Exactly what does Live8 expect to accomplish?

[TexasTiger 13,053]

Is it possible that all of this attention and free money and handouts will make them more poor?

167243[/snapback]

...The money should be use to privitize industry, infrastructure, privitize the natural resources, and make the people less dependent on government hand-outs and the we are the world charity.

Here's the bottom line: If resources aren't privitized, then no business ventures will succeed...

Many seem to forget that socialism is the biggest failure in world history...

Did the U.S.A become the world's lone superpower by charities and donations? No.

The good ole U.S.A became great through dilligence, and hard working citizens who didn't have their labored controlled by the central government.

Happy 4th everyone!

Alex

167246[/snapback]

This isn't about socialism. The issue is much more complicated than your rant would indicate. Here is a little information:

For decades, Sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world, was spending $30 million per day repaying debts to the world's rich countries and international institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Many countries in Africa were spending more each year on debt than on health care and education combined. Why? Decades worth of loans had been given without much thought to how countries could pay them back. Some of the loans went to prop up bad governments or military regimes that are now long gone. Some of the loans were wasted by the governments that received them. Some were given by rich countries in ways that served their own self-interest. Skyrocketing interest rates and bad economic policies have multiplied these old debts over and over again. Between 1970 and 2002 Africa received $540 billion in loans. Despite the fact that over that same period, African countries paid back $550--$10 billion more than the original loans--today they still owe another $293 billion.

Over the past few years, thanks to the efforts of those who contributed to the international Jubilee 2000 movement for debt relief, politicians have begun to respond to the debt crisis. In 1999, the world's richest countries came together to write off billions of dollars of poor countries' debts through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund's Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) program. The HIPC program provides debt relief to countries with good governments committed to fighting corruption and poverty and investing in the health and education of their people. There are 38 countries currently enrolled in the HIPC initiative (32 of them in Africa) and so far 18 of them have completed the program have benefited from debt relief and have been able to channel that money into poverty–reduction programs; another 11 have begun the process and are receiving interim relief.

The problem is, though, that HIPC did not completely cancel countries' debts and even after reaching their completion points, many countries were still spending too much money on debt, often taking on new loans to repay old loans. In an effort to end this unending cycle of debt, the Finance Ministers of the world's wealthiest countries agreed in June of 2005 to free the HIPC countries from 100% of their debts by canceling the debts owed to the World Bank, The IMF and the African Development Bank. It also calls for a move from loans to grants for the poorest countries in the world in an effort to end to vicious cycle of debt in which they have been entrapped. It will immediately cancel $40 billion of debt for the 18 countries that have already reached their completion point and will eventually result in $56 billion of debt cancellation once all 38 HIPC countries reach completion point. The Finance Ministers also stated that they would consider a debt deal for Nigeria which is not a HIPC country but has $35b in debt and 95 million people living on less than $1 per day. This debt deal is an important step in the fight against global poverty, but there are still other poor countries in need of debt cancellation so that they can better fight HIV/AIDS and extreme poverty.

While debt cancellation alone will not generate all the resources needed by poor countries, the money freed up from debt relief has consistently been put to good use; World Bank estimates show that poverty reducing expenditures will rise from previous levels of less than twice that of debt service to more than four times current debt service.   For example, Uganda –the first country to benefit from debt relief– used money freed up by debt cancellation to double primary school enrollment and invest in their national HIV/AIDS plan which has contributed to Uganda's successful reversal of HIV infection rates. Mozambique's debt relief has enabled the government to immunize a half million children. Tanzania eliminated fees for grade school, and Benin eliminated school fees in rural areas, allowing thousands of children to attend classes for the first time.

WHAT MUST HAPPEN

--Donors must immediately implement the 100% debt cancellation agreement so that countries can begin putting their savings to use.

--Donors also must urgently reach agreement on a debt deal for Nigeria as promised at the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting. They must also continue to work to cancel all debts that hinder the fight against poverty in other poor countries not currently included in the HIPC initiative.

--The governments of Africa and the world's donors must work together to ensure that money freed up by debt relief is put to good use to fight poverty and improve the lives of the world's poorest people.

I saw Bono talking about this on Meet The Press Sunday before last. The G8 leaders and the leaders of the ONE campaign recognize that gov't corruption in Africa is a huge problem which is why they've been working with the leaders in the G8 countries to structure this debt relief in such a way as to give to sound gov'ts that will use the money properly or go around the gov'ts that are corrupt to get relief directly to the people.

As far as the "teach a man to fish" cliche, again, not that simple. The deck is stacked. I'd like to see anyone who easily tosses out that line go over to Africa and try to work yourself up by your own bootstraps with only the resources the typical African has and the trade environment they have to deal with. It ain't America over there, fellas:

As important as development assistance and debt relief are, no African person or government wants to rely on foreign aid for the provision of basic needs. Africans want a fairer system which lets them trade with the rich nations and earn more money, so they can grow their economies and pay for their own education and healthcare. But instead of earning more money to invest in improving the lives of their people, Africa has been earning less and less. In 1980 Africa had a 6% share of world trade. By 2002 this had dropped to just 2% despite the fact that Africa has 12 % of the world’s population. If Africa could regain just an additional 1% share of global trade, it would earn $70 billion more in exports each year – more than three times what the region currently receives in foreign aid.

Rich countries are very interested in talking about the importance of trade as the primary motor of economic growth in developing countries, yet there’s been no real action because these rich countries heavily protect their own markets against exports from the poorest countries through import duties and quotas. Furthermore rich countries continue to subsidize their own agricultural sectors to the tune of a billion dollars a day, making it impossible for African farmers to compete internationally. What rich countries fail to realize is that fairer trade is not just an opportunity for Africa but for the all countries—even them.

Africans in turn know they need to diversify their exports from unprofitable basic crops such as coffee and cocoa and into products which earn more money such as clothes, textiles and manufactured goods. But Africans could also earn more from basic crops if they were allowed to process these for export. For example Ghana can export raw cocoa duty free to Europe, but a 25% tariff is imposed if they process that cocoa before exporting it to Europe. It is this processing (tinning, roasting, labeling) which helps a country earn more money and develop its manufacturing base – and which allows its economy to grow. While fair trade could be Africa’s ticket out of the vicious cycles of poverty, unfair trade rules like these trap Africa at the gates.

These double standards have to end. It is important to have rules – but not ones only written by the rich. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the place where these rules are written. But of the 38 African nations which are members of the WTO, 15 nations have no representative at all at the headquarters in Geneva, and 4 nations have an office of only one person. Most rich nations have dozens of staff to protect their trading interests.

WHAT MUST HAPPEN

--The richest nations must open their markets quota and duty free to African exports and remove agricultural subsidies which hurt African farmers.

--African countries must be allowed to harness the power of trade in their own way to maximize poverty alleviation and economic growth – there is no “cookie-cutter” trade policy to force on poor countries.

The point is, Africa is in a crisis of epic proportions, between the crushing debt, the trade rules stacked against them and the AIDS crisis which is killing off an entire generation. Some of these things can certainly be attributed to their own actions. A lot of it is not their fault. Regardless, we have the ability to help them pull themselves out of this but it's going to take money, it's going to take time and it's going to take a chance in attitude on our side of the pond.

167270[/snapback]

Well said. The problems are extemely complex.

On a different, but somewhat related note, I don't know if anyone on this forum has seen the documentary "The Lost Boys of Sudan," but if you can find it, watch it. It is stunning.

About the movie:

http://www.lostboysfilm.com/

This website isn't about the movie, per se, but give some flavor of it:

http://www.redcross.org/news/in/africa/0108lostboyspage.html

[MDM4AU 336]

...and acts like Elton John, Bon Jovi, and others have to raise money on their own.

