NationStates Jolt Archive

The Brits seem to be making a big deal about Africa these days. Why?
They always talking about Africa's problems. They just got Bush to pledge a huge aid package to Africa. Why? Don't the Brits have problems of their own.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Africa that has the largest untouched reserves of oil. Africa has the most untouched resources.
Is it really a coincidence that the British and the Chinese seem to be in a race for influencei in Africa.
I think the motives of both Britain and China and even France in Africa are very suspicious. How do we know these three nations are not trying to reimpose imperialism on the African people?
Look at the British and the Chinese companies that are buying up native african resource companies. Looks very suspicious.
And if it does involve access to raw resources then why ain't America involved in this race to buy some african client states? If the Brits, French, and Chinese are doing it then why not us?

forgive the bluntness of this

but an American who is getting upset over the british trying to procure oil is beyond all forms of belief.

Is it not possible that we are simply trying to help people who are in need because they are in need? not all countries have alterior motives, and considering a great deal of Africa's problems is our fault anyway, i think we should be helping them more... and er Britian hasn't been "Imperial" for a freaking long time

forgive the bluntness of this

but an American who is getting upset over the british trying to procure oil is beyond all forms of belief.

Is it not possible that we are simply trying to help people who are in need because they are in need? not all countries have alterior motives, and considering a great deal of Africa's problems is our fault anyway, i think we should be helping them more... and er Britian hasn't been "Imperial" for a freaking long time
Don't you guys have problems of your own though? What are you getting out of this?

Because the US oil majors didn't successfully bid for oil concessions. I think the Gulf of Mexico was the priority at the time of all the contracts being drawn up. Plus the maneuvering over the Caspian, though that has turned out to be a disappointment, only a quarter the hoped-for size and contaminated with sulphur, vanadium, and all sorts of crap.

Finders keepers.

And if I was the US, I'd concentrate on Iraq before taking on any more risk, the output there is struggling to stay above sanctions era levels, which is hardly a great return on investment.

Don't you guys have problems of your own though? What are you getting out of this?
The government looks good, people will think Blair isnt such a **** after all

Britain has problems of its own, but only really in an economic sense which is pretty hard to counteract. I do personally think the debt that Africa has to the world should be wiped out and we should try to help them out a little bit more.

the UK isn't doing too badly at the moment, we have some serious issues like our hospitals and the NHS basically collapsing but hopefully blair will do something about it eventually lol

Don't you guys have problems of your own though? What are you getting out of this?

As far as I know the UK doesn't have economic problems. It has a bit of a "shit government" problem though.

Why not help the africans without taking their resources?

our government isn't that bad, its as shit as the United States or as good as the United States depending how you look at it.

It would have been a shite site worse if the Conservatives or Liberal Dem's had won the election though believe me.

Britain has problems of its own, but only really in an economic sense which is pretty hard to counteract. I do personally think the debt that Africa has to the world should be wiped out and we should try to help them out a little bit more.

the UK isn't doing too badly at the moment, we have some serious issues like our hospitals and the NHS basically collapsing but hopefully blair will do something about it eventually lol
Then shouldn't the British government be focusing on fixing its health system?

We haven't taken their resources, any of their oil we do procure we will purchase from Africa so they will have money to use on other things such as health care and education. We aren't about to just steal their Oil

as for the british government working on fixing our health system, its extremely difficult with an increasing population and an influx of Illegal immigrants which use our free health and put a MASSIVE strain on the NHS, we basically dont have enough hospitals for the population we have. That takes big bucks so to speak to actually go about trying to fix which hopefully eventually will happen

Actually, a lot of nations are concerned about Africa. Britain is concerned about Africa because it has a lot of Africans living in it who've only been here less than 50 years. Basically, immigration into the UK exploded after WWII and has remained high; many of the Africans here are recent enough immigrants that they still identify themselves as Africans, not like many African-Americans, who will by and large recognise their homeland as Africa but plump for American interests.

Besides which, Whittier, you may not have noticed but America is, on the world scale, really quite selfish. It started a war because of a terrorist attack, then another because the President's dad obeyed the UN regulations the first time round and he felt like he needed to finish the job his father was too law-abiding to do.

