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

[Moxlotus]

I've said it before on this thread, but it needs to be said again.

We tried giving aid to Africa before.  We tried to help people who were starving before.  Then they killed American 17 soldiers and shot down 2 Blackhawk helicopters.

I would also like to emphasize the track record of military intervention on making places not suck to live.  In addition to those listed you can even go back in history to the Roman empire for taking places that were going to hell and whipping them into a stable environment.  Military intervention works in the long run, its just hard at first.

Say we go in and try to be peaceful, then somebody starts blowing us up...again.  Then what.  Do we run away like bitches or do we fight-and fighting is why half of the US and a lot of the world doesn't like Bush & Co. in the first place.  Think about what could happen if the ideal plan doesn't work out.

[Ben Kossman]

I wasn't suggesting that we do the exact same thing we've been doing. There are other options out there. But as long as we're arguing over whether or not we should help them in the first place we can't begin the creative process to get things going in the right direction. Military intervention is necessary in extreme circumstances (See WW2,Bosnia,Iraq) but it shouldn't be glorified as a cure-all solution either and that's the mindset I hear. Also the reality is that people do in fact live their lives in the present tense. If a person can't survive the day then long-term solutions are irrelevant. It's easy to talk about the big picture when you have a fridge full of food in an air-conditioned apartment in a relatively secure country. If you're starving or doging bullets all that other stuff's kind of irrelevant. Instead of explaning why no one should listen to what I have to say why don't you use that vast intellect of yours to come up with some sort of solution. America has a vast surplus of creativity. If we
put our heads together then we could solve all the wolrd's problems and then come up with eniterly new, more interesting problems to deal with. Conservatives have come up with as many good ideas as bad ones. They just waste too much time defending the bad ones.

[Matt]

Well, let's start by identifying the problem(s). What exactly are the impediments to African success - the root causes of their failure? Famine and plague are superficial symptoms, not the disease itself.

I can think of a couple offhand.

1. The belief in magic is still widespread. They need to exchange superstition for reason. The nonsense and witchcraft pervading the continent is beyond belief, no pun intended. Africa needs an Enlightenment.
2. They have, as one writer put it, a "thousand year legacy of hatred and revenge" that needs to be broken. People need to start seeing themselves as individuals and not members of a tribe.

Any more? I also have my ideas about how to fix these but let's get a reasonably complete list of the problems first. Giving aid might save a few lives but it won't actually FIX the problem. Africa cannot be prosperous until it breaks these two shackles. For that matter, I think that if you do manage to enact both of these, Africans will start fixing their problems on their own, which is the end goal. We definitely do NOT need an Africa dependent on European or American largesse, but instead one that is self-sufficient and capable of making its own way in the world.

[dandan]

I was under the impression that the debt relief was going to simply be us not giving aid we would have.  If we give them this aid and make them pay their debts, surely, at some point in between, some of the money will be lost to corruption, etc.  Can anyone validate this or the opposite?
One of the big problems with passing out aid is the infrastructure.  International charity is not a terribly new thing, but the economic theory behind it has been slow to develop.  What is the best way for us to encourage this impoverished, corrupt government to improve?  I was under the impression that the World Bank was trying to reform its aid systems (Madagascar anyone?) to make everything more effective.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4081220.stm

How much difference could debt relief make for poor countries?
If poor countries don't have to spend so much on debt payments, they can use the money instead for things which help reduce poverty.
Among the most common priorities are basic health-care and education and improving roads in rural areas - which is where poverty is often at its worst.
That said, countries which have already been through the current crop of debt relief initiatives are still paying about $2.5bn to service their remaining debts.

