Aid to Africa? (was Odd American Points of View)

[cssamerican]

If you ever wondered how these dumbasses running the country get elected, it is because the country is full of dumbasses. I am from Louisiana (AKA the Bayou State) and our state government is so stupid they spent 80 million dollars last year digging man made lakes. That is like spending 80 million dollars in one year to build canals in Venice Italy. Totally stupid, yet no one seems to care. It never fails, ask someone about government policies, even about local government policies, and it never fails 90% of Americans vote and take sides over issues for a freak'n letter because that is the letter their parents sided with, it really is sad 

Oh, and basically everything those people from California told you is complete BS. However, I bet you 25% of Americans believe at least half of it. The only thing that would change if Gore would have been President was it would have been a different 25% of the country that believed that BS  :lol:

[Bram]

Well, all of these seem nonsensical to me. But I'll comment only on the one that I'm absolutely certain about (having two years of aerospace engineering under my belt):

2. Aeroplanes are so sophisticated these days that it is impossible to fly one into a building without the (US) government allowing it.

FALSE. Anti-collision systems do indeed exist, but:
- current anticollision systems only prevent mid air collisions and in most cases consist primarily of that high-tech new-fangled technology called 'lamps'.
- building collision systems could be constructed based on GPS or radar but these are certainly not incorporated in relatively old commercial airliners.
- they are shaky at best.
- they can be turned off.

Gimme a plane, any plane, and I'll crash it into whatever you want.

[dandan]

The thing that surprised me most was that a family that had fled communism, settled in the USA, been successful and seemed reasonably intelligent should be so anti-USA. They were so anti-USA that I was pro-USA in comparison and I can assure you I own no stars and stripes underwear.

People over here are still generally anti-American (I guess you guys get that a lot) even though the government is very pro-USA. Russians are still regarded as friends, and this is not just due to the vast amount of gas and oil that comes this way (communism was so dumb, they left IOUs).

[Ben Kossman]

I'm as liberal as anyone but I'm kind of glad Farenheit 911 didn't get Kerry elected. It sucks but he just wasn't very good and Hollywood having that kind of power would have been REALLY bad. I'm also Jewish and have been lucky to deal with very little Anti-Semitism in my lifetime. I just don't understand why people bought the Republican's whole 911 schtick. I think America get's trashed so often because there are real problems here that aren't getting dealt with that affect the whole world. We really need to work on holding our leaders and ourselves accountable instead of just passing the buck to the other side. It's really funny to see the Republicans in complete control but unable to get anything done because their all a bunch of egomaniacal, self-righteous bungmonkies. I don't even understand how a movement that doesn't even beleive the government should be there in the first place can run one of the largest bueracracies in the world effectively. It's like giving a hippie an Escalade, they'll just put it on blocks and live in it instead of using it to it's full potential. Anyway, as bad as things are they can always get a lot worse and it can happen in a hurry if people don't actively try to make things better and have the courage to speak out when things are clearly wrong. And despite all the negativity I'm still hopeful that we're capabale of  moving things in a positive direction. Hope that wasn't to far off topic. In regards to your questions I hope the answers to all of them are no. But if we're going to rule the world (And possibly the universe...MWAHAHA) we should build a Death Star. That would rock. :lol:

[TracerBullet]

Gimme a plane, any plane, and I'll crash it into whatever you want.

Bram, if you weren't a Dutchman, I'd say to hide for a while, cause you got some FBI boys headed to your door.  But, then again, if you were American, the worst they could do to you is interrogate you for a while...

Come to think of it, go run and hide somewhere for a while.

[dandan]

Why hide? You Yanks can't find a single WMD in a country full of them (allegedly), how the hell could you find a Dutchie?

Note to Bush - if you want your favourite lap-dog to behave you'll have to give him a bone now and again. Pledging 700 million dollars (already promised, not new money) to help 300 million Africans (not sure what the population of Africa is, they keep dying) isn't that impressive compared to the billions spent on Iraq. Blair actually seems to care about this issue (it is hardly a vote winner) and in any case, getting some good PR wouldn't be a bad idea for a country that can find money for war but not for peace. 

[Matt]

To be fair, there are a lot more Dutch than WMDs, and concentrated in a much smaller area.

[dandan]

I am not convinced that the FBI can find Europe on a map, let alone Dutchieland.