167095[/snapback]

The concert is free... so how exactly are they raising the money?

Churches don't get he publicity they deserve for the things they do for countries around the world. When's the last time you saw a report on the news of a local church's mission trip? It's not PC or interesting enough to the media so it doesn't get covered. But let a bunch of stars with millions of dollars give a free concert for "AWARENESS" of the plight in Africa and it's covered wall to wall.

Which is more impressive? Congregations of average Joes with average incomes giving money or their time (vacation time) to help with hunger, education and medicine in a poverty ridden country...Or a group of stars taking time out of their $$MILLION$$ tour to sing a few songs. Which is more impressive, the single parent with two kids who gives $25 of their limited income along with their neighbor or an Elton John or a Bon Jovi or a Linkin Park or a Destiny's Child, or a Sting, etc. giving a free concert?

167152[/snapback]

Why, in your mind, must one be better or more impressive than the other? If the musicians can raise awareness among the world's citizens and help is sent where it's needed, why isn't that a good thing worthy of support instead of scorn and ridicule?

167157[/snapback]

I don't disagree. I think both are impressive. My problem is with acting like churches aren't doing enough and Bon Jovi is having to shoulder the load as it appears that RadioWryn believes. It is true that these artists are touring non-stop and yet they add another stop FOR FREE for a great cause. It is also true and just as worthy that I or my neighbor give what is required by God plus as much as we can to help. And after our tithe, it may be going on a mission trip rather than actual dollars. America has given more than any other free nation (if I am not mistken) and much of that comes from the churches. It doesn't all come from donations to the Red Cross or UNICEF or Live 8 vendors.

I may have not chosen my words well, but it seems to be more and more common to attack churches for a myriad of things by the cynical, pessimistic, and/or non-believers. And I take offense to that and feel the need to point it out.

Granted we could probably do a little more, but do you feel that the church fails to do enough? Do you feel that the celebrities do more? Do you agree with Radio?

167165[/snapback]

Al? :unsure:

[TitanTiger 20,530]

I've reprinted a transcript from the June 24th edition of Nightline on ABC. George Stephanopolus interviewed George Clooney and Pat Robertson (yes, THAT Pat Robertson) side by side. I found it very encouraging to see people who typically find themselves on opposite sides working together for something so needed:

Split screen: George Clooney via satellite Burbank CA and Pat Robertson via satellite Virginia beach VA

GS: And we're back now with the actor George Clooney and Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting network. And Gentleman I have to say it is really something to see you both on a split screen, together, and welcome to both of you. Reverend Robertson let me begin with you. Are you worried at all about what your 700 club viewers might think about you sharing a platform with George Clooney?

PR: I think they’re delighted. You know, George is tremendous humanitarian and I think it’s time the world knows about what he is doing. He has a great compassion for the poor and the needy. My audience has the same thing so I think we're right in sync on this.

GS: Well he scratched your back George. Any qualms in Hollywood?

GC: No, none at all right now. The great part about working with Dr Robertson has been that, obviously it’s rather strange bedfellows the two of us being together, but that’s part of the movement, that we're trying to say that this is not about social issues or ideologies or politics. This is simply; there really is only one side to this issue.

GS: Take on the skeptics directly though, you must hear it all the time. Celebrities picking up on their causes. It probably does the celebrity as much good as it does the cause.

GC: Are you talking to Dr Robertson?

GS: I’m talking to you actually, go ahead.

GC: (laughing) “I know”

GC: No, you know of course that happens a lot, we're pretty used to that --your argument –there’s so many easy arguments that say we're looking to be more famous. That’s not really what we are trying to do. What we are really doing is trying to take a position. We understand the responsibility of celebrity. We understand that Freedom of Speech as they say doesn’t mean that you have the right to run into a crowded theatre and yell “Fire” unless of course there is a fire. And there seems to be a pretty big fire there right now.

GS: There is a fire there right now according to a lot of observers, Rev Robertson, and it appears that President Bush, of all the 8 leaders of the G8 coming up in the first week of July, that he is going to be the biggest obstacle to getting more development aid into Africa. How do you persuade him to add that extra 25 billion dollars in development aid that Bono and Prime Minister Blair are calling for?

PR: Well, I think that Tony Blair has been a great supporter of the President and his stand on the Gulf War has been a staunch-staunch ally and I think that he’s got some chips, if I can use that term, to collect from his friend George Bush. I think that Bush is a very compassionate man and there is no reason in the world that a country as rich as the United States—We’re talking about a federal budget, just the spending of the government of 2.6 trillion dollars and what we are asking for in this one campaign is just one percent of that. And I don’t think that’s very much considering all the amount of money we spend on Arms, 400 billion plus, why can’t we give something to the poor?

GS: Boy, that sounds like an argument out of the children’s defense fund. Not someone I usually associate with you Rev Robertson. How hard has it been to convince conservative- social conservatives to spend as much time and energy and money to this cause at they do to other social issues here at home?

PR: Well, as for as the socials… Our Operations Blessing just had a flood of donations during the Tsunami, I mean, we could hardly keep up with it. So many Americans were giving to help those storm ravaged people. For example we have an orthodox Jew in PA who contacted he said, “I am concerned about Darfur. I want to help you facilitate some medicine to Dar Fur. So we’re sending 1.4 million dollars to Darfur on Monday to a Catholic bishop in the Sudan.” So I mean it’s kind of this interdenominational thing and the people are very very generous. So this ONE campaign is hitting the right chord with my supporters.

GS: George I read that you got into this after your experience trying to raise money for Tsunami relief after that Tsunami back in December. Tell us about that.

GC: I was talking to Brad about it. They were putting together this commercial for the ONE campaign that we were going to run—we ran on all networks really. And it was basically-it’s not just we weren’t trying to raise money necessarily but awareness. And I talked to the some of the guys involved. I said well “Who do we have from all sides of the issue from the conservative side, from the evangelicals?” and they said, “Not really much, yet” I said, “ I thinks that’s a mistake. Because I think that if you look at Dr. Robertson’s record, in Africa particularly, he’s been a huge supporter of this long before we were involved. And it seemed as if that was the perfect phone call to make. Luckily- I was lucky enough to get on the phone with him and asked him if he would be involved. He jumped on board and it’s been-- it’s been such a huge difference to this program.

GS: Reverend Robertson you ended up side by side in a commercial with P-Diddy. Could you ever imagine that?

PR: (Laughs) I tell you what- the only thing I got in common with him is that my wife has one of those 300 Chrysler and P-Diddy has one. His fans see my wife’s car and want to buy it. Other than that I have never had any association with P-Diddy.

(Note here you can hear George Clooney laughing in the background)

Commercial

GS: I’m back with George Clooney and Pat Robertson. George let me pick this up with you. Because a lot of analysts who have looked at this say that the problem is not just money; it is how well the African nations spend this money. They have problems of corruption and really failed governments. Is there anything that you all can do to address that problem?

GC: We will be—we are addressing it, obviously Mugabe won’t be getting funds right away. A big part of this has to be transparency, has to be accountability. This isn’t something where we are just going to be handing out money. Understanding you and I, and I think everyone around, understands that this is a very complicated issue. And it’s going to take time and it’s going to take a lot of smart people in a room working on it but where it has to start with –is it has to start with this public outcry and it has this sort of groundswell right now. And it needs all of us to be saying “Not on our watch”; that our generation must be the generation that says “45 million people in a decade aren’t going to die because they were born in the wrong place” and that has been our goal and that seems to be the wave that we are riding right now.

GS: And Reverend Robertson, you know all the awareness in the world, all the money in the world isn’t going to make a difference in Africa unless you get AIDS under control. I know that you believe that abstinence is the best prevention policy. But are you open to supporting programs that include promotion of responsible use of condoms?