What debt relief programmes already exist?
The main one is the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) which was launched in 1996 and for which a total of 38 countries, mostly in Africa, are in principle eligible.
To qualify, countries have to be very poor and have a very heavy debt burden.
They also have to maintain economic stability and produce a strategy for reducing poverty.
A total of 18 have reached what is called the "completion point" - the end of the HIPC process. These are the countries that will immediately benefit from the plan announced in London on 11 June.
Another nine have got to the "decision point", at which debt relief starts to kick in.
The World Bank says the total debts of these 27 countries went from $80bn to $28bn as a result of HIPC and other debt relief initiatives.
It also says that what it calls "poverty-reducing expenditure" went from 40.9% of government revenue in 1999 to 48.5% in 2003.
There are another 11 HIPC countries yet to reach their decision points. Most have had difficulties such as internal conflicts, which have prevented them doing all that is required for debt relief under the initiative.

The developed world has recognised that aid without conditions doesn't work. Remember that a lot of foreign 'aid' was money to keep dictators on the right side during the cold war. Only countries that reform can get this help. The reform may well do more than the aid but aid without reform doesn't work. Don't think for a minute that we are talking about helping out regimes like Mugabe's. We are talking about countries that are saddled with the debts of the past and unable to trade on a level-playing field with Europe and America. That's a damned big hole.

Matt said
It is also a fact that a good chunk of the world has been dumping money into Africa for the last 30 years (or more!) and that continent still remains a cesspool of war and mass graves, having shown little or no improvement and in many cases falling resolutely backwards. The definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. Again, I have to ask: what makes you think that increased foreign aid is going to work this time?

First of all, I would state that we are not repeating the same behaviour. Debt is written off IF a country goes through a period of reform and passes tests of accountability (I don't doubt that corruption will be wiped out but clearly such actions reduce it) whereas in the past foreign aid went to prop up murderous regimes so they would be our murderous regimes and not Red muderous regimes (and vica-versa).
The numbers involved are huge but anything involving world change involves huge numbers. $700 million aid from America is a lot as is $34 billion to develop Iraq. The Make Povert History organisation (a group of 100+ mainly charity groups) put the figure required to 'make poverty history' as equivalent to the cost of ice-cream bought in the EU. I've also seen it compared to the cost of anti-wrinkle cream bought in the UK and the equivalent of half a stick of chewing gum a day to people in the developed world. I doubt that you would challenge the fact that children have been innoculated, fresh water has been supplied to more people and more children have been educated as the result of aid.
Finally, we need to start to tackle the problem of trade - the 'free' markets of Europe and America are amongst the least free anywhere. It is essential that Africans be allowed to help themselves. Trade is not something that can be sorted out overnight but we need to look at why Africa has been unable to sort itself out and trade is one of the major factors.

As far as military intervention, one bullet for Mr. Mugabe would help a lot more than any amount of aid for Zimbabwe but I do not suggest what is not possible - America won't send (significant) troops to Africa nor will Europe but both America and Europe could help financially. For example, the WTO recently decided the EU illegally controlled the sugar market http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4118448.stm and the drastic action recommended by the responsible Dutch commisioner would reduce sugar subsidies (currently 1.7billion Euros a year) so the EU price is only twice the standard world price, not three times it!! (for the EU this is drastic, props to the Dutchie, good luck getting it implimented) This is one example of waste, I'm sure most people can think of others (you Americans seem to put even more zeros in the numbers I've seen for Healthcare waste/corruption).

Do I think that increased foreign aid is going to work this time?

Yes, I do because this time it is linked to Africa helping Africa. I guess it depends on your definition of 'work'. There will still be poor people, there will still be famines, there will still be disease. I just want it not to be the norm.

[BlueJay]

<snip>
1. The belief in magic is still widespread. They need to exchange superstition for reason. The nonsense and witchcraft pervading the continent is beyond belief, no pun intended. Africa needs an Enlightenment.

Well, after all they should be free to believe what they want ...

2. They have, as one writer put it, a "thousand year legacy of hatred and revenge" that needs to be broken. People need to start seeing themselves as individuals and not members of a tribe.
<snip>

And what's intrinsicly wrong with that? Most of africa's problems come for our superimposing of our right way of life. There's no point in instituting a democratic regime if they can identify themselves with it. And don't even get me started on what capitalism did to africa ...

