$15 Billion to fight AIDS in Africa

This is a good thread, but IMO it was ruined by including all the needless “Good Guy” vs. “Bad Guy” bullshit.

It’s really divisive, as well as childish.

Hey, I thought your hero Bush said he was going to bring people together? Does anybody see that happening?

Lumpy good post. :slight_smile: Some people have a very Black and white view of world politics. Of life actually. Ciao. :slight_smile:

US=GG blathered that the US contribution

this would be nearly 20 percent of > NEW ZEALAND’S ENTIRE GDP FOR 2002.

When you have a population of 291 million as opposed to NZ’s 4 million this is not what i’d call a meaningful statistic.

Of course, New Zealand being the country of evil that it is, doesn’t do anything for anyone.

Money to fight AIDs is great , but as some have pointed out so many institutions in the US are badly in need of funding.
So one must ask then why would the “great patriots” in Washington not fight to allocate some these funds to schools, police, fire depts. etc…??

I just saw on the news (forget where) a story on (as Older Lifter alluded to) the large percentage of US aid that goes directly to US corporations abroad.

and by the way, yes the US gives alot of moolah in aid, second only to Japan in total amount(half the population of the US, and a economy worse off) but 22nd in the world when figuring in GDP. This is from the UN.

off the topic: Steve Buscemi was recently arrested in NYC for protesting the closing of a firehouse he once worked at. Buscemi the fireman, doesn’t quite fit my image of him.

And, as has been pointed out, SIXTY PERCENT of the food aid on the planet. No one can argue that that’s a bad thing.

Preventing the spread of AIDS anywhere in the world benefits the US for both the obvious reason and some less obvious ones. It is far better for the US to spend 15b to contain this problem as is than it is to sit back and watch as the negative effects boil out of the region. Social instability (caused by the demographic disaster of wide spread AIDS infection) leads to political instability (something the area is rife with already) which, among other things (for those who like to think of the economic aspect of utility), prevents the extraction of resources important to the west and industrialized economies in general (I will provide a list if anyone is interested).

On a more general note, if anyone manages to pacify the congo in particular, aside from ending the worst humanitarian disaster in decades, they will stand to make one holy shite load of money.

America is giving $15 Billion away to help people, what a great chance to attack America. I am convinced that the only reason Bush is supplying the funds is for political benefit. Does that mean it should not be done? (I’ll let you figure that out.)

America should disarm, what a great idea. People wont attack us if we have no military. What a concept, maybe if I keep my car unlocked people will quit steeling cars.

I may be sounding sarcastic, but come on, what kind of foolish statement is this? This is another attempt to attack America and blame it for all the ills of the world. Again I don’t care why Americans are hated any more then why the Jews are hated. Again a poster trying to support hate, or the people that hate. Since when is hate acceptable, and the victims of hate the problem?

Quick trivia, one of the most powerful influences for getting so many Germans to hate the Jews is because they were so successful. Many were upper class, or rich. Why do so many hate Americans? Cause we are the richest country in the world. This jealousy has been a secret tool for centuries to control and manipulate the masses. Political parties are using this in America right now. “Raise taxes on the rich, you are not rich so it won’t affect you.” “Cut taxes? It only helps the rich.” Nobody catches the fact that these statements are actually manipulative hate against a group of people.

I am not saying that the rich should be given more rights then anyone else, but why should they have fewer rights, or be treated worse? Anyone heard of the attempt for a worldwide tax on anyone who is rich? What was the definition of rich? Anyone making over $10,000 a year.

About the “good guy, bad guy” shit, come on now. I laugh that anyone is taking this seriously. To me it is just a little razzing. A little smoke blown up people’s butts. My daughter use to go into teen chat rooms and start giving people shit trying to see how quickly she could get people to get pissed off and leave. When I found out about this, I sat her down and… Ok, I started helping. (What a great parental influence I am.) The friend she had staying overnight laughed her ass off at what I came up with, and they loved the fact that I could get people to start flying out of the chat rooms.

(Back one step) Many people don’t realize that our military bases actually support the economies of a few countries. These people will protest our military, and then get upset if we propose moving our military out of their countries.

I go to bed every night knowing that there are nukes pointed at this country. Does anybody know that Yeltsin almost sent Nukes into America by mistake? (A rocket test launch they were supposed to know about was mistaken for an American first strike.) Probably the closest we have ever been to a nuclear war. (Less then a minute and they stopped the launch.)

Another trivia question. What American president almost negotiated away nuclear weapons with the USSR? …Regan. (He was very upset it didn’t go beyond a little humor. Neither side took the next step.)

(And back to the start) A member of the United States military (I don’t know which branch) died of some mysterious disease in the 1940’s. A sample of his blood was kept in storage, and when retested was found that he had Aids.

Aids is a terrible disease, but it is not the worst. It does not have as high of a risk of being spread as other diseases. If it were an airborne disease, almost everyone in the world would have it. And with the long gestation period it could have infected everyone before it was even well known. Only those immune to Aids would most likely be the remaining population on Earth. (Yes, there are those who cannot get Aids. They have been studied.)

Final trivia. Respiratory illness (flu, pneumonia, etc) kills more Americans then any other disease currently. (I don’t know the world wide stats, but I would think it is the same.)

Kuri: As far as total dollars go we are at the top. I think we were second to Japan, but went back up to the top in government aid given to other countries in recent years. It is only about half of what it was during the cold war. (And not adjusted for inflation.)

And finally Roy: (Now that I have again typed a novel.) Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and, The Legacy of Christ. Are these the books about theory that the “Holy Grail” is actually a secret word for Bloodline? And that Jesus did not die, but fled to France (or what is now France), after the crucifixion, and had children?

