why does africa suck sooo much?

[CAGED whiteman]

i just read that 39 percent of the adults in botswana have hiv and guess who they want to help them with all the drugs...not to mention the fact that we just gave african countries 500 million dollars to fight aids...is it me or should we just let them all die and start over from scratch...that place is hopeless and i would fully support turning that country into a bomb range if there were not so many cool animals.

 

[danielson]

a lot of it has to do with the west.....europe back in the days, and the US in the cold war more recently

 

[Advaik]

africa is already used as a bomb range, how the hell you think so many people got HIV? Bad luck? Jeeze, we've been throwing diseases at them for years now, they just don't die. We could just nuke them, but that would be too obvious.

 

[danielson]

nobody's fault but their own. the west isnt obligated to do anything for them.

pleased explain how promoting dictators to replace peacefull (or more peaceful) siocialists is helping them?

blair describes africa as a 'scar on the concience of the west'....its for a reason, africa has many natural resources.

 

[CAGED whiteman]

africa is already used as a bomb range, how the hell you think so many people got HIV? Bad luck? Jeeze, we've been throwing diseases at them for years now, they just don't die. We could just nuke them, but that would be too obvious.

interesting, i have heard of people saying that we planted diseases over there, i dont know if i believe but if any country could produce the hiv virus, its the good ole usa

 

[AAA]

cage, why would we want to plant diseases in africa?

 

[Stan O'Zolol]

I think it has to do with the Gazelle population. Too many gazelles = bad continent.

 

[CAGED whiteman]

cage, why would we want to plant diseases in africa?

how the hell would i know

 

[Lao Tzu]

pleased explain how promoting dictators to replace peacefull (or more peaceful) siocialists is helping them?

blair describes africa as a 'scar on the concience of the west'....its for a reason, africa has many natural resources.

the correct quote was 'a scar on our consciences' not on the wests. And it was about our indifference to the poverty disease & state repression that occurs in africa.

I don't see why people are opposed to helping africa out. Its not like helping people is a bad thing unless you benefit from it. I could give a shit less if i have to pay upwards of $3 a year in taxes to prevent serious suffering for millions of people.

even so, it does benefit us, according to Tony Blair

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1575000/1575428.stm

"If the world continues to ignore the sufferings of African nations, like in the war- ravaged Democratic Republic of Congo, it would breed anger and frustration which would threaten global stability," he said.

God bless the british. 0.7% GNP for humanitarian aid, pro ICC, pro UN, excellent economy, no dental hygiene, etc.

 

[Lao Tzu]

nobody's fault but their own. the west isnt obligated to do anything for them.

no, technically we aren't obligated to do anything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't though.

 

[Lao Tzu]

i just read that 39 percent of the adults in botswana have hiv and guess who they want to help them with all the drugs...not to mention the fact that we just gave african countries 500 million dollars to fight aids...is it me or should we just let them all die and start over from scratch...that place is hopeless and i would fully support turning that country into a bomb range if there were not so many cool animals.

I'm pretty sure it was the world bank, not america that donated the $500 million.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020208/afp/020208003238top.html

THE WORLD BANK, INCIDENTALLY, IS A U.N. ORGANIZATION.

 

[CAGED whiteman]

no, technically we aren't obligated to do anything. That doesn't mean we shouldn't though.

ya that is true, 3 dollars doesnt mean shit to me but...who the hell is going to come to help us out when the US takes a turn for the worse...it will happen too.

 

[Lao Tzu]

probably the 1st world at large.

 

[Casablanca]

Helping another country or more precisely feeding hungry children and sheltering sick people is a human gesture. I could never eat a cheeseburger and walk by a starving person without sharing. That's what it comes down to. The US IS the most powerful country and the wealthiest. It has a big heart and must continue sharing food.

CAGED whiteman
You're talking as if Africa wasn't filled with HUMANS such as you and I. They just happen not to be as lucky as you are to have been born and raised here. Open up your mind a bit...

