African Aid and the G-8

[Sualtam Lugh]

"You're right. It's just a bandaid solution. Give a homeless man food, but in the end he's still homeless....I know it's incredibly selfish of me to say that though. Anything, even temp solutions are better than nothing for these innocent people..."

Listen. You're a fool. But you're the wisest fool on this damn board. The problem with the world, and with G-8, and Africa, is that we can't just say "**** it, let's make Africa as great as North America and Europe and Asia."

1) Not enough money (this is a lie. Cancel all the debt, and help to rebuild these nations. That would be the single greatest thing you could do. Hell, even the greedy would do this.)

2) Too much greed. You actually think a lot of people care about Africa? And where do you think this 50 billion comes from?

3) Is Africa worth saving? Diamonds. Fine. Is that it? There's Diamonds in Russia too.

4) Did I mention greed?

My answers? True, True, Maybe, Yes. My conclusion? We should still try and help. Sure, 50 billion isn't enough to fix everything, but tell me. What is? What's the Polysporin solution? If Band-Aids don't work well enough, then give us one more? Where's your Gauze solution? You don't have one. But the fact that you call their band aid solution just that? Who do you think you are?

I'll tell you what you are. You're someone who wants to help them out, but you alone can't do it. You don't have the money. You don't know the people. But you have the heart. And you have the wisdom. Well, they have the money. They are you. They are all like you. You guys make up countries. And there's more money between the citizens of the country, then of the Leader. Sure, Bush, and Blair, and Martin, and all those bastards at G-8 can preach and preach and preach. But why don't we set something up? Something a little more mandatory. If we want to fix Africa, don't make it optional. Make it compulsory. You guys have 30 million in Cali, right? Everyone gives a dollar. A dollar that doesn't go to an 8 ball of coke, or a dime of weed. A dollar that doesn't go to the next bottle of whisky, or that Oh Henry. A dollar that doesn't go towards Cigarettes or Bingo night. No, if everyone gave a dollar, that would be 30 million, out of one state, of ONE COUNTRY. Sure, Canada doesn't have 30 million people. But who cares? You have the strong 8 countries, that have a huge population. That's billions right there. You have India, would has more than 1.5 billion. China, I'm sure, would help. Anything to make them look better. They WILL be the next Superpower. There's another 1.5. My point is, we have the power to make things better. And that's if we all just give a dollar. 1 dollar.

Africa is like the Bummed knee of the world. It's always down. And if it stays down, so does the rest of the world. But you know what the worst part is? What I typed will never happen. And if it does, it will be too late for me to enjoy.

But you're right, man. Anything is better than what they have right now.

[Sage]

One assumption you made is that everyone in every one of these countries theoretically has a US dollar to spend. Exchange rates can make a USD quite expensive in terms of other currencies. And I think that the point that many have already made is that throwing money at the problem won't solve anything.
_________________

[Sualtam Lugh]

"Exchange rates can make a USD quite expensive in terms of other currencies."

Thought of that when I was typing, but I didn't give much thought to it. I'm still not. The developed, or developing countries have a very strong economy, and their dollar ranks up to the US. I'm sure if I went to a site, got the exchange rates of all the major countries in the world, and compared them, side to side of the US Dollar, it may not be THAT different. China's money isn't too bad (Just because they're developing, doesn't mean it's low...) And India's either. That's how much of the world's population?

And let's be realistic. I didn't mean take a dollar from everyone. Not everyone has a dollar. Not everyone has a dollar of that worth. My point is, of the 1st and 2nd World countries, there's not only enough people, but more then enough money to help.

And this wouldn't be the same thing as throwing money at it. Throwing money at it is "Here Africa. Here's some money. See ya next month." I'm sure we could actually help them out. And yes, I'm saying we. Cause in the real world, we're all equals. And we could all have a part in this.

[Sage]

Governments (esp. the U.S.) generally do 2 things: demand reform or give lots of money, but not both. For example, Bush said he wants a person on Mars by 2030 (highly not likely by the way) and then didn't give enough money to NASA to do it. Also, they dump money into a problem and say "Here you go, fix yourselves." They give no plan of action or goal.

In this sense, throwing money at Africa is what we're doing. Giving aid is still damaging Africa's economy and the longer we do it, the worse it's going to get. They can't be dependent on us forever. A gauze solution as you call it, would be to get at the actual problem of why Africa is in shambles and fix that, not increase aid nor send more money.
_________________

[Sualtam Lugh]

I like your last sentence, because it's very true. But, you don't think that search will take money? Dispite the civil wars all over Africa, ripping countries apart, their climate beats the hell out of them. Warlords. They know what's wrong with Africa. To a point. My question is then, if you say find the problem, why not start? I mean, you said demand reform, or throw money at it. If it's that simple, why don't we fix it? And if they're that serious about fixing the problem, why isn't it that simple?