PR: Absolutely, I just don’t think we can close our eyes to human nature and that’s been the problem and so we certainly need to educate people, as a matter of fact, this Operation Blessing that I have, has taken a grant for AIDS education. Abstinence is one of the things we are teaching but we are also teaching the responsible use of condoms and other things. You have to do that--given the magnitude—you know George, 17 million people have died in Africa and I understand that 25 million have HIV. We’ve got 12 million orphans; that number could go to 20. It’s decimated these nations. I have talked to heads of nations who are just horrified at what’s going to happen in the next decade to their children. So we have got to do everything we can, any kind of education as far as I am concerned is fine. Although I do believe abstinence in this context is the best policy.

GS: George how do you make sure this movement has staying power. That it lasts beyond Gleneagles?

GC: Well that’s going to be the trick. That’s the difficulty of this and it’s going to require a lot of work from all of us. And it’ s going to require people who can keep it in front of the news, which sometimes is well known people. It’s going to also require vigilance. We have—This is going to be a long process this isn’t going to just happen, there are countries that are successful right now, Mozambique and Tanzania. Countries like that we know we can help immediately. There are some countries that are borderline democracies that we can possibly turn around if we get involved right now. We had some luck with that even during the tsunami event. When we raised enough money that we actually gained support away from some of the Al Quida members there. So it’s a long process that we are all going to have to continue to work on. We can’t let go of it. It’s that important to all of us.

GS: Reverend Robertson, do you think it’s possible for a coalition like this to come together in the future around other issues as well?

PR: I hope so George. It is such an encouraging thing. You know it really hurts me to see this nation of ours torn apart with such a cynicism, so much fighting going on in the Senate, so much rancor. I think it is time we clasp hands around those issues where we are all at one. That’s why this is called the ONE campaign because we are at one that this crisis has got to be solved. You know, it’s interesting though, you’re former boss invited a group of us up to the cabinet room, I don’t remember if you were on board at the time.

GS: I think it was after I left, but I remember it though

PR: It was a historic meeting to do debt relief and he said it was the most interesting collection of people that had gathered in that room. But we were all onboard, lets cut these debts to those impoverished 3rd world countries and that was in 1999 I believe, so 6 years later were still at it.

GS: You know Reverend Robertson, we only have a little bit…

GC: Also—Also

GS: Go ahead.

GC: I was also going to say—this is something very important to the President. He actually has a very good record on it. He is ahead of schedule in his funding of the AIDS in Africa Relief Program the 15 billion dollars; he’s tripled the aid from the last administration, although it was quite a low number. He wants to do this, so it is our job to send him to the G8, send Tony Blair to the G8, to send Martin, to send Chirac, to send all those people from across the world off with this groundswell of support saying this is that important to us.

[TitanTiger 20,530]

Here is the transcript from Bono's interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press, June 26th:

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back on MEET THE PRESS. With us now from Dublin, Ireland, the lead singer of U2 and the co-founder of DATA: Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa. Here's Bono.

Welcome. This coming Saturday and a week from Wednesday, huge concerts around the world and then a final concert in Scotland called The Final Push. What is The Final Push all about?

BONO: Yeah. Well, the G8 is such a big thing here in Europe. I know it used to be in the United States. I mean, in Europe it's like the Super Bowl. You know, you have the eight most powerful men in the world meeting someplace, in this case on a golf course in Gleneagles, Scotland, and people are wondering, you know, what will come out of it and whether--is it just a talking shop? Or in this case, is there a chance for history?

Those of us that have been working on development issues in Africa, in particular, are holding out that this could be a historic breakthrough, a real sea change on issues facing the poorest of the poor. And there will be hundreds of thousands of people turning out, religious groups, student groups. Prime Minister Blair and--published the Commission for Africa, which is a new analysis of aid and effective aid and how to spend it, and the need, he says, and most of the world agrees, is about $50 billion. And we can really turn things around on that continent but we have to have agreement from everybody, especially the United States, if we're to get there.

MR. RUSSERT: You say from everybody. In fact, you gave an interview to Time magazine. "Question: Which of the G8 leaders do you think remains the toughest nut to crack? Bono: The most important and toughest nut is still President Bush. He feels he's already doubled and tripled aid to Africa, which he started from far too low a place. He can stand there and say he paid at the office already. He shouldn't because he'll be left out of the history books. But it's hard for him because of the expense of the war and the debts."

How much pressure do you think should be on President Bush at this time?

BONO: Well, I think he's done an incredible job, his administration, on AIDS. And 250,000 Africans are on antiviral drugs. They literally owe their lives to America. In one year that's being done. But it can't just be AIDS. It has to be the environment in which viruses like AIDS thrive, or malaria. I mean, 3,000 Africans die every day of a mosquito bite. Can you think about that, malaria? That's not acceptable in the 21st century and we can stop it. And water-borne illnesses--dirty water takes another 3,000 lives--children, mothers, sisters.

Yes, there's a lot of pressure on President Bush. If he, though, in his second term, is as bold in his commitments to Africa as he was in the first term, he indeed deserves a place in history in turning the fate of that continent around. If he doesn't I fear that even the good work that he has started will be forgotten by history and that really makes me very, very sad, because I worked on a lot of this stuff, the AIDS initiative and the Millennium Challenge, and really want to see--I think he deserves his place in history here. I believe he has the heart for it, but his advisors are going to have to let him go to Gleneagles with something other than timid proposals and pilot programs and rhetoric. They're going to have to let him sign, you know, a proper check. One billions dollars is all it would take to save a million lives from malaria, with bed nets, etc., $1 billion. Four billion dollars, you could change the world. From the United States, an extra commitment of $4 billion.

MR. RUSSERT: There is a new television campaign sponsored by yourself and other organizations, which features former president of South Africa Nelson Mandela. Let's just watch a piece of that.

(Videotape of "The One Campaign Ad"):

MR. NELSON MANDELA (Former President of South Africa): We now need leadership, precision and political courage. They have an historical opportunity to open the door to hope and the possibility to offer better future for all.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "Political courage." Those words seem to be a direct challenge to President Bush and the other leaders.

BONO: Yeah. Yeah, it is a challenge. It's just one of those moments. You know, you have the French and the Germans agreeing with the British. That already is extraordinary in these times, believe me, in Europe. The French, you know, have their colonial past in Africa, and they see themselves as an interface and are ready to step up to .7 percent GDP commitment by 2011. The British .7 commitment. And, you know, the United States is down at about .17, .2 is within sight. But really to get serious about this, the United States has to get up to .3, .4, .5. That's our wish here.

And we know it will take time to get there. We know you've got a deficit problem. We understand there's a war being fought. But, really, if we're to take this issue seriously, and we must, because in 50 years, you know, when they look back at this moment, they'll talk about the war against terror, they'll talk about the Internet, and they'll talk about what we did or didn't do about this continent bursting into flames. It is the most extraordinary thing to watch people dying three in a bed, two on top and one underneath, as I have seen in Malawi, in Lilongwe, Malawi. I mean, it is an astonishing thing. And it's avoidable. It's an avoidable catastrophe. You saw what happened with the tsunami. You see the outpouring, you see the dramatic pictures. Well, there's a tsunami happening every month in Africa, but it's an avoidable catastrophe. It is not a natural calamity.

MR. RUSSERT: One of your fellow organizers of the concert, Sir Bob Geldof, is quoted as saying that he wanted no ranting or raving at President Bush or Prime Minister Blair about the war. He was quoted of saying, "We want to bring Bush in, not run him away." Is that a stated goal of the meeting in Scotland with a million people on the street not to protest the war but to be in favor of increased aid to Africa?