 

[Casablanca]

LOL Soldier that's a point of view; a real Capitalist American one and valid. Question: do you believe that adult Africans are lazy?

 

[CAGED whiteman]

Re: Re: why does africa suck sooo much?

I'm pretty sure it was the world bank, not america that donated the $500 million.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020208/afp/020208003238top.html

THE WORLD BANK, INCIDENTALLY, IS A U.N. ORGANIZATION.

that article is six months old and you are wrong..i just read the other day on boston.com that W authorized 500 million dollars to go to aids victims (like they are really victims? lol) in africa.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Re: Re: Re: why does africa suck sooo much?

that article is six months old and you are wrong..i just read the other day on boston.com that W authorized 500 million dollars to go to aids victims (like they are really victims? lol) in africa.

You're right, i stand corrected.

http://health.yahoo.com/search/healthnews?lb=s&p=id:23977

President Bush ( news - web sites) announced a $500 million program on Wednesday to cut the spread of HIV ( news - web sites) and AIDS ( news - web sites) from infected mothers to their newborns in African and Caribbean nations hardest hit by the global AIDS epidemic.

 

[Lao Tzu]

actually it does mean we shouldnt unless it will have some real benefit for us. our taxes are not for spending on being nice to other countries with no potential return. they are for the betterment of our own country.

I don't buy it. Maybe in the 1400s when nations were more rigidly defined and segregated, but we are in a global society now. Your computer has parts made in China, your doctor may be from england and the Guy who writes the news you read was probably born in India.

There is nothing wrong with global cooperation or global interaction. We don't live in a vacuum, sealed off from the rest of the world. If that were true, we wouldn't support Israel, we wouldn't have terrorism, and all products would say 'made in america' on them.

 

[Lao Tzu]

actually it does mean we shouldnt unless it will have some real benefit for us. our taxes are not for spending on being nice to other countries with no potential return. they are for the betterment of our own country.

Says who? According to polls, around 80% of americans support humanitarian foreign aid.

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/human_rights/PromotingHR.cfm

in this poll the average american thought 5% of GNP was a good idea for foreign aid (they also thought that 18% of GNP went to foreign aid anyway, the real number is closer to 0.2% GNP).

Read 11

11. We should send aid to starving people irrespective of whether it will promote the national interest.
1) strongly agree___ 2) agree___ 3) disagree___ 4) strongly disagree___

11. 1) 40.4% 2) 35.9% 3) 10.6% 4) 10.6%

http://www.globallearningnj.org/global_ata/Public_Opinion_Poll_Views_on_Foreign_Aid.htm

 

[WODIN]

Many reasons:

The climate is ideal for many baccilus organisms to flourish.

Africa is incredibly diverse ethnically, more so than any other continent. These peoples were never able to consolidate coherent political entities.

Africa has no tradition of property transfer, national boundaries, or statehood. The Brits tried to rectify this problem in Nigeria, but ethnic nationalisms defeated the effort.

Lack of infrastructure. Africa does not have the distribution mechanisms in place to efficienty harvest and deliever foodstuffs.

Evil men like John Mugabe. Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was the breadbasket of subsaharan Africa. Mugabe took it upon himself to strip Whites of their citizenship, and sieze their farmland. 40% of farmers in Zimbabwe were Whites. Now the nation is literally starving.

Islamic fundamentalism. A persistent, destabilizing force.

This is the most intelligent thing you've ever written. There is hope for you yet.

 

[HansNZ]

Re: Re: why does africa suck sooo much?

I'm pretty sure it was the world bank, not america that donated the $500 million.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020208/afp/020208003238top.html

THE WORLD BANK, INCIDENTALLY, IS A U.N. ORGANIZATION.

In fact the USA (despite what Americans seem to think) is one of the stingiest aid donors of all developed countries. What aid it does give tends to go to places like Egypt or Israel to support military expenditure.

Scandanavian countries are the most generous giving about 5 or 6 times more as a percentage of GDP than the USA. The last figures I saw (which are a few years old I must admit) showed that the US gave about the same amount of aid as France which is a country with 5 times fewer people than the US.

