africa

no, we can no longer sit on our hands here. in 20 years the average family income has dropped from 810 to 650 dollars. 46.4% of the population survives on a dollar a day. 1 in 3 people in africa do not have access to safe drinking water. 1 in 12 is HIV infected. maternity beds have quartered in africa in 20 years. 3 billion people exist in poverty. africa has claims only 2% of global trade. 43 million children receive absolutley no education at all.

to wait around for some great change while people die simply of not being able to eat. while people work for less than 5p an hour. while people drink infected water. while children die because parents are dead or dying of aids. while africa gets worse no better. is the worst crime that can be committed.

tens of thousands die daily unnecassirly from poverty alone. it is not right to sit around and wait, shrug our soldiers and hope that something gives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

no, we can no longer sit on our hands here. in 20 years the average family income has dropped from 810 to 650 dollars. 46.4% of the population survives on a dollar a day. 1 in 3 people in africa do not have access to safe drinking water. 1 in 12 is HIV infected. maternity beds have quartered in africa in 20 years. 3 billion people exist in poverty. africa has claims only 2% of global trade. 43 million children receive absolutley no education at all.

---

What this says to me is that the charity drives of the 80s have entirely failed.

Africa needs an ideological change, and a big one. Nobody wants to see people starving and children dying, but when the aid goes to dictators and gangs who buy more guns for their rape squads, it's hard to believe that charity has been having a good effect.

I know this might sound liek the cruelest thing you ever heard, but you have to think about the effects of developing more countries. With pollution as it is now, if we somehow did manage to get Africe substained then the environment is going to suffer. My reasoning follows as so. At this moment 20% of the world population make 80% of the polution. If Africa was to develop the increase of pollution would be phonomenial. Also at their early developping stages it would be hard for a newborn economy to constrain itself with pollution regulation, already in some countries there are not strong laws protecting the environement. Also with the population rates as they are going now, it is predicted that the Earth will be over populated by 2009. This is not my opinion but I am pointing out the other side of the coin.

Apathy is the disease of humans. Our hearts are frozen to the suffering of our kin.

pollution would not be a porblem if those 20% cut down on their levels.

there will not be an over population problem. there is vast quantities of food. you only need to look at the grain mountains and wine lakes which europe was producing a few years ago to see that.

charity can be more directed than simply giving it to the government of a country. fair trade goods go directly to the farmer. many charities bypass the governments all together and have self made goals. like to put a well in a village, build and fund a school. all done directly.

there are three things we can do with africa. we can aid and help, drop the debt, end the tarriffs and continue helping until there is no longer a problem. we can wash our hands of it by dropping the debt and tarriffs and then leaving them to it and not care of the concequences. or we can continue to starve it and take an active part in 30,000 child deaths a day as we have been doing.

Once again, Cloud, you are ignoring the obvious fact that what you are advocating is FORCING people to help Africa.

All of that could help, sure. But do you believe that people should be made to do it? At what expense? At what cost? At whose life?

Besides, nothing like that is going to help unless Africa gets its together, first. (Who implemented this lameass censorship thing.)

african governments will not chaneg unless forced to do so. but they are not the main concren right now. the main concern is 30,000 dead children daily. maybe after we feed, educate and save these children they will stop having to think about whether they will be able to eat this week and start thinking about who rules them.

we shouldn't force people to save 30,000 children a day? one every 3 seconds? cos it's perfectly cool to jus let that happen like it doesn't really matter?

the cost of saving africa (eradicating debt and doubling aid) would be the apporximate cost of half a stick of gum to every rich western person a day? will you begrudge africa that? half a stick of gum a day? is that too much too ask to save 3 billion people from poverty?

at whose life? feeding africa need not kill anyone. there is more than enough food in this world to happily feed everyone saving africa starves noone. it would be a small amount of money to us who have so much. we life in a world of abundance, welath and riches but we sit back and let millions die every year of starvation out of total greed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

african governments will not chaneg unless forced to do so. but they are not the main concren right now. the main concern is 30,000 dead children daily. maybe after we feed, educate and save these children they will stop having to think about whether they will be able to eat this week and start thinking about who rules them.

---

Those two are linked so completely that they cannot be seen as seperate issues.

Quote:

---

shouldn't force people to save 30,000 children a day? one every 3 seconds? cos it's perfectly cool to jus let that happen like it doesn't really matter?

---

Nope. We shouldn't force people. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote:

---

the cost of saving africa (eradicating debt and doubling aid) would be the apporximate cost of half a stick of gum to every rich western person a day? will you begrudge africa that? half a stick of gum a day? is that too much too ask to save 3 billion people from poverty?

---

Not at all. Appeal to reason, then, and convince people its in their own interests to help Africa: that the cost is virtualy nothing, and the reward is millions of lives spared. Few will disagree with you. But do not rely on forcing others to give it to you. That is rule by the gun. I don't care who you're fighting for - that is wrong.