I have no intention to flame you whatsoever. But i did want to leave some refutal to your thesis.

blue

[Jacob Orlove]

<snip>
1. The belief in magic is still widespread. They need to exchange superstition for reason. The nonsense and witchcraft pervading the continent is beyond belief, no pun intended. Africa needs an Enlightenment.

Well, after all they should be free to believe what they want ...

They should be free to believe that raping a 12 year old virgin will cure their AIDS?

[BlueJay]

Sure, as long as they don't act on it!
Quinine was supposed to be some magic mumbo jumbo until somebody looked into and figured it might actually help with malaria.
My point is that the missionary pov that my religion is better then yours is not the right approach.

[Jacob Orlove]

Sure, as long as they don't act on it!

But the problem is that they DO act on it, BECAUSE they believe it.

Matt and I are not saying that our religions (edit: or lack thereof) are "better", and we're not asking them to give up their culture. All we want is some rationality and less of the blatant nonsense that is killing people and destroying entire countries.

[dandan]

That's a good example of the need for better education in Africa. And medicine.
If you were sick and had no access to healthcare, you'd probably do something dumb too (you don't even need to be sick - look at the vast range of 'alternative' medicine - there is plenty of mumbo-jumbo in America too)

Africans might point out a few things done in the name of Christianity or Judaism (the holocaust springs to mind).

Name calling isn't going to help.

Much as I sympathise with the ideal that aid should be given out of a love for our fellow man person of whatever sex , Matt is dead right that such aid hasn't worked. Saying that you need to spend X% on education, Y% on medicine and less on the presidential palace is an essential part of the process of change required. Whilst religious freedom is a fine ideal, it should not be used as an excuse for genocide, murder, rape and other violations of basic human rights (as opposed to basic human rites)

Africa needs change, America is the most important vehicle of change in the world today. Change/reform/aid/debt relief all equates to money. America is the world's biggest economy by far. Any solution which includes America is more likely to work than one without America. I'm not interested in blame. I'm interested in a solution. America is the world's Yawgmoth's Will - you might disagree with it but you can't question that it can make a difference.

[Saucemaster]

My point is that the missionary pov that my religion is better then yours is not the right approach.

Actually, I think Matt was the person who originally introduced me to The Raving Atheist, so I suspect he's not interested in advancing *any* religious views in Africa.

[BlueJay]

Jacob , i understand your point. And i agree with it.
And information can and should be used as a weapon against it.
Most people there don't have acess to this information, and i believe that most of this "blatant nonsense" is mostly due to the political situation rather then the religious part.

[Matt]

See, this is what I'm talking about when I say that much of the political left is unwilling to do anything about Africa. Sure, they're willing to pay out money - even vast sums of it. They have a comendable lack of materialism in this respect. But time and again what you find is that they're not willing to ask impoverished peoples to give up their superstitions (which is kind of funny because these same people will, in the same breath, poke fun at the hogwash ascribed to by most of Christianity) - they're not willing to change Africa. What they really want is for Africans' native way of life to be successful, and it just isn't. You can't get geography out of believing the world rides on a turtle's back, you can't get biology out of believing God created the entire world in six days, and you can't get medicine out of believing that plague is caused by demons and spirits.

Too many people are not willing to abandon beautiful ideas that nevertheless don't work, and so they are not willing to do what it takes to put an end to poverty and disease and war.

Debt is written off IF a country goes through a period of reform and passes tests of accountability

This sounds like a good plan but I am skeptical of whether it will actually be implemented. What I expect is to find some countries that refuse to reform, and then bleeding hearts will say "Aw, here, have your dessert anyway." I am not sure if the writers-off have it within them to actually say 'no'.

I would favor, instead of merely dissolving the debt, to convert it into a no-interest loan. Someday, they should pay it back, but not until they're able, and in the meantime make sure it isn't growing any worse, so that the day when they're able to start paying it off actually comes.

Most of africa's problems come for our superimposing of our right way of life.