The last time i investigated this was a few years back. I wonder if things have changed. Some how I doubt it.

 

[musclebrains]

Nope, it's the lowest, percentage-wise, of any of the developed countries.

 

[casavant]

Helping another country or more precisely feeding hungry children and sheltering sick people is a human gesture. I could never eat a cheeseburger and walk by a starving person without sharing. That's what it comes down to. The US IS the most powerful country and the wealthiest. It has a big heart and must continue sharing food.

CAGED whiteman
You're talking as if Africa wasn't filled with HUMANS such as you and I. They just happen not to be as lucky as you are to have been born and raised here. Open up your mind a bit...

THANK YOU!!

 

[musclebrains]

in a poll people find it easy to be nice. in reality people would rather have their tax dollars than give them away to foreign countries. it is a gross mismanagement of funds for our government to be giving away money like this. thats not what our government is for.

Right, it's for other, poorer governments to provide humanitarian aid around the globe...and for us to continue being mystified why America is despised.

And what is the point of taking polls if their results are immediately discredited?

 

[the nature boy]

also most of the countries in africa were pawns in the cold war game, where both the USSR and the USA supported thugs and crooks that pledged allegiance to each side. Both cold war foes pumped tons of cash to these governments, which was primarly squandered on opulance and millitary. The people of these countires never saw anything. When the cold war ended everybody pulled out and let them fend for themselves.

One thing I've noticed, most africans that come to the US work their asses off, and some that I've talked to generally don't really like american black people. I've heard the term lazy being used. interesting.

 

[danielson]

because its their job to look out for their interests. if we feel that it best suits us to promote someone then fine, they dont have to support him. in the end you cant blame someone else for your problems you have to deal with them yourself.

its like saying if the canadians promoted homer simpson to president in ur country to suit their needs (laughter), and he went about killing the poplation, siphoning all money and natural resources to himself, u shoukdnt be pissed at the canadians because homer simpson is an american and should be looking out for his countrymans interests

there are jews that believe that israel is an illigitamate state and should be crushed. if they were to seize control of israel due to arabic help would they be accountable. damn straight

 

[danielson]

also most of the countries in africa were pawns in the cold war game, where both the USSR and the USA supported thugs and crooks that pledged allegiance to each side. Both cold war foes pumped tons of cash to these governments, which was primarly squandered on opulance and millitary. The people of these countires never saw anything. When the cold war ended everybody pulled out and let them fend for themselves.

One thing I've noticed, most africans that come to the US work their asses off, and some that I've talked to generally don't really like american black people. I've heard the term lazy being used. interesting.

over here ther are many cases of racist 'west indian' black violence against 'african' blacks

 

[HappyScrappy]

And what is the point of taking polls if their results are immediately discredited?

it is ALL about the graphs that you can make from the results. so many colors...

 

[danielson]

the correct quote was 'a scar on our consciences' not on the wests. And it was about our indifference to the poverty disease & state repression that occurs in africa.

I don't see why people are opposed to helping africa out. Its not like helping people is a bad thing unless you benefit from it. I could give a shit less if i have to pay upwards of $3 a year in taxes to prevent serious suffering for millions of people.

even so, it does benefit us, according to Tony Blair

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1575000/1575428.stm

"If the world continues to ignore the sufferings of African nations, like in the war- ravaged Democratic Republic of Congo, it would breed anger and frustration which would threaten global stability," he said.

God bless the british. 0.7% GNP for humanitarian aid, pro ICC, pro UN, excellent economy, no dental hygiene, etc.

damn u nordstrom i mis-quoted him for a reason! i knew he wasnt speaking specifically about the cold war (what giovernment is gona admit responsibilty for all the woes of africa), but it can be viewed that the state oppression in soe cases is a result of the USSR vs US actions in africa like natureboy pointed out.

i also find it hard to believe that people are so opposed to aid to africa when 4 billion is given to both israel and egypt, most of which gets funneled into both countries milittaries


and fuck u dental care is free here so nananana nee na. the fact i havent seen a dentist in 10 yrs is purely coincidental

 

[circusgirl]

Africa has a huge problem with AIDS because most people there can't read or write. They have NO IDEA how disease spreads. So, they get sick. They die.