[Jacob Orlove]

I am not convinced that the FBI can find Europe on a map, let alone Dutchieland.

You're blatantly ignoring the possibility of them just dropping nukes until they get it right.

[Revvik]

I thought it was our policy to throw money at problems, not nuclear missiles.  Maybe they'll slap Bram with a hundred and scold him.  Severely.

[Matt]

I am not convinced that the FBI can find Europe on a map, let alone Dutchieland.

This would really be a matter for the CIA though. Roughly speaking FBI is internal, CIA is foreign.

[dandan]

Wouldn't flying a plane into one of your buildings count as an internal problem?

In any case, I think Bram is safe. They haven't even arrested the last people who did this, despite knowing their names.

Re: Nukes. What would be point of levelling Holland?

[Matt]

Well...by and large America seems opposed to dikes.

[dandan]

In my (somewhat limited) experience they tend to be more bi-sexual than dykes. I guess they are lesbians until the right man comes. (read into that what you may Dutch males)

[Dr. Sylvan]

Note to Bush - if you want your favourite lap-dog to behave you'll have to give him a bone now and again. Pledging 700 million dollars (already promised, not new money) to help 300 million Africans (not sure what the population of Africa is, they keep dying) isn't that impressive compared to the billions spent on Iraq. Blair actually seems to care about this issue (it is hardly a vote winner) and in any case, getting some good PR wouldn't be a bad idea for a country that can find money for war but not for peace. 

The failure to spend more money may be because the country is already like half a trillion dollars in the hole just for this year. Our deficit is close to the size of the entire British government. I can't fault Bush for any even minute sign of fiscal restraint. If only Congress felt that it was obligated to spend money it actually had, then maybe we could consider crazy projects Europeans think we should spend our money on.

Also, $700 million is like infinite money. I hate to be so stereotypically American, but since when are people allowed to be such whiners about us only shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars on top of the billions we already spend in foreign aid? We have our own problems, and if we aren't permitted to solve them (e.g., reduce our deficit, discourage the citizens from spending more than they earn), then it'll be everyone's problem. I'd love to hear Blair's plan for getting out of Great Depression, Part II: Escape From the Epic Economic Clusterfuck.

[Revvik]

Well...by and large America seems opposed to dikes.

I didn't know that.  Hell, a lot of us tend to get a little too friendly with them, especially when drunk.  Reference: one too many stories an ex-alcoholic co-worker tells about his adventures in San Francisco getting thrown out of a "chick bar."

I'm a lesbian too... on the inside!

Yeah, he actually said that (or tried to.  too much drink makes for linguistic adventures), and he actually was almost publicly castrated.

And yes, acting like a spoiled child because 700 million isn't as much as what we spent on a war is silly.  It's not just "We gotta look out for #1," it's "Hey, if we can't handle our shit, then we can't handle your shit, so our shit comes first."  Or something to that effect.

[Matt]

Well, I playing off the dike/dyke pun, dyke being a lesbian, and dike being a wall keeping back the sea common to Holland.

[rvs]

Also, ever since we turned into Meandeck Holland, they are afraid to touch us (and rightfully so!).

[Revvik]

You are right.  We don't have the resources to commit to a war when plays involving Brainstorms are involved.
We'd be broke after the first fetchland activation!
Although looking at it from the other angle, while you're deciding which two cards to put back on top, our soldiers will be levelling your dikes.

Read that how you will.

[Aeneas]

Just a reminder, every single recount in Florida said Bush was the winner.  (regardless of the supreme courts intervention)

This is a line I hear tossed about rather frequently whenever the 2000 election is brought up.  After the election, the media undertook the task of recounting the ballots in Florida.  While in a number of scenarios (varying in numbers of counties recounted or degree to which damaged or questionable ballots were counted) Bush emerged the winner, he most certainly did not come out ahead in every situation.  One scenario in particular stands out.  As the Washington Post headline puts it, "Study Finds Gore Might Have Won Statewide Tally of All Uncounted Ballots."  Here's a quote from another Post article:

Washington Post[/i] on Nov 12, 2001]
If there had been some way last fall to recount every vote -- undervotes and overvotes alike, in all 67 Florida counties -- former vice president Al Gore likely would be in the White House.