The Europeans came in, and afterwards Africa was a really hellish place. And if that's all you look at, I can definitely see how you would arrive at that conclusion. But then you'd have to ignore the fact that Africa was a hellhole before, during, and after European Colonialism slapped it around. Africa hasn't been a good place to live for thousands and thousands of years, since well before the slave trade punched it in the groin.

In fact I think it is no exaggeration to say that ALL of Africa's solutions come from our superimposing of our right way of life.

[Methuselahn]

It is incredibly sad that people have to suffer all around the world.  No human deserves it. 

Unfortunately, it really is not my responsibility.  Nor could I afford it.

Don't worry though.  One of the three following likely events will solve many of the world's problems.
1. HIV kills off and plateaus the population to a managable level.
2. A war larger than any other in history doing the same.
3. Americans develop and implement widespread timetravel.  Probably throught the internet.

or something like that.

[dandan]

It is incredibly sad that people have to suffer all around the world.  No human deserves it. 
Unfortunately, it really is not my responsibility.  Nor could I afford it.
Don't worry though.  One of the three following likely events will solve many of the world's problems.
1. HIV kills off and plateaus the population to a managable level.
2. A war larger than any other in history doing the same.
3. Americans develop and implement widespread timetravel.  Probably throught the internet.
or something like that.

I'd say that quite a few people deserve to suffer but usually they are the ones who don't suffer!

As far as responsibility goes, we can all chose to make the world a better place or not, the only question is to what degree. Maybe my attempts to be a better person won't make any difference at all beyond myself. I personally think they will. (I've already tried being an inconsiderate drunk and that certinly seemed to produce a significant negative effect)

As far as being able to afford it goes, we all have the right to chose how we spend our money or at least the approximately half of it that isn't taken from us in tax (direct and indirect). Given that your country takes away that money from you, you have a right to try to influence how your money gets spent. How much of that money would you say is 'wasted'? Me, I'd say about half but that possibly shows what an optimist I am. I am talking about money that someone has already taken away from you. How much money could be saved if America had a military that was strong enough to easily defeat any possible coalition of enemies rather than the current everyone else in the world (you do know that Britain will be with you no matter how stupid the war and lets be honest, France and Switzerland won't get involved)? So instead of Bush wasting 'your' money (I know it's yours but he doesn't), why not pressure him into something where some of it will almost certainly be wasted but a large amount of people could see a significant improvement to their lives? To be fair to Bush, I think he is almost certain to allocate some funding to debt relief and increased aid with conditions - which seems mightily sensible (100% debt relief for Africa might sound nice but includes /*@$% like Mugabe).

1.AIDS - Aids is killing off the generation of workers that Africa needs to drag itself off the floor. AIDS is a problem for Africa and in the age of international air travel, also a problem for Europe and America. 'Good' population control diseases kill people before they can infect anyone in other countries.
Managable level - Africa is already capable of feeding itself. The world has an excess of food. Starvation is usually the results of governments that don't care or actually use it as a weapon.
2. In the 20th century three times more people were killed in 'peace' as in wars. War has a bad name but is often actually better than the alternative. (can't find the link)
3. I trust you won't rely on Windows timetravel. I'd rather use a good Russian or Indian hack. Are you referring to me buying lots of Alphas back in 93/94 and then selling them for charity in my current sale of great cards in the Magic Community forum?
http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=23623.new#new

[BlueJay]

Most of africa's problems come for our superimposing of our right way of life.

The Europeans came in, and afterwards Africa was a really hellish place. And if that's all you look at, I can definitely see how you would arrive at that conclusion. But then you'd have to ignore the fact that Africa was a hellhole before, during, and after European Colonialism slapped it around. Africa hasn't been a good place to live for thousands and thousands of years, since well before the slave trade punched it in the groin.

Hmmm, i'd like to know your reasoning for that one ... was the US of A an hell hole before brittish colonization just because it didn't fit our concept of civilization?