It really comes down to whether you want to help feed the starving and stop people from needlessly dying or not, until such time as they are sufficiently educated to make the choice of condoms or not for themselves. Personally, I'm quite happy to pay taxes for this. I'd FAR rather my taxes went on that than some politician's trip to tartan day in New York, apparently, the Scottish parliament spent a quarter of a million pounds (350k bucks) on this.

You would NOT have to pay MORE taxes, it's a question of the govt reallocating its budget for new carpet in govt offices, maybe buy slightly less expensive paperclips, hey, maybe not make the state of California pay 3 times the usual price for energy from Enron and their ilk....

The govt is there to manage the state for everyone. There is no reason that you HAVE to be nice to other people. You can walk straight past someone starving to death jingling your change in your pocket if you want. Fine. But stop asking "why does everyone think being nice is a good idea" because I think the answer there is obvious.
If you can't understand why people don't like you for being a scrooge or a meanie, or coming across as one, then you need to visit your nearest church and talk to the reverend about christian values.

My charity donations are done via a direct debit at the start of the month. It's like voluntary additional taxation. Because that 15 dollars or whatever a month is taken out before I see it, I don't miss it. However, I might not be able to spare 15 out of my pocket in the street in the middle of the month. Most people are shitty at organising their time and money. This is why charities here increasingly encourage people to set up this kind of transaction instead of soliciting direct donations in the street.

In France, you pay your income tax once a year. Or is it twice? YOU have to save it up until they ask for it. That is NO FUN and lots of people can't manage it and end up in the financial shithole regularly. We know that if everyone was perfect, they could find that extra 5 dollars for a starving family, but they are not, they cannot manage their way out of a paper bag, so the govt does the management for them. Smae with foreign aid. Most people would not mind if they found out 10 dollars a year of their tax had actually been used for something useful. They might not be able to give it to you on a given day though.

The other reason is, you would be AMAZED what a dollar is worth in the 3rd world. We're talking enough to feed a family for 2 days. Anyone who has ever gone on holiday in Thailand, India, Egypt etc will notice this. So your money goes a LONG way.

You don't have to be nice. But it's nice to be nice.

circusgirl

 

[furious]

Many reasons:

The climate is ideal for many baccilus organisms to flourish.

Africa is incredibly diverse ethnically, more so than any other continent. These peoples were never able to consolidate coherent political entities.

Africa has no tradition of property transfer, national boundaries, or statehood. The Brits tried to rectify this problem in Nigeria, but ethnic nationalisms defeated the effort.

Lack of infrastructure. Africa does not have the distribution mechanisms in place to efficienty harvest and deliever foodstuffs.

Evil men like John Mugabe. Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was the breadbasket of subsaharan Africa. Mugabe took it upon himself to strip Whites of their citizenship, and sieze their farmland. 40% of farmers in Zimbabwe were Whites. Now the nation is literally starving.

Islamic fundamentalism. A persistent, destabilizing force.

Very well thought out post, cheers.
John Mugabe proves the theory of the opressed happily becoming the opressors if given the chance, next it will be the ladies turn.

Caged, are you saying there are no cultural or scientifc accomplishments that came from Africa, and the whole lot of dem Negros need to be laid to rest?
1 out of every 5 Russian has HIV, should we carpet bomb, them, also?
No flames, bro...either you are young, or need to do a alittle world traveling, you will be amazed.

 

[CAGED whiteman]

One thing I've noticed, most africans that come to the US work their asses off, and some that I've talked to generally don't really like american black people. I've heard the term lazy being used. interesting.

you mean someone said black americans are lazy, thats the first time i have heard that!!! lol

 

[BronzedGoddess]

CWM, tell me about yourself. What have you done to better this country?? Until then. Shut Up, no one wants to hear it!