Quote:

---

at whose life? feeding africa need not kill anyone. there is more than enough food in this world to happily feed everyone saving africa starves noone. it would be a small amount of money to us who have so much. we life in a world of abundance, welath and riches but we sit back and let millions die every year of starvation out of total greed?

---

The moment you feel you have a right to a dollar of mine, you feel that you have the right to a million - or my property - or my family - or my life.

It would be because of greed that I would help Africa. It's a useful investment. If we were to help them and get them up on their feet for virtually nothing, we get to deal with them as free traders. But redistributing the wealth (i.e. steal from me to give to them) makes this out to be nothing more than glorified looting. I will have no part in helping Africa if the people who seek to help them offer nothing in return except for their right to my life.

looting? because saving a child every 3 seconds can only be a bad thing for society right? would it be different if this was americans? or they were white? could speak english? yes it would.

you need to educate a people before you can expect them to turn towards democracy. they cannot appreciate the situation they are in if they are starving. their greatest question in live is whether or not they will strave, not who rules them. feed and educate then they will take care of their governments.

the idea that you defend the starving of children for the sake of a half stick of gum a day is sick.

interest in africa should not be about personal gain, about profit, about capatlism, about corporations. it should be about not having 30,000 children a day die of starvation. it shoukd be about ending the starvation of 3 billion people. it should be about sanitation for 2.2 billion. clean water for 1.1 billion. it should in no way be about benefitting us or the cost of half a stick of gum. you wouldn't care if that was added to tax to fund the war on terror. to save 3,000 american lives. but for some reason 30,000 african children is not a dot on the world's mind.

we are talking about the 9-11 attacks. 10 times. daily. that is the scale of death. the world has spent so much money trying to fight the war on terrorism but it fails to realise it does not matter. it pales in significance. 3,000 dead americans in 5 years? so what? in the same time 54,747,500 children have died from starvation alone. more 54 million compared to less than 3 thousand. i know where i want my money to go. i know what matters more to me. i know where my biggest concern lies.

but at the end of the day those 54 million children we're not american, didn't speak english, weren't white, were thousands of miles away and din't die so dramtically. the merely starve to death in their millions why people argue that it would be wrong to use money to buy them food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

looting? because saving a child every 3 seconds can only be a bad thing for society right? would it be different if this was americans? or they were white? could speak english? yes it would.

---

No, it wouldn't, and playing the race card is childish. What I am saying is in regards to all humans ever. Force is never justified.

Quote:

---

you need to educate a people before you can expect them to turn towards democracy. they cannot appreciate the situation they are in if they are starving. their greatest question in live is whether or not they will strave, not who rules them. feed and educate then they will take care of their governments.

---

I expect that if they want to survive they should turn to a constitutional republic. And who rules them is keeping them in the "starving" state. And feeding and education are what I'm talking about - the same issue.

Quote:

---

the idea that you defend the starving of children for the sake of a half stick of gum a day is sick.

---

You are completely ignoring my point. Good on you.

Quote:

---

interest in africa should not be about personal gain, about profit, about capatlism, about corporations. it should be about not having 30,000 children a day die of starvation. it shoukd be about ending the starvation of 3 billion people. it should be about sanitation for 2.2 billion. clean water for 1.1 billion. it should in no way be about benefitting us or the cost of half a stick of gum. you wouldn't care if that was added to tax to fund the war on terror. to save 3,000 american lives. but for some reason 30,000 african children is not a dot on the world's mind.

---

I would care if that was added to tax the fund of the war on terror. I would not save 3,000, no, 3 billion American lives if the way it is done is to make slaves out of everyone living on the planet. And if I was one of the 3 billion, I would not live at the expense of looting and mooching the hell out of innocents. Give me liberty or give me death. And, once again, avoid the race card.

Quote:

---

we are talking about the 9-11 attacks. 10 times. daily. that is the scale of death. the world has spent so much money trying to fight the war on terrorism but it fails to realise it does not matter. it pales in significance. 3,000 dead americans in 5 years? so what? in the same time 54,747,500 children have died from starvation alone. more 54 million compared to less than 3 thousand. i know where i want my money to go. i know what matters more to me. i know where my biggest concern lies.

---

I say that your system of government is only helping to contribute to this death. And you value life so little it's disgusting. If its an American and not an African, it makes it better?

Quote:

---

but at the end of the day those 54 million children we're not american, didn't speak english, weren't white, were thousands of miles away and din't die so dramtically. the merely starve to death in their millions why people argue that it would be wrong to use money to buy them food.

---

lol @ race card

And using money is fine. BUT DON'T STEAL IT.

Christ.

the race card here is an important one. it is a well known fact that if people are crying on tv it ha a great influence if they look like you and you can understand them. there is no denying that.

the people of a country aren't going to turn into a constitutional republic. they aren't strong enough for that. these people are starving to death. a constitution is not the main issue. surviving is.

taking money from hugely wealthy people such as us (tell me your not rich when you are earning a dollar a day) is not theft. a small amount of money to save millions of lifes is what we are talking about. and to be grudge these people that is wrong. it is self centered greed. we life in a world of plenty here. and to keep it all for ourselves will billions starve is beyond a joke.

there is no posible way you can defend to me the small amount of money we are talking about. people through that kind of money away. pennies. taxing to save 3 billion people would only be wrong when people are no longer taxed for the us army.