BONO: Absolutely. This is the other war. This is a war that can be won so much more easily than the war against terror, and we wish the president and others luck in winning the war against terror. But this- -there will be a time when AIDS, you know, they'll find a vaccine, it will be over, malaria will be over. No, this is an issue that I think can unite Europe, can unite the world. And remember the rest of the world are very suspicious about the G8 countries, about the industrialized world. They're not sure, you know, if we have any values. They're not sure who we are. They meet us with our military, they meet us with our trade, our movies, our, you know, commodities. But they need to meet who we are on a deeper level. And that's where they meet us with foreign assistance.

And if it's spent well, if it's not used to redecorate presidential palaces and as it's not now. This is targeted, focused aid we're talking about now, only given to people who are tackling corruption. Then everyone's with them. Now, this is, I think, this will unite people. And I fear--and it's the reason I'm talking to you today--that, you know, because there's so much going of in America with the war in Iraq and stuff, that you might miss this opportunity. I love America. I believe in America. It offends me, it upsets me when the rest of the world thinks America is not doing enough. The president is right to say they're doing a quarter of all aid to Africa. He has doubled, even tripled if he follows through, aid to Africa. But they are about to double aid, the rest of Europe, to double aid, so that will leave America as one-eighth of all aid going to Africa if they don't match that. And that's not a place Americans want to be, one-eighth. And that will be Europe doing four times as much as America. You know, I want to encourage Americans just to give their president permission. I know he wants to do this, but his advisers must break with this kind of fiscal conservativity on this one issue. This is the moment to be generous right now. I'm sure of that.

MR. RUSSERT: The concerns that many in the administration have and many people across the country were reflected in this article in yesterday's New York Daily News. The headline: "Can music really save Africa? Concerts help but corruption hurts." And the article goes to say, Bono, "Many--in the West and in Africa--doubt that canceling debt and pouring billions more into Africa will do any good while the continent remains plagued by disease, civil war and corruption. Makeda Tsegaye, an Ethiopian activist based in Kenya, said writing off debts without demanding democratic reforms would be counterproductive. `A rare occasion of debt-relief is not going to solve the problem.' Corruption at the highest levels of many of Africa's governments has meant that much of the money given in aid ends up used as the personal slush funds for dictators. `It's always meant that--just making a deposit in the Swiss bank account of the leaders,' said Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute."

Enormous ramp in corruption and many of the countries that are on the list to be aided are on the State Department list of countries that violate human rights. How can you assure people in the United States that the money that will be given to Africa, the debt that will be forgiven, will not wind up in limousines and private jets, with dictators who abuse their own people?

BONO: This is the number-one problem facing Africa, corruption; not natural calamity, not the AIDS virus. This is the number-one issue and there's no way around it. That's what was so clever about President Bush's Millennium Challenge. It was start-up money for new democracies. It was giving increases of aid flows only to countries that are tackling corruption. That's what's so clever. It's--the implementation of the Millennium Challenge has not happened. It is in trouble. They recognize that. President Bush is embarrassed about that. They're trying to put it right. But the idea, the concept was a great one. Debt cancellation also has conditionalities built into it. People need to know this.

So no one is talking about aid in the old sense, the money down a rat hole thing. No one wants that. It makes matters worse, not better. This is new targeted aid. Now, there will be some countries where mercy is needed and aid has to go--certain levels of aid have to go. You can't hold people responsible, the populace responsible for their dictators. But in those instances, you just root the aid away from the governments and through the NGOs on the ground. That's the modern way.

MR. RUSSERT: There was an article in The Guardian in London suggesting that you and Mr. Geldof were being used by Prime Minister Blair and President Bush, and let me just read it and give you a chance to respond. "[bono and Geldof] are lending legitimacy to power. From the point of view of men like Bush and Blair, the deal is straightforward. We let these hairy people share a platform with us, we make a few cost-free gestures, and in return, we receive their praise and capture their fans. The sanctity of our collaborators rubs off on us. If the trick works, the movements ranged against us will disperse, imagining that the world's problems have been solved."

Are you concerned about that?

BONO: As a hairy person, yes. I'm very concerned about that. It is the biggest risk that we take as activists, but I've been in the room with Condoleezza Rice. I've been in the room with President Bush and Tony Blair and Chirac and Schroeder and on the Democratic side, you know, with John Kerry and all over Congress. Am I being used? In a certain sense perhaps, but it works both ways. If they deliver, we must deserve applause. We must give the respect.

And on the debt issue which they've delivered in this last week, they deserve credit. If they blow it, then they deserve our boos and our hisses and they will lose our audience, and our audience is a big audience. I don't mean the U2 audience, but music constituency. They're the floating vote. They're the people who haven't made up their mind where they're going to vote. And believe me, I've been in the heartland of America. I've been in every city just in the last year either with U2 or on speaking tours and churches and schools. And people want to believe that this can be the generation that says no to stupid poverty, you know, and it's an obscenity. And in a world of plenty, children are dying for lack of food in their belly. We can actually do something about this. It's not mistrusted Irish rock star nonsense. There's a critical path. Cleverer people than I have put price tags. There are mechanisms in place to prevent the money being wasted. We must do this. This is--our generation demands it. There's an audience out there that demands it, and if we blow it, I know that I'm going to be embarrassed and this is--yes--and there's a lot at stake here.

MR. RUSSERT: What do you believe will happen at the G8 meeting?

BONO: I think in the next week, if the U.S. looks deep into its soul and more importantly its wallet and says, "Look, if we want to win the war against terror, we have to win the war against poverty." I didn't say that by the way. Colin Powell said that, a military man, and if want to win the war against poverty or be seen at least to show global leadership here, we are going to have to put our hands in our pocket in ways that we don't want to, but this is the moment, this is the time, and we have the rest of the world waiting. They're already in agreement, as I said to you earlier, the French, the Germans, the Italians, and if America comes through and leads this, I promise President Bush, I promise the people of America 'cause these are hard choices to make. I understand that, but this will be something in 50 years' time, in 25 years' time people will be very proud to have been a part of.

MR. RUSSERT: Bono, aka Paul Hewson, we thank you very much for joining us and sharing your views on MEET THE PRESS.

BONO: Thank you very much, Tim. Thanks for having me on the program. God bless you.

MR. RUSSERT: And we'll be right back.

[alexgreatau 0]

Is it possible that all of this attention and free money and handouts will make them more poor?

167243[/snapback]

...The money should be use to privitize industry, infrastructure, privitize the natural resources, and make the people less dependent on government hand-outs and the we are the world charity.

Here's the bottom line: If resources aren't privitized, then no business ventures will succeed...

Many seem to forget that socialism is the biggest failure in world history...

Did the U.S.A become the world's lone superpower by charities and donations? No.

The good ole U.S.A became great through dilligence, and hard working citizens who didn't have their labored controlled by the central government.

Happy 4th everyone!

Alex

167246[/snapback]

This isn't about socialism. The issue is much more complicated than your rant would indicate. Here is a little information:

First of all, my post was not a rant. A rant is blithering information that cannot be proven as fact. I won't belabour this point with you.

For decades, Sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world, was spending $30 million per day repaying debts to the world's rich countries and international institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Many countries in Africa were spending more each year on debt than on health care and education combined. Why? Decades worth of loans had been given without much thought to how countries could pay them back. Some of the loans went to prop up bad governments or military regimes that are now long gone. Some of the loans were wasted by the governments that received them. Some were given by rich countries in ways that served their own self-interest. Skyrocketing interest rates and bad economic policies have multiplied these old debts over and over again. Between 1970 and 2002 Africa received $540 billion in loans. Despite the fact that over that same period, African countries paid back $550--$10 billion more than the original loans--today they still owe another $293 billion.

