I agree that immediate short-term aid should be given. I'm just talking long-term shift in general strategy.
I guess Mr. Blair has called in his favors from Bush in his appeal to end subsidies. The 2002 farm bill undid Clinton's attempts to gradually reduce the New Deal era farm subsidies. That 2002 bill supposedly cost taxpayers an extra hundred billion dollars, but it's not entirely Bush's doing (rather his inaction) because around 30 billion dollars of emergency aid was given to farmers by Congress from 96-98. It was as if they were trying to outlast Clinton. Since the farm lobby has been as powerful as it has been in his party and in Congress, I'm guessing that Bush is hedging on France's inaction, due to an even stronger farm lobby, to fulfill his debt to Blair while not doing anything at all. France has been an interesting player in the EU. They've called for an end to Britain's EU kickback only to be countered by the Brits to end the farming subsidies that benefits the French the most. I think it was the Economist article that claimed that half of the EU's spending goes towards agriculture. The opposition principle about giving money to Africa has been ironic since the money will change hands from the regional farm lobbies to the Africans, or it will stay where it is right now. I hope everyone agrees in principle that aid in the form of AIDS prevention and cheaper/generic vaccines/prescription drugs should be underwritten by our governments. I doubt it'll cripple their local pharmaceuticals....
Call me crazy but why don't we simple stop selling them weapons Let's see how that works for a while Rocket River
I can somewhat agree with your points. 1) It is true that once we build a pipe etc, the government is in control. We can't just invade and take over. We can use local laboerers. In fact it should be required. No giving brown and Root a cost plus contracts to use American truck drivers. As with loans or aid, if they don't like our condiitions, then we dont do it. 2) Granted the US doesn't have all the power and we should be operating through the UN or the G8 or whatever. 3) Granted they need a better legal system. I'm talking about steps that aren't so dependent on them having a better legal system. As Max says we can't just wait for this system before doing something.
One more important point. We should distribute massive amounts of free condoms and anti-aids drugs, (Bibles or just say yes to abstinence materials too, if you insist) again through our clinics. I guess hardcore Christian fundamentalists might feel that this woud just encourage sex, but so far the devastating effects of aids has not discouraged sex. It is tough to develop if everyone is sick and dying or caring for those who are sick and dying.
Recently, I remember a bb post of yours on which I was about to comment that I agreed totally. Can't rmember what it was on.
If the U.S. kept the money it jettisoned into lost causes and imperialism masquerading as "aid," and instead invested in American education and equity, then we'd eventually be in a position where we really could make a difference in the rest of the world. It makes no sense to me to be fighting poverty and inequity abroad when we have far too much of it at home.
so tell me guys im no economist but lets say we spent half of what we've spent in iraq (so around 200 billion?) on africa. im thinking we could pretty much eliminate hunger and poverty. give them farming systems which would make their food needs fairly self-sustainable. provide proper sanitation/water facilities. and maybe even build a nice power plant or two here and there. also make access to cheap aids medications. no matter what religion/ideology/philosophy floats your boat...im assuming helping hundreds of millions of people while shifting the entire paradigm of a continent would feel good wouldn't it? now this isn't even a case against iraq. its simply stating that if we had as much desire to help the world we could do so much.
I don't think so. How much total aid (and unpaid loans/forgiven debt) have been given? It may be in that range. Crappy govts are good at squandering resources.
robbie380, check this thread again. 3814 didn't start the discussion with the question "how should West donate to Africa", but "why should West donate to Africa". My first post, quoted en masse, was therefore to address his question. At its core, the author (who himself is a Causasian Southerner) reminds people in the Western Society what G8 et al are doing to Africa should be regarded as paying back the debt the West have long owed, rather than rich nations doing some charitable deeds to the unfortunate continent. It is, however, NOT the intention of the author (nor mine) to discuss how such "donations" should be carried out. Further, the author (and I) did not deny the fact that many corrupted African governments have severely impeded the progress to prosperity. Mr. Clutch didn't bother to reflect on the history, instead came up with the made-to-believe declaration "We are forgiving debt and giving aid", and the usual "why do you hate United States and the West, why don't you look forward" rhetorics . To be fair, his second statement makes perfect sense when put in different context, but he clearly shifted the topic. BTW, I should stress that it is all likely you (and Mr. Clutch or others) misinterpreted the last statement in my response to Mr. Clutch's post. You probably have recognized it by now, the "ony" (if) structure indicates a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Hence, my statement stands.