 

[Norman Bates]

Foreign aid isn´t just humanitarian. It helps the government to keep the prices of ressources down, it determines which foreign company is allowed to extract them.
This support is beneficial for the economy of the 1st world ,too.

 

[HansNZ]

your homer simpson example is strange but you seem to be correct. if canada promotes homer simpson to be president of america and we let it happen and he kills americans then we dont have any right to blame canada. we should blame ourselves. just like african countries should blame themselves.

Well the comparison isn't valid. If Homer Simpson is elected by the US public in free and fair elections then the public holds a certain amount of responsibility for making him leader.

In Africa these leaders are rarely chosen by the general populace. Where some semblance of free elections existed, if these elections happened to go in a direction which the US didn't like, then organisations like the CIA actively intervened to manipulate the outcome.

This hasn't just happened in Africa. In Italy in the 1950s the CIA intervened when free elections began to favour communists. In Iran the freely elected socialist PM was toppled in a CIA sponsored coup after he attempted to nationalise the oil industry (so that Iran would get some of the profits, not just US and UK oil companies). A vicious dictator known as the Shah was installed with US support. He was so unpopular that reactionaries under Ayatollah Kholmeni toppled him and became aggressively anti-American as a result.

Western banks and governments also bankrolled puppet dictators and left African countries with huge debts. You cannot turn around and then say that it is the responsibility of the peasants in these nations for this situation when clearly they had no voice in this situation.

 

[danielson]

your homer simpson example is strange but you seem to be correct. if canada promotes homer simpson to be president of america and we let it happen and he kills americans then we dont have any right to blame canada. we should blame ourselves. just like african countries should blame themselves.

the amount of jews that dont think israel is a legitimate state are very very few. if they want to try to get control of israel then they are free to do so by legal means.

well hansnz just made the point but i typed this up anyway so i might as well post

i was trying to think about what would happen if a president with a v.low IQ got elected. homer simpson was the only person i could think of (Well there Was one other )

but what would happen if u tried to stop that person becoming president and u failed. and when u tried again all your crops were burnt and your family killed. and the only military in the country was pro-stooge

they obviously will never get ahold of israel by legal means. neither did the west and the USSR when it was playing in africa. thats the point im trying to make. we have to accept some responsbilty

 

[HansNZ]

Foreign aid isn´t just humanitarian. It helps the government to keep the prices of ressources down, it determines which foreign company is allowed to extract them.
This support is beneficial for the economy of the 1st world ,too.

This is dead right. Only a small fraction of foreign aid is purely humanitarian.

Much of it comes with strings attached. Frequently it is to be used to buy armaments from the donor country. Favours and contracts have to be given to the donor's domestically located companies. Aid is also used to influence the economic structure of a recipient country's economy along lines that benefits the donor countries.

As a general rule, aid from smaller developed countries tends to have a higher humanitarian share and fewer strings attached. As the donor country becomes larger, then more conditions are attached, and the more the aid is used to further the interests of the donor country in question.

In this sense aid from generous smaller nations such as Norway or Denmark is "cleaner" and more charitable than aid from countries like Britain or the USA.

 

[Lumbuss]

africa is a great place, many of my favorite athletes come from that country!!! i love africa and i want to go visit it some day!!! it is a very big continent and there is much to see and do there!!!

 

[HansNZ]

if they could get together and support a decent leader then we wouldnt have to bother stepping in.