It's a simple liberal/conservative thing, Whittier, and before you accuse Britain of being a socialist state I refer you to 1b at this page (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal) (because the USA has a different definition of "liberal" to the rest of the world). The conservative view, of people making their own way, has the negative effect that it produces people who will only do something if it benefits them. On the other hand, the liberal view often incorporates people who, seeing that others are naturally disadvantaged, will try to help level the playing field. America never does anything that does not benefit America. European nations often will; okay, so they get minor political gains out of it, but they genuinely do have humanitarian interests too. This is because all the nations in question are democracies, and the people of Europe are, by and large, more liberal than the people of America (again, please note, liberal =/= socialist).

New Watenho Pretty much summed up what i think exactly, European nations do tend to help other nations out simply for the purpose of helping them out, I doubt (though i could be wrong) there has been a time the United States has helped out someone without expecting a gain from it

Why the heck is Bush rushing to support the Blair plan for Africa?
I thought Bush was elected by Americans. What the hell?

Why not help the africans without taking their resources?
Well, considering most African Nations' "resources" constitute human capital, you could say that MNCs like Nike that set up shop in these nations is considered 'taking their resources'. Then again, this has massive benefits to the LDC such as increased incomes and the associated virtuous circle of investment.

Besides, if this is true i.e. were are 'taking' their resources, let me just make one point - many African nations simply do not have the factor endowments to cope with large scale, capital intensive processes. We may be providing a service to these nations to make profit which is good for both sides (MNC and LDC). It all depends upon the freedom of trade really, which is mostly negotiated by international organisations such as the IBRD and WTO. If we are in these countries, it would most likely be because we won contracts on the oil deposits. US firms would NOT have missed out on an opportunity such as this.

Because it's reassuring Blair that he's not just a poodle that Bush calls upon when he needs extra better-trained, well-disciplined troops to help fight his wars.

No, seriously.

Why? Because for a short time Britain will be becoming rather influential on the world scene, what with the EU Presidency, hosting the G8 summit and so forth. There's also a general perception of Britain being in rather a strong position right now, and no doubt our leaders are trying to make the most of this by pushing British ideas and interests as far as possible. It's not just Africa, we're doing the same in Europe and (to a more limited extent) the Middle East.

*reads previews*

I believe it's payback, Bush wants to give Tony something to take home. Blair and Britain went out on a limb regarding Iraq, and George Bush is nothing if not a firm believer in personal politics. He does owe Tony one... :p

New Watenho Pretty much summed up what i think exactly, European nations do tend to help other nations out simply for the purpose of helping them out, I doubt (though i could be wrong) there has been a time the United States has helped out someone without expecting a gain from it
Well what do you call Iraq? We are helping them are we aren't taking any of their oil. And we are losing people over it.

Erm Whittier, im not quite sure what you are trying to say, you seem to have the attitude of why on earth help someone unless you can get something back from it and be better off

Bush was elected by American's that doesn't mean all americans are greedy people who would only ever help someone to help themselves

As much as i was pro-war on Iraq, an american lecturing Britain about trying to secure resources, being imperialist is making me laugh. Debt relief is not trying to take over the region, war, well that would work, but i do not think britain is proposing that

Why not help the africans without taking their resources?

That's communism that is.

Why the heck is Bush rushing to support the Blair plan for Africa?
I thought Bush was elected by Americans. What the hell?
Why the heck was Blair rushing to support the Bush war in Iraq?
I thought Blair was elected by Brits. What the hell?

our government isn't that bad, its as shit as the United States or as good as the United States depending how you look at it.

It would have been a shite site worse if the Conservatives or Liberal Dem's had won the election though believe me.I choose not to believe you thank you very much. I have my own views, and it would not have been worse if the Conservatives had got elected.

Why the heck was Blair rushing to support the Bush war in Iraq?
I thought Blair was elected by Brits. What the hell?HEHE :p :p I have to agree.

Erm Whittier, im not quite sure what you are trying to say, you seem to have the attitude of why on earth help someone unless you can get something back from it and be better off

Bush was elected by American's that doesn't mean all americans are greedy people who would only ever help someone to help themselves

I'm not saying it does; please don't exaggerate my point. But it is certainly true that the American philosophy of life is much more... that help and goodness are zero-sum equations. America was founded and remains (since it idolises its Constitution) on the principle that anyone should be allowed to make their own way, and not be forced to support wealthy layabouts like aristocracy. Good reason: many European immigrants were running from exactly that. But it is just part of the American way of thinking that on a large scale - not a small scale; people, of course, give to charity all the time, and help the homeless with cups of coffee and whatever - on a large scale the opinion is overwhelmingly that if you're going to do something for another nation you'd better be getting something back out of it.

