Crosswords4 mins ago
African drought.
209 Answers
http://www.dailymail....pia-risk-cholera.html
Why does Britain need to dish out a further £52m worth of aid on top of the £13million donated by Britons to the DEC East Africa Crisis Appeal launched only a week ago, plus the annual amount we already give in aid to Africa, and the amount we are obliged to donate via The United Nations.?
How much are the wealthy countries of Africa giving from their Gold and Diamond mines?
Why does Britain need to dish out a further £52m worth of aid on top of the £13million donated by Britons to the DEC East Africa Crisis Appeal launched only a week ago, plus the annual amount we already give in aid to Africa, and the amount we are obliged to donate via The United Nations.?
How much are the wealthy countries of Africa giving from their Gold and Diamond mines?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Dreadzone
I don't think it is a matter of being 'chuffed' just because a thread reaches 200 posts.
What it does highlight however is the fact that a particular subject has attracted much interest and ABers have posted their various personal opinions on the subject.
That has got to be good.
It is a pity that for once and for all the nations of the world, can't take a leaf out of ABs book and come together with their differencing opinions to try and solve Africa's problems.
There is an organisation called 'The African Union', but we hear very little from them on this particular problem that befalls their continent, they have a loud voice when they come together and show no support for various measures the West want to implement regarding Libya and Zimbabwe for example.
Taken from Wilipedia.
Among the objectives of the AU's leading institutions are:
1. To accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the continent;
2. To promote and defend African common positions on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples;
3. To achieve peace and security in Africa;
4. To promote democratic institutions, good governance and human rights.
Can't see they have been successful in any of these.
I don't think it is a matter of being 'chuffed' just because a thread reaches 200 posts.
What it does highlight however is the fact that a particular subject has attracted much interest and ABers have posted their various personal opinions on the subject.
That has got to be good.
It is a pity that for once and for all the nations of the world, can't take a leaf out of ABs book and come together with their differencing opinions to try and solve Africa's problems.
There is an organisation called 'The African Union', but we hear very little from them on this particular problem that befalls their continent, they have a loud voice when they come together and show no support for various measures the West want to implement regarding Libya and Zimbabwe for example.
Taken from Wilipedia.
Among the objectives of the AU's leading institutions are:
1. To accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the continent;
2. To promote and defend African common positions on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples;
3. To achieve peace and security in Africa;
4. To promote democratic institutions, good governance and human rights.
Can't see they have been successful in any of these.
“People are dying of disease, and a small amount of money from us could stop that.”
Indeed it could, Gromit. What it also does in the current circumstances is to condemn those saved (and the many children they will produce) to a dreadful life that will almost certainly be cut short by some other disease, or thirst or starvation or more probably all three. As I said (much) earlier, this situation has not arisen since last week, it has been evident for decades. I see nothing in the plans of the contributing nations which will in any way alter this situation and I believe it is not only foolish but actually cruel to continue to sustain lives in this manner.
The other issues that have been raised in this question such as whether the UK can afford it (I happen to think we cannot) and whether other nations, particularly some African ones can (I happen to believe they can) is subsidiary to the main argument. That argument – which is whether it is right to address the problem by simply and continually chucking money at it to provide emergency aid – has never been properly aired.
I’m afraid your contention “ Yet you begrudge saving a life.” is disappointing in itself. With one or two exceptions the arguments put forward here against simply going down the same road time after time have been well thought out and properly put I don’t think anybody begrudges saving a life and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that they do. Surely you can see that the current strategy is helping nobody in the long term, particularly those most dreadfully affected. Yes I know, many of them have no long term future but our inappropriate efforts are not providing that. All we are providing is a bit of short term relief which will simply condemn the wretched souls to a bit more agony. (As an example, the UK's current grant is expected to provide aid for 1.3m people for three months. What happens to them after that?). It really is no argument to suggest that they are procreating because they have such a high infant mortality rate. It's rather like countering the argument against cats having too many kittens because, as so many of them end up in a sack at the bottom of the canal, it is necessary to keep the numbers up.
Yes, those countries that can help (such as Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Singapore, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and, dare I say it, China and India to name but a few who seem to be conspicuous by their absence from the list of contributors) should. But the help needs to be appropriate and not designed to simply prolong suffering.
I don’t really think I can say any more.
Indeed it could, Gromit. What it also does in the current circumstances is to condemn those saved (and the many children they will produce) to a dreadful life that will almost certainly be cut short by some other disease, or thirst or starvation or more probably all three. As I said (much) earlier, this situation has not arisen since last week, it has been evident for decades. I see nothing in the plans of the contributing nations which will in any way alter this situation and I believe it is not only foolish but actually cruel to continue to sustain lives in this manner.
The other issues that have been raised in this question such as whether the UK can afford it (I happen to think we cannot) and whether other nations, particularly some African ones can (I happen to believe they can) is subsidiary to the main argument. That argument – which is whether it is right to address the problem by simply and continually chucking money at it to provide emergency aid – has never been properly aired.
I’m afraid your contention “ Yet you begrudge saving a life.” is disappointing in itself. With one or two exceptions the arguments put forward here against simply going down the same road time after time have been well thought out and properly put I don’t think anybody begrudges saving a life and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that they do. Surely you can see that the current strategy is helping nobody in the long term, particularly those most dreadfully affected. Yes I know, many of them have no long term future but our inappropriate efforts are not providing that. All we are providing is a bit of short term relief which will simply condemn the wretched souls to a bit more agony. (As an example, the UK's current grant is expected to provide aid for 1.3m people for three months. What happens to them after that?). It really is no argument to suggest that they are procreating because they have such a high infant mortality rate. It's rather like countering the argument against cats having too many kittens because, as so many of them end up in a sack at the bottom of the canal, it is necessary to keep the numbers up.
Yes, those countries that can help (such as Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Singapore, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and, dare I say it, China and India to name but a few who seem to be conspicuous by their absence from the list of contributors) should. But the help needs to be appropriate and not designed to simply prolong suffering.
I don’t really think I can say any more.
DZ Sorry I went to bed and missed your little rant. You can be assured that I do know that Africa is a continent, and that it is made up of several countries, my family lived in Southern Africa for several years, and I suspect you know only what you've been told. I can only reiterate that having more and more children knowing that circumstances will dictate that most of them will die must be agonising so why have them? Imho birth control is the only solution. AOG has spelt the situation out for you ^^. I am willing to help anyone who eventually has the gumption to help themselves, but in this case I reckon 50 odd years of throwing money into the same old pot wears a bit
thin. Ask all the other countries who give aid to them (but don't give as much). Do you fancy a spell out there helping them?
Don't get me wrong, I feel extremely sad that in this day and age there are places in the world where the people have such awful lives, there has been, and still are other countries just as deserving.
thin. Ask all the other countries who give aid to them (but don't give as much). Do you fancy a spell out there helping them?
Don't get me wrong, I feel extremely sad that in this day and age there are places in the world where the people have such awful lives, there has been, and still are other countries just as deserving.
Maybe there are so any answers on this subject is the British public are finally waking up to the fact we can longer solve the world problems. Our politicians with their heads in the clouds are acting like 19th century colonialists. Worrying about far away countries does not solve the problems at home and this diversion just adds insults to our burdening debt.