Okay, this proves my piont here, Titan. Bad Governments, military regimes, money wasted on the governments that received them. The bad economic policies were set by the military and socialist governments who were beneficiaries of that aid. Also, those governments purchased money on credit they didn't have. Check, mate.

Over the past few years, thanks to the efforts of those who contributed to the international Jubilee 2000 movement for debt relief, politicians have begun to respond to the debt crisis. In 1999, the world's richest countries came together to write off billions of dollars of poor countries' debts through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund's Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) program. The HIPC program provides debt relief to countries with good governments committed to fighting corruption and poverty and investing in the health and education of their people. There are 38 countries currently enrolled in the HIPC initiative (32 of them in Africa) and so far 18 of them have completed the program have benefited from debt relief and have been able to channel that money into poverty–reduction programs; another 11 have begun the process and are receiving interim relief.

So you use this quote to prove that corruption in Africa no longer exists? Or that African countries are committed to end corruption? Believe that if you want.

The problem is, though, that HIPC did not completely cancel countries' debts and even after reaching their completion points, many countries were still spending too much money on debt, often taking on new loans to repay old loans. In an effort to end this unending cycle of debt, the Finance Ministers of the world's wealthiest countries agreed in June of 2005 to free the HIPC countries from 100% of their debts by canceling the debts owed to the World Bank, The IMF and the African Development Bank. It also calls for a move from loans to grants for the poorest countries in the world in an effort to end to vicious cycle of debt in which they have been entrapped. It will immediately cancel $40 billion of debt for the 18 countries that have already reached their completion point and will eventually result in $56 billion of debt cancellation once all 38 HIPC countries reach completion point. The Finance Ministers also stated that they would consider a debt deal for Nigeria which is not a HIPC country but has $35b in debt and 95 million people living on less than $1 per day. This debt deal is an important step in the fight against global poverty, but there are still other poor countries in need of debt cancellation so that they can better fight HIV/AIDS and extreme poverty.

Why do people in these countries live on "less than $1 dollar per day?"  Answer: No capitalism, free markets, or available jobs that pay. How is massive aid going to change this?

While debt cancellation alone will not generate all the resources needed by poor countries, the money freed up from debt relief has consistently been put to good use; World Bank estimates show that poverty reducing expenditures will rise from previous levels of less than twice that of debt service to more than four times current debt service.   For example, Uganda –the first country to benefit from debt relief– used money freed up by debt cancellation to double primary school enrollment and invest in their national HIV/AIDS plan which has contributed to Uganda's successful reversal of HIV infection rates. Mozambique's debt relief has enabled the government to immunize a half million children. Tanzania eliminated fees for grade school, and Benin eliminated school fees in rural areas, allowing thousands of children to attend classes for the first time.

Has the HIV AIDS rate gone down in Uganda? Let me spare you the suspense here, no! All the money in the world will not change the AIDS problem. It's not money, it's behavior. It's not money, but lack of moral restraint. Typical liberal response here: It's the lack of condums and not the lack of moral integrity that exacerbates the AIDS crisis. Check mate.

WHAT MUST HAPPEN

--Donors must immediately implement the 100% debt cancellation agreement so that countries can begin putting their savings to use.

--Donors also must urgently reach agreement on a debt deal for Nigeria as promised at the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting. They must also continue to work to cancel all debts that hinder the fight against poverty in other poor countries not currently included in the HIPC initiative.

--The governments of Africa and the world's donors must work together to ensure that money freed up by debt relief is put to good use to fight poverty and improve the lives of the world's poorest people.

Improve their lives by exporting capitalism and free markets, and giving their posterity a chance to work and earn a living, genius.

I saw Bono talking about this on Meet The Press Sunday before last. The G8 leaders and the leaders of the ONE campaign recognize that gov't corruption in Africa is a huge problem which is why they've been working with the leaders in the G8 countries to structure this debt relief in such a way as to give to sound gov'ts that will use the money properly or go around the gov'ts that are corrupt to get relief directly to the people.

Once again, how will money end corruption in Africa? Will giving Khadafi in Lybia $10 million end the corruption in that country?

As far as the "teach a man to fish" cliche, again, not that simple. The deck is stacked. I'd like to see anyone who easily tosses out that line go over to Africa and try to work yourself up by your own bootstraps with only the resources the typical African has and the trade environment they have to deal with. It ain't America over there, fellas:

My information, and my beliefs comes from my Christian missionary friends who have been to countries like Uganda, Rhowanda, Ethiopia, etc. I don't make claims without speaking to primary accounts, genius. By the way, it "aint America over there" because no free markets exist. Check mate.

As important as development assistance and debt relief are, no African person or government wants to rely on foreign aid for the provision of basic needs. Africans want a fairer system which lets them trade with the rich nations and earn more money, so they can grow their economies and pay for their own education and healthcare. But instead of earning more money to invest in improving the lives of their people, Africa has been earning less and less. In 1980 Africa had a 6% share of world trade. By 2002 this had dropped to just 2% despite the fact that Africa has 12 % of the world’s population. If Africa could regain just an additional 1% share of global trade, it would earn $70 billion more in exports each year – more than three times what the region currently receives in foreign aid.

Fine, then let the rich nations allow the poorer African nations to partake in world trade. Based on this claim, if Africa can retain just 1% of global trade, then the $70 billion would go a long way in solving the problem, not generous donation. So you're saying here that the problem is those evil, bourgeoise, wealthy nations that are just beating up on the little guy? Believe that one if you want.

Rich countries are very interested in talking about the importance of trade as the primary motor of economic growth in developing countries, yet there’s been no real action because these rich countries heavily protect their own markets against exports from the poorest countries through import duties and quotas. Furthermore rich countries continue to subsidize their own agricultural sectors to the tune of a billion dollars a day, making it impossible for African farmers to compete internationally. What rich countries fail to realize is that fairer trade is not just an opportunity for Africa but for the all countries—even them.

Do you have any facts and figures to back up this claim? Where are your sources for this claim? If this is true, then my contention is that the problem will be solved if African countries are allowed to trade openly with the rest of the world. We'll see what happens.

Africans in turn know they need to diversify their exports from unprofitable basic crops such as coffee and cocoa and into products which earn more money such as clothes, textiles and manufactured goods. But Africans could also earn more from basic crops if they were allowed to process these for export. For example Ghana can export raw cocoa duty free to Europe, but a 25% tariff is imposed if they process that cocoa before exporting it to Europe. It is this processing (tinning, roasting, labeling) which helps a country earn more money and develop its manufacturing base – and which allows its economy to grow. While fair trade could be Africa’s ticket out of the vicious cycles of poverty, unfair trade rules like these trap Africa at the gates.

So once again, it's the evil, rich, bourgeoise's fault, right? We're the ones to blame and the governments in these countries are not accountable, right? They've done nothing to impoverish their own people and countries like the Axis of evil, the U.S and Great Britain and the WTO, are to blame for these unfair trade restrictions?

These double standards have to end. It is important to have rules – but not ones only written by the rich. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the place where these rules are written. But of the 38 African nations which are members of the WTO, 15 nations have no representative at all at the headquarters in Geneva, and 4 nations have an office of only one person. Most rich nations have dozens of staff to protect their trading interests.

This is the most pathetic argument I've ever heard. Blame the rich first, blame America first. Blame the WTO first. Don't blame the dictators, don't blame tyranny, and don't blame socialism. Don't blame the misappropriation of funds and the backdoor deals when massive aid is sent their way.

WHAT MUST HAPPEN

--The richest nations must open their markets quota and duty free to African exports and remove agricultural subsidies which hurt African farmers.

