to take care of people getting straight up cancer from abysmal practices during the middle east wars that they started.

Those same republicans also voted down support for the aid workers of 9/11 dealing with absurd health issues from all the dust.

Literal heros and innocent victims, but republicans don't want to spend pennies on them.

> Despite popular belief, it is not the job of the US Tax Payer to feed the impoverished world.

This is an overly simplified perspective. Work at this scale requires impressive logistics and commitments that are haphazardly "rug-pulled" can have catastrophic consequences, regardless of whose "job" it is.

When I was looking at being a bone marrow donor, they talk about this. The process for such donation is involved, including minor surgical procedures for the donor. But they talk about autonomy and consent, and one of the topics is this (paraphrasing): Do I have the right to change my mind about donation at any time?

The answer: while you always maintain the legal right to withdraw consent, at a certain point in the process, the recipients existing bone marrow is destroyed in preparation for your donation. At that point, there may be considered a moral obligation to continue the donation, as without your donation, the recipient will die, due to the destruction in preparation.

> How many billions have been sent to Africa?

Speaking for myself, I'd rather continue sending billions to Africa than contributing ~1.5% of Israel's GDP in foreign assistance to it.

> it is not the job of the US Tax Payer to feed the impoverished world.

Other countries would like to contribute (more), but the people that represent us taxpayers want to keep all the inluencing for your good selves.

You know Republicans keep cutting services to veterans right? While democrats pretty much always vote in favor of benefits for vets.

You choices aren't to either fund vets or fund aid. Your choices are to cut both or save both and I have a feeling you voted to cut both.