Nor am I denying political gains for the governments of the European nations such as Britain involved in such aid programs, but by and large they do tend to be political gains, not financial ones; the government's ratings may go up, but then, this is a feature of all politics and therefore must be discounted from comparative discussion such as this.

If the Brits want to flex their influence why don't they use it to help spread the value of religious freedom in places like China and continental europe and the middle east?

If the point you're trying to make is that the Europeans are as bad as the US, I totally agree. In fact, I've said so myself a few times.

I choose not to believe you thank you very much. I have my own views, and it would not have been worse if the Conservatives had got elected.

well thats why we have a democratic voting system :) but most people still agreed with me as Blair is still in power.

The last time conservatives were in power we had a near economic collapse and a recession...no thanks again

well thats why we have a democratic voting system :) but most people still agreed with me as Blair is still in power.

The last time conservatives were in power we had a near economic collapse and a recession...no thanks again
maybe you should keep Blair in power. A british economic collapse would not be good for the American dollar.

The Brits seem to be making a big deal about Africa these days. Why?
They always talking about Africa's problems. They just got Bush to pledge a huge aid package to Africa. Why? Don't the Brits have problems of their own.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Africa that has the largest untouched reserves of oil. Africa has the most untouched resources.
Is it really a coincidence that the British and the Chinese seem to be in a race for influencei in Africa.
I think the motives of both Britain and China and even France in Africa are very suspicious. How do we know these three nations are not trying to reimpose imperialism on the African people?
Look at the British and the Chinese companies that are buying up native african resource companies. Looks very suspicious.
And if it does involve access to raw resources then why ain't America involved in this race to buy some african client states? If the Brits, French, and Chinese are doing it then why not us?

Looks like somebody else was watching "The Big Story with John Gibson" on Fox News. I applaud your choice in media. :D

maybe you should keep Blair in power. A british economic collapse would not be good for the American dollar.

nope lol

If the Brits want to flex their influence why don't they use it to help spread the value of religious freedom in places like China and continental europe and the middle east?

What?! What influence? What influence does any government have over any other without explicit or implicit control (such as Britain has over no governments save the Commonwealth, all the nations of which have religious freedom), or the use of sanctions or military power?

Moreover, you're missing the point somewhat that the European definition of "liberal" does not, as the American one seems to so often from the frothing-at-the-mouth proselytisers on all sides, mean that one must impose liberalism on others, and force them to be tolerant. Of course it's right to care about religious freedom, but what it is not right to do is change the course of a nation's government unless it is committing crimes by its own or international laws. Hence it is right to give aid packages to governments in need, as this is with their full consent - but it is not right to invade or apply sanctions without damn good reason for doing so.

Well what do you call Iraq? We are helping them are we aren't taking any of their oil. And we are losing people over it.
Actually, there is the little matter of holding Iraq as a hedge, for the purpose of exercising preferential contracts in the future, when oil is in rather shorter supply.

It is also important where the money ends up. See, when a country purchases and uses oil, it benefits economically. But if one is selling oil, whose currency does one use, whose bank does one use, where does one invest the money? If those financial services are purchased from the buyer of the oil, that's a double-win for the buyer, as a nation. You can even arrange to write off the costs of exploration. The Saudi royal family alone owns 7% of Wall Street.

Iraq was was making stacks of money from conducting its oil trade in Euros, prompting Iran to organise a Euro-denominated middle-eastern oil exchange (it should be launched towards the end of this year), and gaining interest from various Pacific Rim exporters and even Russia.

Can't have that. It's common sense. It's not just the oil that's of geopolitical importance, but the resulting currency movements.

So, I disagree. You don't have to physically remove the oil by force to make sure you pay virtually nothing for it. ;)

Looks like somebody else was watching "The Big Story with John Gibson" on Fox News. I applaud you choice in media. :D

Ah, Fox. I see now, and I understand. Well, that means I can happily dismiss this one as right-wing hysteria, and not a real concern. With every passing comment I had a feeling it might have been nothing more than hysteria, but I needed that verifying.

I have to be up early tomorrow; night everyone!

Night Watenho :)

well thats why we have a democratic voting system :) but most people still agreed with me as Blair is still in power.