If this will solve the problem, then I'm all for it.

--African countries must be allowed to harness the power of trade in their own way to maximize poverty alleviation and economic growth – there is no “cookie-cutter” trade policy to force on poor countries.

The point is, Africa is in a crisis of epic proportions, between the crushing debt, the trade rules stacked against them and the AIDS crisis which is killing off an entire generation. Some of these things can certainly be attributed to their own actions. A lot of it is not their fault. Regardless, we have the ability to help them pull themselves out of this but it's going to take money, it's going to take time and it's going to take a chance in attitude on our side of the pond.

167270[/snapback]

Then let's alleviate the debt and the trade restrictions. Problem solved, case closed. Why should billions and billions of dollars be sent when the root of the problem is trade restrictions and the "crushing debt?"

Titan,

If you ever take humbradge at anything that I've said, then I prefer that you offer your OWN arguments as opposed to debating me with someone else's column, another man's genius.

Now here's my bottom line"

- Billions and billions of dollars have been sent to alleviate the AIDS crisis in Africa over the last twenty years. Yet, the AIDS epidemic continues to grow on that continent at an alarming rate. Billions of dollars sent will not ameliorate the AIDS crisis, social and moral restraint will. Promoting restraint and not having promsicuous sex is a great place to start.

- The socialist, tyrannical regimes are responsible for the poverty in those countries through fear and massive genicides.

- I don't know if trade restrictions are the real cause of African poverty, you offer no evidence. If trade restrictions are the problem, then wouldn't the repeal of trade restrictions give these people the resources to "pick themselves up by the bootstraps" and not rely on massive donations to prosper?

- Once the governments in Africa change, the poverty rate will change. The more democratic they become and more reliable to the people they represent, the more things will change for the better.

- Blaming the rich won't solve the problem.

[TitanTiger 20,530]

Then let's alleviate the debt and the trade restrictions. Problem solved, case closed. Why should billions and billions of dollars be sent when the root of the problem is trade restrictions and the "crushing debt?"

The billions and billions being given is primarily in the form of debt relief, although some money would be given as well. The root of the problem is one thing. That's how you keep it from getting worse. But the immediate crisis will require money.

Titan,

If you ever take humbradge at anything that I've said, then I prefer that you offer your OWN arguments as opposed to debating me with someone else's column, another man's genius.

And I would prefer that your arguments would not oversimpify the problem. I agree with the approach I reprinted here and chose to reprint it (rather than paraphrase) to show that the people involved with this issue (ONE Campaign and DATA) are taking the concerns you and others have mentioned into consideration. It carries a lot more weight for me to show you what they've actually said rather than just say it myself since I'm not the one spearheading the effort.

Your snottiness aside, the argument is either true or it's not. Whether it's my words or someone else's is immaterial. It was simply the most efficient way to address the objections. I'm not interested in your evaluation of my "genius" or lack thereof.

- Billions and billions of dollars have been sent to alleviate the AIDS crisis in Africa over the last  twenty years. Yet, the AIDS epidemic continues to grow on that continent at an alarming rate. Billions of dollars sent will not ameliorate the AIDS crisis, social and moral restraint will. Promoting restraint and not having promsicuous sex is a great place to start.

Actually, moral and social restraint will do nothing to help those who already have the disease. They need the retroviral drugs we have here to keep people from dying now. But even educating a rather ignorant public about prevention takes money and time. I agree with you about what will stop the spread, but the problem is bigger than that.

- The socialist, tyrannical regimes are responsible for the poverty in those countries through fear and massive genicides.

Socialist? Some. Tyrannical? Absolutely. Not all the governments were of any particular, identifyable stereotype except that they were dictatorships and they were corrupt. But as I showed you in the reprinted pieces, they are tying the aid to democratic reforms or in instances where they have to, they'll circumvent the gov'ts altogether. But we don't have enough boots on the ground to do that everywhere so wherever we can, we need to use the carrot and stick to bring fledgling democracies forward and use them on the ground.

- I don't know if trade restrictions are the real cause of African poverty, you offer no evidence. I'm inclined to think not. If trade restrictions are in fact the problem, then how exactly will donations and massive aid solve this problem? The trade restrictions will still be there and African farmers will still suffer, despite the money sent.

As stated earlier, it is a "perfect storm" of multiple problems causing African poverty. There's the history of corrupt governments. There's the AIDS crisis. There's the crippling debt (which results in lack of resources to educate the populace, build infrastructure, etc.). And there are the trade restrictions. Obviously, some of the woes came about because of irresponsible behavior and others because of corruption. But we have our hands dirty too. And you can't expect Africans to take care of themselves if you keep such slanted trade policies in place. That's why all of these things are being discussed together instead of piecemeal. If people don't have hope of a better life, there isn't much motivation to avoid AIDS. If all their resources are going to pay off old debts, they can't do the things necessary to have a population that can sustain itself in the modern world (such as education). If unfair trade barriers are in place, the poverty will continue because they can't make a decent living selling raw goods. It's taking on all these things together in a cohesive plan that has the best chance of solving the problem.

- Once the governments in Africa change, the poverty rate will change. The more democratic they become and more reliable to the people they represent, the more things will change for the better.

167353[/snapback]

Once again, already addressed. But even this is overly simplistic because no amount of democracy will change the poverty rate if the other things remain unaddressed.

- Blaming the rich won't solve the problem.

No one is blaming anyone. All that's being said is that rich nations have the opportunity and the ability to make a monumental difference in the future course of a whole continent. What good would it do to ask Bangladesh to help? They barely have a pot to pee in. We and other rich nations have the excess to do something about 3000 people a day dying of malaria. We have the ability to relieve debt and stop stacking the deck when it comes to trade with these countries. You want them to learn to provide for themselves, but that won't happen on its own.

[WarTim 3,457]

Just a note for clarification: "Teaching a man to fish" is NOT a cliche. It came form a VERY wise man indeed. You should know him well.

[TitanTiger 20,530]

Just a note for clarification: "Teaching a man to fish" is NOT a cliche. It came form a VERY wise man indeed. You should know him well.

167360[/snapback]

I'm drawing a blank here.

[alexgreatau 0]

The billions and billions being given is primarily in the form of debt relief, although some money would be given as well. The root of the problem is one thing. That's how you keep it from getting worse. But the immediate crisis will require money.

The billions and billions will not solve the problems until those countries have reliable governments who will spend the money wisely and efficiently. If those governments are in place now, which I believe they are not, then I'm all for sending additional aid to give those people a chance.

And I would prefer that your arguments would not oversimpify the problem. I agree with the approach I reprinted here and chose to reprint it (rather than paraphrase) to show that the people involved with this issue (ONE Campaign and DATA) are taking the concerns you and others have mentioned into consideration. It carries a lot more weight for me to show you what they've actually said rather than just say it myself since I'm not the one spearheading the effort.

Maybe you have some additional information that I'm completely unaware of. In African, I've seen corruption, tyranny, dictatorship, and inept governments who exploit those they are supposed to protect to enhance their own living situation.

Trade restrictions may be a problem, I don't have enough information to make an educated guess on that problem. However, I do know that as long as countries without democracy as its template, and countries without governments responsible to the people will not get out of poverty even if the trade restrictions are lifted. Just look at Cuba, 96% of Cubans live below the poverty line even though Cuba trades with most countries, U.S not included.

Your snottiness aside, the argument is either true or it's not. Whether it's my words or someone else's is immaterial. It was simply the most efficient way to address the objections. I'm not interested in your evaluation of my "genius" or lack thereof.

I don't remember making an analytical observation on your intelligence. I don't know you. I often use genuis to address those who oppose me in an argument, it's nothing personal.