Like I said, people are helping. They have charity to help, and many other things, and people are helping. I think that Mr. MILF and others are right, in how Africa needs to take a step to help itself, but charity is good too. You can only be helped if you take the step to accept that help, and that's with all problems.

by aid though we can simply break down the government though.

if we started building schools, funding them, employed the teachers, built houses, took care of health care issues, helped them with farming and water. what is left for the government? it would become dislodged. it would have noone to rule anyway. it's politics would not have an impact on these people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the race card here is an important one. it is a well known fact that if people are crying on tv it ha a great influence if they look like you and you can understand them. there is no denying that.

---

It's not an important issue, with me. I could give a damn if these people are purple; they are human beings.

Quote:

---

the people of a country aren't going to turn into a constitutional republic. they aren't strong enough for that. these people are starving to death. a constitution is not the main issue. surviving is.

---

In order to survive, they need to have individual rights recognized. To have individual rights recognized, they need a constitution. That would stop the government-sanctioned genocide really quick.

Quote:

---

taking money from hugely wealthy people such as us (tell me your not rich when you are earning a dollar a day) is not theft.

---

o rly

Quote:

---

a small amount of money to save millions of lifes is what we are talking about. and to be grudge these people that is wrong. it is self centered greed. we life in a world of plenty here. and to keep it all for ourselves will billions starve is beyond a joke.

---

Don't steal from me. Blah blah blah need need need. Stop basing your argument on need on give me some facts. We greedy, selfish westerners don't want to get mixed up with Africa. Besides, if we did, the world over would complain we police the world.

What do you want me to do? I'll consider it. Just don't propose to force me to do anything.

Quote:

---

there is no posible way you can defend to me the small amount of money we are talking about. people through that kind of money away. pennies. taxing to save 3 billion people would only be wrong when people are no longer taxed for the us army.

---

So, we should be taxed to help a faraway country that would not benefit us in the least, but we should not be taxed in order to protect ourselves.

Seriously, stop with the crying and talk in my language. I don't give a damn about Africa if they think they have any sort of right to my wealth, my property, and my life.

if people need to be forced to ave 30,000 children a day so be it. there is no loss of morals there. what is wrong is to stand back and watch as it happens and say that you won't give money as it won't benefit you. it is greedy, selfish and outright wrong.

it is a typical western view you share of "it's my money and due to my total lack of empathy and morality i don't want to help save a child every 3 seconds i want my half stick of gum a day" it is view totally void of morality and fueled by greed. it seems you cannot possibly comprehend the poverty we are talking about here. the huge difference between you and them. and the small amount of money it would take to ease that. to give these people a fighting chance in this world. to end half the world living in poverty. it's alright for you. you live on the other half. you've never felt poverty like what the other half experiences and so you lack an gkind of empathy regarding it and believe that aiding it would be theft not humanity. i'll give you a challenge. last a month on a dollar a day. the average wage on the african continent. just that single dollar. once you have experienced that month and say that it's totally cool to life like that and it's not an urgent act of humanity that is required to be done. then and only then can you hold your argument that it is theft not humanity to save these people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

if people need to be forced to ave 30,000 children a day so be it. there is no loss of morals there. what is wrong is to stand back and watch as it happens and say that you won't give money as it won't benefit you. it is greedy, selfish and outright wrong.

it is a typical western view you share of "it's my money and due to my total lack of empathy and morality i don't want to help save a child every 3 seconds i want my half stick of gum a day" it is view totally void of morality and fueled by greed. it seems you cannot possibly comprehend the poverty we are talking about here. the huge difference between you and them. and the small amount of money it would take to ease that. to give these people a fighting chance in this world. to end half the world living in poverty. it's alright for you. you live on the other half. you've never felt poverty like what the other half experiences and so you lack an gkind of empathy regarding it and believe that aiding it would be theft not humanity. i'll give you a challenge. last a month on a dollar a day. the average wage on the african continent. just that single dollar. once you have experienced that month and say that it's totally cool to life like that and it's not an urgent act of humanity that is required to be done. then and only then can you hold your argument that it is theft not humanity to save these people.

---

If I was an African, I would not take food that I knew someone had made for me against their will.

You are, yet again, missing the point, and willing to stoop to immorality in order to justify that the rest of the world be brought down to Africa's level.

When you recognize that two wrongs never make a right, please come back to me, and I'll write you a damn check for $100 dollars in order to help out the cause. But if you imply even for a second that you had the right to take the one-hundred dollars from me, then I want you to ask which philosophy is based on greed and whether or not the people of Africa have a chance with people such as yourself, with your views, egging them on.