[dandan]

Before the English got there you got colonised by Russians, then the Danes arrived, didn't like it and didn't return and the English at least kicked out the Dutch so New York isn't called New Amsterdam (can you imagine if all the Americans here were Dutchies? We'd never stay on topic). And do I hear a word of thanks?

[BlueJay]

Before the English got there you got colonised by Russians, then the Danes arrived, didn't like it and didn't return and the English at least kicked out the Dutch so New York isn't called New Amsterdam (can you imagine if all the Americans here were Dutchies? We'd never stay on topic). And do I hear a word of thanks?

LOL, great post!
BTW, i'm not american ... though i've spent some time there.

[Ben Kossman]

I just want to say first off that this is a top notch discussion and I'm really enjoying reading and contributing to it. Having said that I'd appreciate someone who considers themselves Conservative (Matt?) truly explain to the rest of us (or just me) what you beleive or at least provide a link to someone who can. This would allow the bleeding heart liberals among us to understand why we're so misguided and help us get things headed in the "right" direction. Back to the list of relevant problems...

Well, let's start by identifying the problem(s). What exactly are the impediments to African success - the root causes of their failure? Famine and plague are superficial symptoms, not the disease itself.

I can think of a couple offhand.

1. The belief in magic is still widespread. They need to exchange superstition for reason. The nonsense and witchcraft pervading the continent is beyond belief, no pun intended. Africa needs an Enlightenment.
2. They have, as one writer put it, a "thousand year legacy of hatred and revenge" that needs to be broken. People need to start seeing themselves as individuals and not members of a tribe.

3. Lack of infrastructure.
4. Food.
5. Water.
6. Medicine.

There's only one way to make these things available so your so called "enlightenment" can occur. Money, qualified  people, time, and a willignness to sacrifice for the greater good of humanity. Nothing else is gonna cut it.

[dandan]

I was call myself a conservative (although these days with a small 'C' as Blair is a more convincing disciple of Thatcher than the current crop of weak Conservatives).

Matt has highlighted the fact that giving money to corrupt African states is about as helpful as giving money to a street bum for 'a coffee'. It is a fact that large amounts of aid has ended up in the hands of dictators, warlords and corrupt local officials (hell, Kofi Annan's son nicked large amounts too). He is totally correct in this.

You have pointed out that there are a number of problems (basic healthcare, water supply, roads, education) that can be easily solved given the resources. You are totally correct in this.

The problem is that the right and left have different ways of approaching the problem - (the following inevitably shows my political leanings - so be it)

The right says that if you want a better life, you are responsible for making your life better. The role of the state is in not getting in your way.
The left says that together we can create a better life than individuals acting for greed and that state finances (they loathe the words 'taxpayer's money') can be 'invested' to ensure a better future for everyone.

It should be noted that countries that are inclined to the right are generally far better off than countries that are inclined to the left although the lefties do have better museums and their leaders are generally just as rich as right-wing leaders.

Matt asks 'Why should I help?' and 'Will aid help?' because a conservative will consider the value and potential return of any investment first. You see the problem from the liberal point of view and say 'There is a problem, we should help'. Matt looks at a map but doesn't drive anywhere. You drive but get lost. You are both right and both wrong.

Where I disagree with Matt is that he uses this logic to come to the conclusion to do nothing. You come to the conclusion that money alone with solve the problems of Africa (apologies for the sweeping generalisation but those are your basic positions). I feel no moral obligation to help Africa. I do however feel that I would prefer a world with less suffering for my kids to grow up in.

BTW I was very pleased with Bush's speech last night. He mentioned the need to help Africans help themselves, the need for military control of local conflicts and therefore support for the African Union's fledgling peacekeeping forces, the need for reform as a precondition for aid and debt relief and pledged increased US support for this 'world problem'. He even sounded like he meant it.

[Matt]

Where I disagree with Matt is that he uses this logic to come to the conclusion to do nothing.