Actually, moral and social restraint will do nothing to help those who already have the disease. They need the retroviral drugs we have here to keep people from dying now. But even educating a rather ignorant public about prevention takes money and time. I agree with you about what will stop the spread, but the problem is bigger than that.

President Bush, unlike any other president, has sent more money to the African AIDS crisis. I can assure you, it's more than enough. There comes a point to where education and understanding of how AIDS is transmitted is a policy that must be implemented in Africa.

Socialist? Some. Tyrannical? Absolutely. Not all the governments were of any particular, identifyable stereotype except that they were dictatorships and they were corrupt. But as I showed you in the reprinted pieces, they are tying the aid to democratic reforms or in instances where they have to, they'll circumvent the gov'ts altogether. But we don't have enough boots on the ground to do that everywhere so wherever we can, we need to use the carrot and stick to bring fledgling democracies forward and use them on the ground.

The U.N should be responsible for this transition, not just the wealthier nations. As is the case with every other crisis that worthless organization is confronted with, they choose to ignore and not address the problem.

As stated earlier, it is a "perfect storm" of multiple problems causing African poverty. There's the history of corrupt governments. There's the AIDS crisis. There's the crippling debt (which results in lack of resources to educate the populace, build infrastructure, etc.). And there are the trade restrictions. Obviously, some of the woes came about because of irresponsible behavior and others because of corruption. But we have our hands dirty too. And you can't expect Africans to take care of themselves if you keep such slanted trade policies in place. That's why all of these things are being discussed together instead of piecemeal. If people don't have hope of a better life, there isn't much motivation to avoid AIDS. If all their resources are going to pay off old debts, they can't do the things necessary to have a population that can sustain itself in the modern world (such as education). If unfair trade barriers are in place, the poverty will continue because they can't make a decent living selling raw goods. It's taking on all these things together in a cohesive plan that has the best chance of solving the problem.

Socialist governments not accountable to the people will not take advantage of the WTO lifting trade restrictions to the betterment of their country. As is the case with all socialist, corrupt governments, like Iraq Sadaam, the powers to be will spend the money on themselves, not have enough left for their people, and then claim tha we didn't send enough aid to their poor, starving citizens. This is the way that things have always been there, I've done the research.

No one is blaming anyone. All that's being said is that rich nations have the opportunity and the ability to make a monumental difference in the future course of a whole continent. What good would it do to ask Bangladesh to help? They barely have a pot to pee in. We and other rich nations have the excess to do something about 3000 people a day dying of malaria. We have the ability to relieve debt and stop stacking the deck when it comes to trade with these countries. You want them to learn to provide for themselves, but that won't happen on its own.

Without democratic governments responsible to the people in place, then out of all of the aid we send Africa's way, over half will eventually be unaccounted for.

Put democracy in place, limit trade restrictions, and give these people a chance. Isn't that a decent way to end poverty in Africa?

[TitanTiger 20,530]

The billions and billions will not solve the problems until those countries have reliable governments who will spend the money wisely and efficiently. If those governments are in place now, which I believe they are not, then I'm all for sending additional aid to give those people a chance.

The money that was recently pledged (they still have to officially follow through) had requirements regarding democracies or democratic reforms in place as one of the prerequisites of receiving any of the money. I thought I'd said this at least twice already.

Maybe you have some additional information that I'm completely unaware of. In African, I've seen corruption, tyranny, dictatorship, and inept governments who exploit those they are supposed to protect to enhance their own living situation.

There are all of those things. But there are also governments that are trying to do it right, who are getting on the right track. Eighteen African nations have already met the requirements laid out in the Millenium Challenge regarding democratic reforms and thus will be getting aid first. A list of other nations are slated to get aid if they finish meeting those requirements as well, but won't until they do. This was all laid out over two years ago by President Bush and is the basis for how this current initiative will be handled:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/developi...millennium.html

Trade restrictions may be a problem, I don't have enough information to make an educated guess on that problem. However, I do know that as long as countries without democracy as its template, and countries without governments responsible to the people will not get out of poverty even if the trade restrictions are lifted. Just look at Cuba, 96% of Cubans live below the poverty line even though Cuba trades with most countries, U.S not included.

Understood. But this hobby horse is tired now. Democratic reforms are part and parcel to getting aid.

I don't remember making an analytical observation on your intelligence. I don't know you.  I often use genuis to address those who oppose me in an argument, it's nothing personal.

You were calling me out and I simply explained why I printed the arguments verbatim. I agree with their assessment and felt it was better to just show you what they were actually saying rather than merely paraphrase and lose something in translation.

President Bush, unlike any other president, has sent more money to the African AIDS crisis. I can assure you, it's more than enough. There comes a point to where education and understanding of how AIDS is transmitted is a policy that must be implemented in Africa.

No one is saying anything to the contrary. It's not more than enough. It's more than before and it's a tremendous help, but it isn't enough to stem the tide of diseases like AIDS and malaria. The problem is bigger than you think.

The U.N should be responsible for this transition, not just the wealthier nations. As is the case with every other crisis that worthless organization is confronted with, they choose to ignore and not address the problem.

The UN will probably be involved where they are needed. But whenever possible, we need to work through responsible governments. My point was just that you're painting with too broad a brush.

Socialist governments not accountable to the people will not take advantage of the WTO lifting trade restrictions to the betterment of their country. As is the case with all socialist, corrupt governments, like Iraq Sadaam, the powers to be will spend the money on themselves, not have enough left for their people, and then claim tha we didn't send enough aid to their poor, starving citizens. This is the way that things have always been there, I've done the research.

First of all, stop using "socialist" and "corrupt" as if they are synonyms. I'm no socialist but even I know a false equation when I see one. And *sigh* as stated before, not all of these corrupt governments are socialist. Some are crudely capitalist, others are fascist, some are communist and some are socialist (and yes, there is a difference in those last two). The corruption is the key and it doesn't matter if they were democratic...if they are corrupt, they'd have the same problems. But as you can see from the link I gave you to the Millenium Challenge, there are requirements that go beyond even simply being a democracy.

Without democratic governments responsible to the people in place, then out of all of the aid we send Africa's way, over half will eventually be unaccounted for.

Put democracy in place, limit trade restrictions, and give these people a chance. Isn't that a decent way to end poverty in Africa?

167368[/snapback]

Except that 3000 people a day are dying right now from diseases like malaria and the reform you mention would still take years to implement before they'd be able to address the epidemic of disease. Some of this just comes down to mercy. Mercy isn't deserved or earned, it's just given because someone is in need of it. But in this situation, it's also practical and part of a comprehensive plan to help this continent get on its own two feet.

[Tigermike 3,066]

Here is an interesting article on this subject. What do you think?

Improverished Policy

By James K. Glassman

As chairman of this year's Group of 8 conference, Tony Blair has chosen to put African poverty and global warming at the top of the agenda when the leaders of the world's top industrialized countries (plus Russia) meet this week in Gleneagles, Scotland.

African poverty, sure. There is no greater problem in the world today. Elsewhere, even the poorest people have gotten healthier and wealthier over the past 30 years, but in sub-Saharan Africa, life expectancy has declined, malaria and AIDS run rampant, and economic conditions have plummeted.

In 1975, Africa had a Gross Domestic Product per person that was twice as high as East Asia's. But since then, Africa's GDP has declined from $1,800 to $1,500 while East Asia's has risen from $800 to $4,000.

Blair believes that dispensing an extra $25 billion in aid per year will help pull Africa out of stagnation. That's a dubious proposition. Academic research shows that aid rarely helps and often hurts. Africa's poverty won't be lifted unless its kleptocratic governments and feudal economic systems change. We'll just be throwing good money after bad. President Bush's approach is to tie aid to economic reform, but that policy won't help suffering innocents in countries ruled by corrupt dictators.