You've got a great point....but it's just sitting there. Of course that's the problem, so why is it so simple to point out, but so hard to do?

[St. Ajora]

Excuse me? Did someone just call me a fool and then proceed to spit out paragraph after paragraph based on a weak and unfair judgement that I did not deserve? Because clearly, the way to help the world is to hop on a forum and to accuse other people of being wrong, when they have so easily and wrongly misinterpreted what has been said. let me explain, dude, what I meant.

[Filipe]

I am not saying that any attempts to help the poor people of the world isnt well meaning and all but it's never going to work. Famous people can keep asking goverments to send more money, but look where it's going. It's not going to the poor starving people, it's not going to the homeless in these countries. Those in charge of the countries are taking the money for themselves and pocketing it all. What countries send now is more than enough to help a lot of these people, it's just that the money isnt going to the people.

What the G8 really needs to do is find a way to control where the food, and money actually goes. Just sending it does absolutely nothing for these people, considering that those in charge are far from starving if you ask me. Enforce where the food goes, and use the money yourselves within that country and then increasing the funds will help. Otherwise they are literally throwing their money away because the only ones that will actually get any of it will be those in charge. It's unfortunate that it has come to that but really is it all that shocking that things like that happen in these poor countries?

I hope that I am not stepping on anyones toes with these comments, that was far from my intention. These are just my opinions, and I am sticking to them.
_________________

[Kalidor]

Felipe, I think you are correct, we do need to have a way to regulate where this aid money and food goes to. However, I don't think that there is a reliable system set up to do that. Many humanitarian groups regulate their own dispersal of food and such when they enter a country, but I don't know how it works for these larger aid packages. If the money is given out to aid organizations, than maybe it will work. I don't think that it would be given directly to the leader of a corrupt state. Even then though, I'm sure there are plenty of ways to get it. The military could simply take what it wanted from the citizens that had received it. Unfortunately I don't have any idea of just what gets through and what is seized. The opinion does seem to be though that a mojority of the aid isn't getting where it needs to be.

If it is true that the aid is being snapped up by a dictator, the problem then becomes what is the solution? I don't think that not giving any aid is. Using the aid money more effectively sounds great, but how is this accomplished? If we are talking about a military regime, there is really only one group that has the power, and that is the military. If aid organizations do come in and attempt to distribute aid, the military can disrupt it. What does that mean for us though? Should UN peacekeepers be sent into every country along with aid to make sure that it goes where it needs to? I think that this would be a very dangerous course. If the military still tries to take the aid, we have a hostile situation between a nation and the UN on our hands. I think that given the situation in Iraq, it's pretty clear that a single nation or coallition of nations acting without the sanction of the UN isn't going to do the trick. Over one thousand dead and bombings every few days speak volumes to me.

This all leads me to believe that the problems within a country have to be solved by the citizens of that state. The citizens need to step up to the plate, take charge, and say "We've had enough of this!" The problem here is that the citizens don't have the means to do so! If a citizen were to do that, the military might "disappear" them. The citizens know this happens, and the fear is paralyzing. The conditions don't exist for a revolution in most places. But then, if we try to make them exist, we run into the problems that I outlined in the previous paragraph, namely war and such. It's a giant conundrum and I don't really see a way out of it. In that situation, I think maybe the best we can do is to continue to give aid, and hope that enough of it gets through to alleviate a little suffering. It isn't a great solution, but I don't know what else there is. Does anyone have any ideas of what else can be done?

[Sage]

[Kalidor]

[Sage]

I'm quite aware no one here knows the answer; that's one thing I wanted to convey. I'm not trying to be an arse, but frankly, I felt that those questions were asked toward myself in a rather callous way. And since the purpose is to discuss rather than to directly look for an answer, then perhaps one should not ask for one in such a brash manner.
_________________

[Sualtam Lugh]

Ajora....did it ever come across to you that that whole thing, leading up to where I restate the point...you ACTUALLY thought I was calling you a fool? Get ouuuuuutta here.

[St. Ajora]

See, it's very difficult to distinguish between being serious, or being friendly-sarcastic, and I still can't tell the difference.

[Sualtam Lugh]

Eh, doesn't matter. You can, sometimes, and you can't, sometimes. I mean, you don't see me around much, I don't post anywhere else but Zexen. I decided to come out. Do you think I would just start mouthing off out of nowhere?

[St. Ajora]

Eh you never can tell :P