I don't say that at all. I conclude that I should not give out charity, but that isn't the same as doing nothing. I believe I said, a couple pages back, about how I would support, for example, giving anti-Mugabe rebels plenty of firepower with which to overthrow corrupt regimes. I would also support having some countries (I would suggest my own except that it is busy elsewhere) going in and ousting that vile despot themselves (one of the articles I linked to suggested that a small country like Italy or Spain could easily do it themselves, which would be nice to see).

I'm AM pro-doing-something-about-it, I'm just also anti-charity. If you must give me a label, put me in the "pro-results, anti-pageantry" column. I'm definitely not a conservative or liberal - I think the political spectrum isn't accurately described by any one variable.

[dandan]

Matt, you appear to be a Texan, suggesting that little bits of lead (you seem to have gone off DU) can solve the problem.
Texans think like that.

[[supa_t(im)]]

I believe I said, a couple pages back, about how I would support, for example, giving anti-Mugabe rebels plenty of firepower with which to overthrow corrupt regimes. I would also support having some countries (I would suggest my own except that it is busy elsewhere) going in and ousting that vile despot themselves (one of the articles I linked to suggested that a small country like Italy or Spain could easily do it themselves, which would be nice to see).

Since when has that worked?  USA gave guns to El Salvador where there still is a horrible form of government, with uprisings, useless killings, and general civil war.

USA gave guns to Afghanistan during the Cold War.  We even trained their troops.  Thus giving them the knowledge to blow up our buildings.

The first Gulf War, Iraq fought the USA with weapons given them by the USA.

It seems to me that giving guns to unstable countries has a bad track record.  I don't know the numbers on this, but the USA is responsible for much of the terror groups that it is now fighting.  Therefore, I don't think giving Africa weapons to replace one dictator with another is gonna help anything.

However, just giving money isn't going to work either.  Money is part of the solution, I'm not convinced guns are.

[Moxlotus]

Since when has that worked?  USA gave guns to El Salvador where there still is a horrible form of government, with uprisings, useless killings, and general civil war.

US also gave guns to Greece in the cold war to stop communist rebels from seizing control.  There are others too.  The results have been mixed, but the bad press always gets put ahead of the good press.

[Matt]

The first Gulf War, Iraq fought the USA with weapons given them by the USA.

Yes, which is why I am suggesting we arm the rebels and not the oppresiive disctators. Jeez, it's like you didn't even read my post.

USA gave guns to Afghanistan during the Cold War.  We even trained their troops.  Thus giving them the knowledge to blow up our buildings.

You know what we gave them? Stinger missles. Which had unique batteries that died out after a time, making them inoperative (those that weren't expended during the war or destroyed at Rawalpindi in Pakistan, where shortly after the Soviet-Afghan war a huge explosion destroyed most of the weapons we had been stockpiling for the Afghanis. The weapons themselves were never used against us.

Again, the situation in Afghanistan was infinitely more complex than is expressed in your pithy placard pronouncements. When the US pulled out, it did so quickly and completely, basically "abandoning the country to its own fate." The power vaccuum left by the removal of American and later Soviet troops and monies created a civil war. "Pakistani intelligence, whom we had empowered in Afghanistan, used its power and influence to bring order out of the chaos through a new religious faction, the Taliban. The Pakistanis also facilitated the Taliban's use of the Arab Afghan War veterans, al Qaeda, to fight for the Taliban." (both quotes from Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, which should be required reading before discussing this topic)

I don't know much about El Salvador but I suspect that a similar situation exists/existed. One thing I am sure of is that it isn't going to be as simple as you say.

Also, what kind of hogwash is that last statement? Do you think we trained them to fly airplanes into buildings? Do you think we trained them to strap plastic explosives to themselves and martyr themselves before Allah? That whole line is utter rubbish and really just goes to show you the lengths that people will go to in order to discredit America.

So here we have yet another case study: things were going swimmingly until we left. Why do things only seem to work out when Western (and almost always that means American) powers have a strong hand in them? To anyone who says "who are we to judge, their way of life is just as valid as ours," I think it would be instructive to ruminate on why every success story of the last two hundred years correllates almost perfectly with the amount and strength of ties to Western civilization.