While African aid remains an intractable puzzle, one consequence of the Gleneagles agenda is clear. If Blair gets his way on global warming, Africa will become even poorer.

Blair's solution to climate change is embodied in the Kyoto Protocol, which responded to concerns about rising surface temperatures (up an average of 1 degree F. around the world in the past century) by requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide, which is a non-polluting byproduct of burning fossil fuels like coal and oil.

The only way to make big cuts in CO2 emissions is to make big cuts in energy use, and that means reducing global economic growth to near-recession levels.

A Kyoto-like solution will deprive Africa of the inexpensive and abundant energy that has been a prerequisite for pulling every other developing region out of poverty. Also, declining economic growth will mean richer countries will buy less from Africa (and give less, too).

The U.S. Senate, by a 95-0 vote, went on record in 1997 opposing a climate treaty of Kyoto's ilk. Bush rejected Kyoto as "fatally flawed" in 2001, and his administration has viewed with proper skepticism the claim that humans are responsible for surface heating. Still, the White House takes the possibility of devastating warming over the next century quite seriously. With little fanfare, the United States has entered into extensive and productive agreements with such nations Australia, Japan, China, India, Russia, Mexico and Brazil to transfer technology and pursue research.

And, at home, the President's voluntary initiatives have accomplished more than efforts in much of Europe.

In return for his support of the Iraq war and perhaps to put distance between himself and Bush, Blair -- who has many fine qualities -- is joining our moralizing Euro antagonists in an attempt to pressure the United States into making some concessions on Kyoto.

That won't happen. At Gleneagles, the President should risk rudeness to point out that France's CO2 emissions rose 7 percent between 1990 and 2002; Italy's, 8 percent. Yes, emissions in Germany and Britain have fallen -- but only because economically unproductive coal plants were shut down in the 1990s.

In Europe's fastest-growing economies, emissions have soared -- up 40 percent in Ireland, 47 percent in Spain, 59 percent in Portugal. G-8 members Japan (up 19 percent) and Canada (up 24 percent) have little to crow about. By comparison, emissions rose 17 percent in the United States.

But the G-8 nations are a sideshow. Over the next two decades, the bulk of the growth in emissions -- and in energy use -- will occur in China and India. As columnist Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post has noted, China has just 24 million cars, and in India 500 million people still lack electricity. The International Energy Agency has pointed out that between now and 2030, CO2 emissions will increase more in China than in Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada, Korea and the U.S. combined.

China is using energy, which applies massive leverage to any economy, to pull its people out of poverty, just as Britain and the U.S. did a century ago. Africa deserves the same opportunity.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/070605A.html

[TitanTiger 20,530]

Just a note for clarification: "Teaching a man to fish" is NOT a cliche. It came form a VERY wise man indeed. You should know him well.

167360[/snapback]

I'm drawing a blank here.

167367[/snapback]

I'm still waiting, Tim. Whose quote is it?

[Tigermike 3,066]

Just a note for clarification: "Teaching a man to fish" is NOT a cliche. It came form a VERY wise man indeed. You should know him well.

167360[/snapback]

I'm drawing a blank here.

167367[/snapback]

I'm still waiting, Tim. Whose quote is it?

167720[/snapback]

Quote from my sister:

"Give a man a fish and you can feed him for a day -- teach a man to fish and you can get rid of him for the weekend!"

[TitanTiger 20,530]

Just a note for clarification: "Teaching a man to fish" is NOT a cliche. It came form a VERY wise man indeed. You should know him well.

167360[/snapback]

I'm drawing a blank here.

167367[/snapback]

I'm still waiting, Tim. Whose quote is it?

167720[/snapback]

Tim, c'mon man! The suspense is killing me!

[TitanTiger 20,530]

Just a note for clarification: "Teaching a man to fish" is NOT a cliche. It came form a VERY wise man indeed. You should know him well.

167360[/snapback]

I'm drawing a blank here.

167367[/snapback]

I'm still waiting, Tim. Whose quote is it?

167720[/snapback]

Tim, c'mon man! The suspense is killing me!

168376[/snapback]

*cough*

[texaubie 0]

Just a note for clarification: "Teaching a man to fish" is NOT a cliche. It came form a VERY wise man indeed. You should know him well.

167360[/snapback]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Chinese Proverb

I don't know him.

[WarTim 3,457]

But, YOU said YOU knew him.

p.s. You may want to take something for that *cough* you have goin' there. We would not want anyone to catch what you "have".

[TitanTiger 20,530]

But, YOU said YOU knew him.       

p.s. You may want to take something for that *cough* you have goin' there. We would not want anyone to catch what you "have". 

168671[/snapback]

Care to show me where I said such a thing?

[WarTim 3,457]

Oh no. "Here we go again". Sorry, been there, done that.

[TitanTiger 20,530]

Oh no. "Here we go again". Sorry, been there, done that.

168684[/snapback]

No, the problem is, you engage your keyboard before checking with your brain. You make claims then can't back them up with anything resembling a coherent argument. You wouldn't get into these conundrums if you'd quit trying to be so cute and think before you type. I'll take it since you have failed thus far to state who this person I'm supposed to know that is so famous for this quote, that you don't know what you're talking about, which lately is par for the course.

[WarTim 3,457]

Please, unbunch your panties before attacking me. I do not mind the attack so much as the fact that you can't back it up.

[TitanTiger 20,530]

...you can't back it up.

168769[/snapback]

Irony alert.

[WarTim 3,457]

...you can't back it up.

168769[/snapback]

Irony alert.

168773[/snapback]

Indeed. Since you have initiated this attack, I will attempt to be the peacemaker. You do not respond to any of my posts and I will return the favor. It is obvious that you are STILL carrying around a grudge and I can't help you with that.

Have a nice day anyway.

[TitanTiger 20,530]

...you can't back it up.

168769[/snapback]

Irony alert.

168773[/snapback]

Indeed. Since you have initiated this attack, I will attempt to be the peacemaker. You do not respond to any of my posts and I will return the favor. It is obvious that you are STILL carrying around a grudge and I can't help you with that.

Have a nice day anyway.

168774[/snapback]

Tim, I don't hold a grudge. Sometimes though, your little quips and one-liners wear thin. Then when I can't take anymore and call you on one, you just dodge and never really answer any direct questions about it. I mean, it's one thing when the subject is just sports. If you ruffle some feathers over a football game, who really gives a crap as long as it doesn't get out of hand? But when people are trying to discuss issues more a little bigger scope and importance, it's annoying. THAT'S where the responses you've been getting in the last couple of threads over here comes from.

You invoke your faith in the flag burning thread, then when I call you on how your stated intention contradicts the very tenets of the faith you proclaim, you just play dodgeball. You shoot off your mouth here with your tired cliche and insinuate that some mystery person I should "know very well" came up with it, then when you're called on it, a cat gets your tongue. I'm all for making peace, but if the underlying issue isn't corrected, we'll just be back here again in the near future.

[WarTim 3,457]

The "underlying issue" is you have had a problem with me since our "discussion" a few days ago. I can't help you with that. That is for you to either work out or let go. I am here for one reason...This is supposed to be fun. When it is no longer fun, somone has taken MY words WAY too serious or given MY opinion far more weight than it deserves. MY opinion is MY opinion. It will not change. I state things here in a short and to the point fashion for a reason. I do not have the time to donate to a reply that really doesn't matter for much anyway.(That too is MY opinion.) Again, I will not respond to any of your posts and if you will do the same maybe we can let this "thing" disappear. I certainly hope so because it is not worthy of my time or yours.