Holy Moly. There is hope for Roy Batty yet! However, MQ is one wierd dude. I think the rest of you Canadians ought to let that whole whacked out province cecede as they want to do and give it to France.

Avoids Roids, mon quebec,
Hypothetical situation here. Imagine quebec “breaking away” from Canada, and joining with france. Imagine if the Swiss decide that they’ve had enough of the whole neutrality bit. Their first victim would undoubtedly be the french. The Swiss would know that the french would immediately surrender without firing a shot. Once france surrendered to the Swiss, the Swiss would own quebec (they, being french, would not fight). My question is this: Would this violate the Monroe Doctrine? It probably does. Then we would place one phone call to Switzerland. They would immediately surrender. Then the United States would own france, quebec, and Switzerland. Then we could repopulate france and quebec with veterans of our recent wars. My theory is: If you don’t fight for freedom, then you don’t deserve freedom. I wonder where mon quebec would flee to? Would the other Canadians on this forum want him in their towns? Remember, his m.o. is lay down your arms and hope for the best. He really does sound french, doesn’t he? So you would have to provide for his defense. You would also have to pay to educate him. His history is one subject that needs extra attention. Just a hypothetical question for the Canadians.

To Avoid Roids:

For your information, “people from quebec” don’t really want to cecede. There’S been 2 referendums: 1 in 1980 and 1 in 1995. “No” won twice (despite a real thin margin the last time).

I for one, is pleased with my Canadian nationality even if I’m from Quebec.

Now let’s play nice, and don’t put 7,5 millions people in the same bag because of one dude name “MQ”.

-LPdSB

Below is from The Carnegie Endowment and ranks countries on their commitment to helping poorer nations. http://www.ceip.org/files/news/4-28_New_Rankings_of%20_Most_Development_Friendly_Nations.asp?from=newsnews

The Netherlands is the most development friendly of 21 rich nations ranked in a groundbreaking new index released today by the Center for Global Development and FOREIGN POLICY magazine. The unique CGD/FP Commitment to Development Index ranks 21 of the world’s richest countries based on their dedication to policies that benefit the 5 billion people living in poorer nations worldwide. The United States ranks first in the openness of its trade policy but in the overall index finishes at the bottom with Japan, in 20th and 21st place, respectively.

Moving beyond all-too-common assessments of foreign aid flows, the CGD/FP Commitment to Development Index also considers countries’ openness to developing-country exports and performance in peacekeeping, investment, migration, and environmental policies. The CGD/FP Commitment to Development Index rewards generous and selective aid giving, hospitable immigration policies, sizable contributions to peacekeeping operations, and hefty foreign direct investment. It also penalizes financial assistance to corrupt regimes and policies that harm shared environmental resources.

Three small nations top the index. The Netherlands, Denmark, and Portugal score high thanks to their development-friendly aid, investment, and environmental policies. New Zealand, which is not known for generous foreign aid giving, comes in 4th thanks to a strong showing in migration and peacekeeping policies. Norway, which is often regarded as a model global citizen, finishes 10th, mainly due to protectionist trade policies. The United States and Japan bring up the rear, despite being the world’s largest foreign aid contributors. The United States offers the world’s best access for developing-country exports but suffers poor marks in environmental policy and “tied” aid-80 percent of U.S. foreign aid forces recipients to purchase American goods and services. Japan’s poor performance in the foreign aid and migration categories help consign it to last place. Germany, which ranked 6th, is the only member of the Group of Seven (G-7) industrialized nations to rank in the top half of the index.

Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development, said, “Developing countries have been ranked for years, on all kinds for measures-from their spending on girls’ education to their level of corruption. The index finally puts the spotlight on the rich world’s policies, and on the rich world’s responsibilities in a global economy.”

“Seven nations-Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States-account for two thirds of the world’s economic output,” said FOREIGN POLICY Editor and Publisher Mois?s Na?m. “But our new index is the first to demonstrate that even as the forces of global integration give the G-7 nations immense economic power and the greatest potential to help the world’s poorest citizens, these countries aren’t necessarily committing themselves to policies that truly help the developing world. This is an important conclusion that I hope will spur debate on the policy decisions shaping our world today-a central part of FP’s mission.”

The index builds upon contributions from experts at the Center for Global Development, FOREIGN POLICY, the Institute for International Economics, the Brookings Institution, and the Migration Policy Institute and benefits from the generous support of the Rockefeller Foundation.

Commitment to Development Index Complete Rankings

  1. Netherlands
  2. Denmark
  3. Portugal
  4. New Zealand
  5. Switzerland
  6. Germany
  7. Spain
  8. Sweden
  9. Austria
  10. Norway
  11. United Kingdom
  12. Belgium
  13. Greece
  14. France
  15. Italy
  16. Ireland
  17. Finland
  18. Canada
  19. Australia
  20. United States
  21. Japan

That article touched on some interesting issues
One of the issues with food aid is that western countries always jump to give it out left and right because the money for it always goes to domestic farmers (important lobby), meaning that it acts as basically a subsidy for these domestic farmers as much as food aid for foreigners. These food stuffs then reach places like africa and sell at their artificially low (subsidized) prices, meaning that domestic african crops cannot compete in their own markets. Combine this with the protectionist import policies many nations have on food stuffs, and you’re left with a situation which discourages the very food production which would both help prevent famine and assist in economic development. If all of this money spent on foreign food aid was actually spent on development loans, grants, and investments in the countries in question, then self sufficiency would be a possibility. If it were combined with less protectionist trade policies on food stuffs by the industrialized would, then profitability and economic development would result. Unfortunately, this does not make political sense in the west.

This is a fairly generalized response though and circumstances vary considerably depending on the country in question.