Southeast Asia is a huge nutjob, except for Hong Kong (ruled by British) and Taiwan (strong American support). South Korea and Japan are prosperous nations while in North Korea millions of people starve each year under one of the worst regimes on the planet. China has managed to keep up largely by Westernizing its society from the roots on up, and their seeming wholehearted willingness to embrace Western civilization is one of the scariest things about them. One thing you cannot say about China is that they're unwilling to change (they once were and that led to centuries of decline. They've learend their lesson well).

Africa as a continent is a cesspool, except for Egypt (biggest recipient of US aid ever) and maybe South Africa, though South Africa has its share of problems.

Saudi Arabia might look like a success, but it's a hollow one. The Saudis bought a Western-style society from Westerners and hire Westerners to come in* and maintain it while they spend all their time memorizing a holy book. Should the West ever pull out they'll find that they have none of the knowledge or skills to keep their society running and it will all grind to a halt.

Whereever you look, success equals Westernization. I don't at all buy the notion that what we enjoy is just our "concept of civilization" - it IS civilization.



*which, incidentally, is one of the things that bugs bin Laden the most: the one coherent demand he ever made was for all Westerners to leave the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is holy ground because it contains the two Mosques.

[[supa_t(im)]]

Since when has that worked?  USA gave guns to El Salvador where there still is a horrible form of government, with uprisings, useless killings, and general civil war.

US also gave guns to Greece in the cold war to stop communist rebels from seizing control.  There are others too.  The results have been mixed, but the bad press always gets put ahead of the good press.

British troops were also stationed in Greece to fight Communist Rebels.  Also, Greece had a whole government dedicated to stopping the Communists already.  It wasn't just "here are some weapons, now liberate yourself."  That is what we did with Afghanistan, and you saw what happened. 

Even with that said, I'd rather not see our troops in Africa.  I would like to believe that properly run charities and aid organizations can use funding and man power to help Africa without having to kill anyone.  This is because, its been my exprience from looking through history, that violence and war doesn't really solve much.
I'm not saying military action won't help war torn, dictator run Africa, but giving them guns and saying, "this is the firepower you need, have fun" and then leaving is not gonna solve any problems.  Its just going to make more.

@Matt
Well, thanks for that rant, but I must tell you that I agree with just about everything you said.

My point is that arming the rebels, and leaving it at that, is NOT going to work.  You cited exactly what I am talking about with Afghanistan.  We gave them weapons, we left, quickly and completely, "abandoning the country to its own fate."   Then what you said happened, and we were attacked.  I never said we trained them to fly airplanes, but we trained their military leaders in tactics and planning.  If you think that said training didn't factor into 9/11 I'd be baffled.

Man, the more I re-read your post, the more I don't understand your hostility toward me, as you are saying exactly what I am saying.

I'm not a relativist.  I do not think that their society is OK the way it is.  I do think that if we want to change it, its going to take more than just "arming the rebels" as it seems as though the examples you mentioned seems to entail more than just giving guns.

Sorry we misunderstood each other.

[BlueJay]

Damn, that was the biggest speach of "We are America! We rule the world!" i heard in a long time.

US also gave guns to Greece in the cold war to stop communist rebels from seizing control.

America never gives out anything ... What's the biggest industry in the US of A?

So here we have yet another case study: things were going swimmingly until we left. Why do things only seem to work out when Western (and almost always that means American) powers have a strong hand in them? To anyone who says "who are we to judge, their way of life is just as valid as ours," I think it would be instructive to ruminate on why every success story of the last two hundred years correllates almost perfectly with the amount and strength of ties to Western civilization. 

I don't find that many success cases without it being in the western world.

Frankly i'm just fed up of the "we are superior and everyone should do as we did" when America should take a good look at itself and see so much that is wrong with it before it starts tell everyone what to do. But i'm getting out of topic, so i'll rest my case. I'm believe everyone is free to believe what they want, but i do hate when others don't even take some things into account before pass judgement. Some of what you said i concur, but i just can't agree to the thesis "our life is the right way of life".