Well one of the main reasons why they can't get decent leaders is BECAUSE the US keeps "stepping in". If the US (or any other imperialist power) stops interfering for the sake of its own self-interest, then perhaps the continent's people will be able to take responsibility for themselves.

if they got their shit together they could overthrow the stooge.[/B]

Well the US (and others) frequently prop up these stooges so that the populace can't get rid of them. Do you think the current regimes in places like Saudi Arabia would still be in power if they weren't being propped up by the US for the purpose of the US's own self-interest?

its racist to think that we are the only ones capable of doing this. that we are the only ones who can be held responsible for our faults while others can blame others because liberals think they arent able to take care of themselves. we do not have to accept any responsibility because we arent obligated to help them, they are responsible for themselves. [/B]

Well since Americans aren't of one single race I am not sure if the term "racist" applies. However the US is not the only country doing this. Others are guilty too. However the US's reach is the longest and its interests are many, so its influence is the most pervasive and destructive.

Yes, I agree, people are responsible for themselves and the consequences of their own actions. That is why the US has so much to answer for in Africa. It is responsible for its actions there. This goes for countries like Britain, France, and the (now non-existent) USSR too.

 

[CAGED whiteman]

Cultures have a life span. They are born, they peak, they die. Africa will consolidate its resources and unite its people or it will perish. This is not something that the West can rectify, the West is not benevolent. (despite the regime's claims to the contrary)

exactly, makes you wonder who is going to come to our aid when we need it...it will happen too!!!

 

[HansNZ]

exactly, makes you wonder who is going to come to our aid when we need it...it will happen too!!!

Because Africa does not have a great deal of impact on the world stage it hasn't become embedded in the fabric of global society and sits more on its periphery. That is why it has been so easy to ignore for so long. Asia, for instance, could not be ignored in this way, nor could the USA.

The USA plays such a central role in the world that its health is in everyone's interests. You can see this interconnectedness when Japan or Europe start buying up US dollars to prop up the value of the US currency, and vice versa. This is just a minor example.

If things went to hell in the USA in some fundamental way, other countries would lend assistance. They would do this simply out of self-interest. Look at the way the European powers intervened in Russia in 1917 for instance.

Britain belatedly realised the importance of a helping out Germany after WW1 when it largely scrapped its reparations claims against it because the UK could benefit more by trading with a healthy Germany than by running it into the ground.

Look at the way the US Marshal Plan gave Western European economies a jump start after WW2, perhaps speeding up their recovery by a good 5 or 10 years. It didn't do this out of the goodness of its heart, but because most of its trade was with these countries, so it feared a return to pre-war depression without thriving markets for its goods. It also feared the spread of communism which American elites saw as a threat. The US wanted W.Europe to recover ASAP so that these countries could rearm and be active allies against the USSR.

 

[HansNZ]

No amount of goodwil or monetary aid will be able to rescue Africa from the throes of the forces that act upon and shape civilizations.

The "Western" theory of government cannot be transplanted to cultures that are not consolidated politically.

Cultures have a life span. They are born, they peak, they die. Africa will consolidate its resources and unite its people or it will perish. This is not something that the West can rectify, the West is not benevolent. (despite the regime's claims to the contrary)

Yes, the US will inevitably decline too. At this time it shapes the world to its own benefit. Like all top dogs it creates the rules and modifies them so that it receives all the goodies. It uses its political and economic might to enforce these rules. This situation will not last forever. Eventually it will have to play on a level playing field with everyone else. Americans are indeed the "chosen" people at this time.

Britain, for example, reached the height of its power by the late 1800s. It remained top dog until WW2, but began its steep decline after WW1. Despite being overtaken in Economic size (although it still remained the world's main creditor nation) by the US and Germany by the 1900s, it continued to be the supreme power in the world.

It wasn't until after WW2 when Britain was totally bankrupt that the center of world power shifted to the US and the USSR. Until this point the US had been isolationist and wasn't a world player. The USSR was too poor. Post WW2 circumstances forced these two countries to assert their significance, which had largely remained latent until then.

There are also some fundamental cracks forming in US society and culture which signal the decline of any civilisation. The corruption and complacency among its elites which is starting to show itself reflects what started happening in Britain after 1900.

The US reached the height of its power around about 1990. Once you reach the top the only way you can go is down. This decline won't really be noticeable for another generation though. So as with the decline of Great Britain, the US will retain its crown for sometime yet.