Here's a link to the article for those who want to follow up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A12604-2001Nov11&notFound=true

This by no means proves that Bush stole the election in Florida.  I saw that statement out there and I felt it best not to leave it unmentioned.  The real meat and potatoes of the election theft is in the handywork of then Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris and Governor Jeb Bush.  Earlier that year, Florida hired ChoicePoint to remove convicted felons from the voter rolls.  However, ChoicePoint was far too zealous in their quest to remove felons, as they ended up removing felons who had their civil liberties restored, people who had only committed misdemeanors, and people with names similar to those of a felon.  In total, 57,700 voters were purged from the rolls that year.  Later statistical analysis suggests with 99% certainty that at least 90.2% of removed voters should never have been removed.  Roughly 88% of those removed from the rolls in this purge were Black, which stands in stark contrast to the 11% of the Florida population which is Black.  Blacks tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic (93% of Florida Blacks voted for Gore in 2000) and about 51,000 were no longer eligible to vote, although about 45,000 of them should still have been.  Juxtaposed to that figure is the whopping 0 Hispanics removed from the rolls.  Bush received 67% of the Dade County Hispanic vote in 2000.
     Also, it would be a shame to forget that ChoicePoint has some hefty ties to the Republican party.  Gregory Palast of Salon.com can break that down:

Salon.com[/i]]
ChoicePoint's board and executive roster are packed with Republican stars, including billionaire Ken Langone, a company director who was chairman of the fund-raising committee for New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's aborted run against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Langone is joined at ChoicePoint by another Giuliani associate, former New York Police Commissioner Howard Safir. And Republican power lobbyist and former congressman Vin Weber lobbies for ChoicePoint in Washington. Just before his death in 1998, Rick Rozar, president of a Choicepoint company, CDB Infotek, donated $100,000 to the Republican Party.

Here's the link for that story: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html

     Recap: Florida, under the stewardship of Harris and Bush, hires ChoicePoint, a company with significant ties to the Republican party.  Then ChoicePoint is urged by the state to loosen their already lax requirements for purging individuals from the voting rolls.  Tens of thousands of Floridians are undeservedly unable to vote.  Far overrepresented in the disenfranchised are Blacks, who tend to be staunch Democrats.  Hispanics, a more Republican oriented minority, are left unscathed.  End result: Potential Gore voters are disenfranchised by the tens of thousands and Bush claims the White House with a 500 vote lead over Gore.

For more information on this topic, Wikipedia has an excellent entry for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File

[dandan]

The failure to spend more money may be because the country is already like half a trillion dollars in the hole just for this year. Our deficit is close to the size of the entire British government. I can't fault Bush for any even minute sign of fiscal restraint. If only Congress felt that it was obligated to spend money it actually had, then maybe we could consider crazy projects Europeans think we should spend our money on.

Also, $700 million is like infinite money. I hate to be so stereotypically American, but since when are people allowed to be such whiners about us only shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars on top of the billions we already spend in foreign aid? We have our own problems, and if we aren't permitted to solve them (e.g., reduce our deficit, discourage the citizens from spending more than they earn), then it'll be everyone's problem. I'd love to hear Blair's plan for getting out of Great Depression, Part II: Escape From the Epic Economic Clusterfuck.

I'm not whining. My kids have food. They have vaccinations. Apart from my wife's cooking they are in no immediate danger. I'm pointing out that America is doing less than most other developed countries to sort out Africa, a continent messed up by bad government much of which was propped up by one side or the other during the Cold WAr.
$700 million is not infinite money. In Magic and non-military budgets, infinite does not exist. $700 million is probably about America's monthly toilet roll bill assuming chilli and curry are as popular as I think they are. Wouldn't it be better to stop people dying than to have more therapy. more cheese on your hamburgers, more marines in fucked-up countries like Somalia (because as well as those guys and the locals dying, such foreign policy costs a shedload) and more wooden houses in areas with friggin hurricanes every year.
Children are dying from mosquito bites and we are turning a blind eye. And America is turning a blinder eye than most.

I hate how the above makes me sound like some kind of what you Americans call a liberal...

P.S. Kudos to Bush for at least supporting the debt relief scheme.

P.P.S. Blair doesn't have a plan for getting out of the Great Depression. He leaves such financial stuff to his chancellor, Gordon Brown, who manages to increase taxes without people noticing (or seemingly caring) in order to pay for such idealism. I think not spending more on the defence bill than the next ten biggest spenders combined might also help Brown balance the books.