[xerxes]

This is in regards to the link BlueJay posted. Lots of statistics claiming the US of A is so bad are distortions made by its large population. Per capita is more relevant.

% of people in each of the following nations that were raped (females only)

1. New Zealand 1.3% (1991) 
2. Austria 1.2% (1995) 
3. Finland 1.1% (1999) 
4. Sweden 1.1% (1999) 
5. Australia 1.0% (1999) 
6. United Kingdom 0.9% (1999) 
7. Netherlands 0.8% (1999) 
8. Canada 0.8% (1999) 
9. Slovenia 0.8% (2000) 
10. France 0.7% (1999) 
11. Italy 0.6% (1991) 
12. Switzerland 0.6% (1999) 
13. United States 0.4% (1999) 
14. Denmark 0.4% (1999) 
15. Belgium 0.3% (1999) 
16. Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.3% (1999) 
17. Poland 0.2% (1999) 
18. Portugal 0.2% (1999) 
19. Japan 0.1% (1999) 
20. Malta 0.1% (1996)

Source: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002

With regards to Africa, I don't think the US government should give them one cent. The government taxes us to pay for goods and services that help us. It is not our governments job to give money to foreign nations via debt relief, etc. If an American citizen feels sympathetic, he should give his own money. I feel that the best way to make Africa more modernized is to first destroy the fucktard governments. Those governments are effectively holding their citizens as slaves. Second, allow and give moral support for our corporations to make good use of African cheap labor, and let capitalism work itself out. Worldwide, there is a positive correlation between the number of smokestacks and longevity.

I find it pretty funny how much earlier in this thread, the situation in Africa was compared to the Holocaust. To stop Hitler we didn't send him a couple billion dollars, instead America with enormous help from the Russians blew started a war. Debt relief is fundamentally going to the governments and not the citizens. Maybe it would be a good thing for African countries to default on their debt so the governments will change.

There have been a few comments based on how America/the west shouldn't think their way of life is better than African's. If so, America should do absolutely do nothing at all and let African citizens starve and die young. That is how people have lived for thousands of years. If that is the life you always knew, then life wouldn't be so bad. I know a handful of former Africans personally, and they didn't think life was so terrible there as the popular image of Africa is portrayed.

[waSP]

Should we think our way of life is better than them?  Who cares?  The more important question is are we happier than they are?  But it's easy to ask an irrelevant question, isn't it?

The Holocaust was organized by a single military regime.  There was an army to fight against.  Africa is very fractured and defining an enemy to attack is a bit more difficult.  There's no Hitler to demonize to rally public support for a military effort (like Saddam Hussein).  Thus, we do what is viable.  There are good systems of debt relief (the new ones mostly).  Such as http://www.mca.gov/.  A George Bush project that succeeds!  A truly conservative organization.  Now let's just hope it can better accomplish it's goals in the future.

Our high standard of living is based on high growth.  We can't sustain our high growth level without constantly improving the way we go about business (this includes new technology, new trading partners, and other things that increase output).  But again you must ask yourself, is our "high standard of living" making us happier than the Africans with their magickry?  That is too tough a question for me.

[dandan]

I find it pretty funny how much earlier in this thread, the situation in Africa was compared to the Holocaust. To stop Hitler we didn't send him a couple billion dollars, instead America with enormous help from the Russians blew started a war.

I was unaware that America started that particular war.

War can solve problems. Libya isn't behaving itself for any other reason than to be somewhere other than number 1 in America's things to do (places to bomb) list. Luckily North Korea, Iran and Syria doesn't seem to get this (Iran was doing a sterling job of digging itself out of a hole before the recent elections).

In any case, it looks like America has pretty much signed up to 100% debt relief for countries that reform and double aid (although not up to EU levels). Trade will be a bigger problem.

[Godder]

It's a great start, but without reforming trade, especially in agriculture, it's only that. For them to help themselves, they need to be on a reasonably level playing field in their primary field of production and income, and they aren't.