 

[circusgirl]

If you think there's no corruption over here now, you're mistaken....
circusgirl

 

[HansNZ]

If you think there's no corruption over here now, you're mistaken....
circusgirl

I was refering to the USA, not Britain. Britain stopped being top dog generations ago. The US is top dog now.

As for corruption, when you can no longer trust such a bastion of propriety as an accountant who can you trust?! LOL

All great civilisations have rot around the edges. It is when the rot starts appearing all through the center that decline sets in.

 

[HansNZ]

Yes, the US will inevitably decline too. At this time it shapes the world to its own benefit. Like all top dogs it creates the rules and modifies them so that it receives all the goodies. It uses its political and economic might to enforce these rules. This situation will not last forever. Eventually it will have to play on a level playing field with everyone else. Americans are indeed the "chosen" people at this time.

I was just thinking of a a couple of small examples of this from my country's own experience. The USA bitterly complains about protectionism among other countries while being highly protectionist itself. US farm subsidies are 85% of the European level for instance, yet in NZ our farmers receive no subsidies. As a result US farmers aren't as efficient as our farmers.

So what happens? We get locked out of the US market by tariffs. Yet if we did the same to US producers we'd be hit by US imposed economic sanctions. Because we are a small country (3.8 million people) access to the US market is CRUCIAL, but US producers don't need access to ours. The volume of trade is the same both ways, but I assure you in proportional terms (3.8m versus 278m people) loss of trade with NZ would barely register on the US radar screen, but it would leave a glaring hole in ours. If we imposed sanctions on US producers it would only hurt us more when the US retaliates. As such the US gets its cake and eats it too. It gets free access to our market but we don't get the same access back.

In the 1980s when NZ decided to become a nuclear free country the US threatened to destroy our economy unless we allowed free access to our ports for its nuclear warships. It was only when Australia pulled out from being nuclear free so that US ships could dock in its ports (thereby allowing continued US control over this part of the world) that the US let us off with political sanctions that we could live with.

 

[furious]

HansNZ

I like the way you think and discuss things, brotha.

 

[Blue Sky]

This might be mildly off topic but...

The 8 or 10 leading developed countries consume almost 80% of the worlds resources (I think the #'s are right...). That is 12% of the world population uses 80% of Earth's resources... I don't have a great deal of problem w/ the developed nations consuming the majority of the resources (in hopes that they are probably more efficient in their use than developed countries, and there are many resources that can only be used/refined in developed countries).. It doesn't leave much for the other countries... And besides, Africa exports many raw materials to developed nations.... (mostly minerals and metals I believe...???)...

As for the stingy-ness of countries giving aid to other countries... Nn, I don't know... HanNZ, I have no idea about the Scandanavian countries, but the Asian countries, specially Japan... When giving, say, economical aid to another country there is always a string attached... That money they offered can only be used to hire Japanese construction companies and buy needed tools/material from Japanese suppliers... So, the money they offered as an aid... gets reinjected back into the Japanese economy... From what I understand US rarely stipulates such contraints and... the money staying the the country the aid was given. But... this was 4 years ago... Things might have radically changed in the years...??

 

[HansNZ]

Re: This might be mildly off topic but...

As for the stingy-ness of countries giving aid to other countries... Nn, I don't know... HanNZ, I have no idea about the Scandanavian countries, but the Asian countries, specially Japan... When giving, say, economical aid to another country there is always a string attached... That money they offered can only be used to hire Japanese construction companies and buy needed tools/material from Japanese suppliers... So, the money they offered as an aid... gets reinjected back into the Japanese economy... From what I understand US rarely stipulates such contraints and... the money staying the the country the aid was given. But... this was 4 years ago... Things might have radically changed in the years...??

Yes, Japan is notorious for its aid not really being aid at all. It is just trying to ensure contracts for its companies. US aid usually comes with strings attached too, but often political and military, not simply economic as with Japan.

 

[danielson]

nice posts hans