[Matt]

Two things:

1. Before calling America's contribution slender, remember that is only the government's portion. Private citizens often contribute a significant amount too.

2. As nice as all those things sound, I wouldn't want my government to spend one dime without having some kind of assurance that that money will actually be used to do all those things. The typical way this goes down for African countries recieving aid is to get the food or medicine or whatever, then watch as the local government charged with distributing it either hoards it for the local despot, or to sell it off to neighbors for military supplies, or doles it out to henchmen to ensure loyalty.

Or if it's an international body like the UN, you're saddled with its own inherent buereaucratic waste, plus the cost goes up because you have to bring in people and keep your UN workers (or Amnesty International or whatever) supplied.

Americans historically have been perfectly willing to help other countries out...when they expect it will do any good. They're not so fired up about throwing their money down a hole in the ground.

[dandan]

Good points, well made.

I accept that individuals also contribute, I was talking about countries not citizens. Of course an individual donating has already paid a large chunt of each dollar to the state anyway before they even get that money so the state has already taxed your donation.

As far as corruption goes, Africa is well known for having some of the most corrupt regimes that have ever existed. If you look at a 'good' example of Uganda, where the money saved from the savings from debt relief (actually interest from debt relief so far) goes into a separate account so that spending is transparent, this merely means that 'normal' government spending can go elsewhere although few would argue that the debt relief so far has funded greater spending on education.
I have no problem with conditions on aid and indeed there are strict conditions on existing debt relief and aid. However if we refused to help others whilst there was corruption in that country, we would never give any aid.

I honestly see parallels to the holocaust. We are aware that people are dying and that we can help but there are reasons why we can deny, dither or point to more pressing matters at home. Just as bombing the deathcamps would have caused casualties, putting money into Africa will see a significant number of aid going to the wrong people. However, doing nothing really shouldn't be an option.

Even if people dying were not an issue, even if the spread of AIDS were not a concern, even if poverty, ignorance and envy were not recognised aids to recruitment of terrorism, even if the WHO hadn't demonstrated (with Smallpox) that diseases could be eradicated, there is an economic case for developing Africa - the whole world would be richer if Africa were richer (see Japan and Europe - Marshall plan for details). There is an economic case for developing countries to avoid armed conflict. There is an ecological case for aid to develop countries without the need to destroy their natural resources.  Saving a few tax dollars could cost us dear.

P.S. I do not like being the most left-wing person in this thread. Could someone from New York or California please post?

[Matt]

I honestly see parallels to the holocaust.

I do, too. But I don't think that aid is going to prevent another genocide, I think that - in this analogy - killing Nazis is the only way to stop it. Which is why I agree with the central argument of that article I linked to:

"Clearly the only chance for the people of Zimbabwe is for someone, anyone, to help them to rise up and meet violence with violence. They do not need aid, they need guns and ammunition so that supporters of the MDC can start shooting at anyone associated with ZANU-PF or the 'security' services. Time for Mugabe's swaggering police thugs to be met with a hail of gunfire rather than terrified sobbing."
...
"If Tony Blair was serious about doing something about poverty in Africa, he would be sending guns to the MDC and to anyone else who is willing to resist and threatening to have some gentlemen from Hereford put a .338 hole between Mugabe's eyes unless things change radically."

[dandan]

Mugabe is a dictator in the mould of Stalin but he was elected and the tribal nature of Zimbabwe means that it is very hard for the opposition to overthrow him (especially without food, media coverage or significant finances). It is naive in the extreme to think that former colonial powers could be seen to overthrow an elected African leader. Interestingly, when Mugabe talks about foreign interference in Zimbabwe he talks about Blair not Bush.

In any case, Zimbabwe is not the issue as it has a regime that disqualifies it from debt relief and most aid.

When I talk about aid and debt relief, I am talking about states that are at least attempting to improve the lot of their people, states that are probably no more wasteful with money than the USA or EU (spending 40% of your budget to appease 5% of the people by producing food that you don't need and have to dispose of could be considered wasteful).

Whilst I agree that bad governments have caused more problems than failed crops in Africa, you can't expect much local support for regime change (note how well the idea of regime change has gone down in Arab states) especially by direct military intervention. Financially supporting 'good' regimes through debt relief and aid creates significant pressure for change. The carrot complements the stick without replacing it.

[Matt]

An elected African leader, eh? It'll be a cold day in hell before I recognize as legitimate someone who literally says, "Vote for me or die."

When I talk about aid and debt relief, I am talking about states that are at least attempting to improve the lot of their people

But haven't we been trying that for decades, and to no avail? These places are STILL hellholes, and in some ways (HIV) have actually gotten worse. Has giving large amounts of aid ever actually worked?

[dandan]

Yes, it worked in Europe and Japan post-1945.

Regarding elections, Mugabe's supporters did not vote for him because the alternative was no food, he has a large amount of support because the tribe he is from is the biggest in Zimbabwe. Just as it was easy to predict a Shi'ite win in Iraq, so it was easy to see Mugabe win each election since Zimbabwe has existed. It is a mark of the man that his support amongst his own supporters has dwindled to the point that he has to use dubious methods to ensure victory in elections. Votes based in tribal loyalties are no less valid than votes based on race, number of times candidate has appeared in dumb films, amount of money spend on campaign, or whether or not that State has a close relative in charge of it in elections in the US.

Haven't we been trying aid for decades? To be honest, no. Not to any significant extent. Compare the effort and financing of the war on terror to the war on poverty.

[Moxlotus]

Haven't we been trying aid for decades? To be honest, no. Not to any significant extent. Compare the effort and financing of the war on terror to the war on poverty. 

I think America is sick of giving aid to Africa after the Mogadishu incident in Somalia.

[Matt]

Europe and Japan also had the benefit of substantial American forces committed there, for the express purpose of making sure that they didn't restart a third war in as many decades. As they say, 'Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.’

Come to think of it, the only instances I can think of where a ruined country hasn't fallen back into barbarism was when American troops maintained a strong presence there. Europe would now be another Africa, or more likely ruined by forty years of Soviet domination, without those troops. I see no reason to expect that chairty alone will ever solve anyone's problems.

It's like giving money to a homeless person. I'll toss some coins their way every so often, mostly to avoid my own guilt. But I could give them any amount of money - I could empty my bank accounts at their feet, but would that solve their problems? No. The vast majority (exceptions exist but astonishingly few) would just blow through my money as quickly as they ever did their own. And while I may have made some back-alley gamblers and the makers of Night Train happy, you'd be hard pressed to say my money was put to good use.

Charity doesn't work, and the reason it doesn't work is that anyone who is serious about making their life better isn't going to wait around for handouts.

[Saucemaster]

Charity doesn't work, and the reason it doesn't work is that anyone who is serious about making their life better isn't going to wait around for handouts.

Conceding for the sake of argument that you're right, all that you're proved is that charity that goes to those who are simply sitting around, waiting for handouts, doesn't work.  It says nothing about aid given to those who are actually trying to effect a change but simply lack sufficient resources, which is specifically what dandan was discussing:

When I talk about aid and debt relief, I am talking about states that are at least attempting to improve the lot of their people, states that are probably no more wasteful with money than the USA or EU....

The real question is why these efforts typically fail.  One possible answer is yours, Matt; another is that the aid that is being given is being given indiscriminately and ineffectively; still another, which dandan raised, is that we simply aren't giving sufficient aid.  After all, this isn't some Ayn Rand-inspired fairy tale: just *wanting* and *trying* to improve your life isn't any guarantee of success.  Without the resources to permit effective action, you simply will not succeed.

Personally, I'm not sure what the real answer is.  What does seem clear to me is that, when viewed from the perspective of "the bond of shared humanity" or whatever you want to call it, my country's priorities are tremendously skewed.  This isn't even just about aid.  How many people do you know who saw Hotel Rwanda and said, "wait, that really happened?"  How many Americans have seen pictures of Saddam Hussein in his underwear on the news, but can't even pronounce "Mugabe" because they've literally never heard someone say the name aloud?  Hell, I'm guilty of this, too.  It certainly seems possible--hell, maybe even probable--that given America's deafness to the (non-) developing nations, the real problem might just be that we can barely be bothered to spare a hundredth of what it would really cost (monetary or otherwise) to make a difference.  Seriously, is it their efforts or ours that are really lacking?