The last time conservatives were in power we had a near economic collapse and a recession...no thanks againDon't even try to run that by me. The current 'longest economic growth' started in the Conservatives government and was the result of Conservative economic policy. Most people voted for someone other than Blair. Of the voted 61.3% who voted, only 37% voted for Labour. That is just over 22% of the electorate i believe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm

If we wanted to get really, really technical, 24421 people voted for Blair.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stm

Slightly bitter that Labour are still in power i see, well the next general election will be the true test as to whether Conservatives can grab the country back

I personally think Michael Howard would have been a terrible Prime Minister

I was referring to the impact of the political repercussions such a collapse would have on the US economy with Britain being America's closest friend and ally.

Ah, Fox. I see now, and I understand. Well, that means I can happily dismiss this one as right-wing hysteria, and not a real concern. With every passing comment I had a feeling it might have been nothing more than hysteria, but I needed that verifying.

I have to be up early tomorrow; night everyone!Actually we are referring to the Bush/Blair newconference they aired then discussed afterward.
John Gibson is a good commentary program.

Slightly bitter that Labour are still in power i see, well the next general election will be the true test as to whether Conservatives can grab the country back

I personally think Michael Howard would have been a terrible Prime Minister

Yes, he would, but really, the "Conservatives = economic recession" argument is terrible. I'm a card-carrying Lib Dem, but I will brutally beat anyone I hear use that argument with their own party membership card.

What you're doing by saying that is equating the two - as if you actually mean "A Conservative government must either want recession or intrinsically be so incompetent as to automatically lead to one." This is obvious nonsense; a politician's competence has nothing to do with his or her views on the economy. It's a gross oversimplification and has about as much relevance to the actual debate as the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line.

No vitriol intended, Freyalina; I just had to stay to explain that :) Right, now I really have to go.

Someone else has probably said this before me but...

Whittier Bush is not rushing to help Africa, he has refused many of the proposals put to him that would have helped Africa and so far has promised only a tiny fraction of the concessions to africa that Blair is asking... and even these are scaled down from the original ideas.

Blair is jumping on the make poverty history band wagon, restarting moves to wipe out african poverty that was popular a few years back around the time of the millenium. He feels, im sure, that this movement is going to grow in popularty in the UK and that by getting in on the act early his actions will not seem so false. He is looking to secure for himself a positive reputation and he knows that in order to do this he must doing something vyer big and very good. He knows that he has made himself widely hated by a lot of the UK and that he most work very hard not to become a universal and irrational hate figure like Margeret Tatcher. Everyone in the UK hates Tatcher but so many don't know why, they just know that everyone hates here. It was the same with Saddam. He was universally despised but so many of the people vocally hating him, especially the young had absolutely no idea what it was he'd done.

Another reason for Blairs enthusiasm to talk to Bush about poverty in Africa is because Bush has so far refused out right all the other altruistic plans that could have secured Blair a good legacy. I am only sad that the outrage of sceintific manipulation by the Bush administration died down. If any of you remember a very great number of the world leading sceintists wrote to a number of the world leading newspapers, including the independent decrying the blatant and despicable manipulation and lying that was being spewed forth by the Bush administration in the form of sceintific reports by the white house, which always, and miraculously supported the white house stance even if the results they found flew in the face of every other investigation conducted. a good example of this is the workers sent back to ground zero shortly after 9/11. Despite most other air quality studies saying that the air was not yet healthy the white house studies showed radically higher air quality levels and they forced clean up workers into the area, many of whom subsequently suffered breathing problems. But i digress i was just reminding ya'll that this problem hasnt gone away.

Also, for those of you in America, can you watch Blair for us, i would dearly like to know how he is going to be able to spend all of this time in America and still avoid picking up his Congress Gold Award for services to the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he was awarded some time ago and has somehow managed to worm his way out of acting picking up.

The Brits seem to be making a big deal about Africa these days. Why?
They always talking about Africa's problems. They just got Bush to pledge a huge aid package to Africa. Why? Don't the Brits have problems of their own.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Africa that has the largest untouched reserves of oil. Africa has the most untouched resources.
Is it really a coincidence that the British and the Chinese seem to be in a race for influencei in Africa.
I think the motives of both Britain and China and even France in Africa are very suspicious. How do we know these three nations are not trying to reimpose imperialism on the African people?
Look at the British and the Chinese companies that are buying up native african resource companies. Looks very suspicious.
And if it does involve access to raw resources then why ain't America involved in this race to buy some african client states? If the Brits, French, and Chinese are doing it then why not us?

So what?

Africa would probably be better off back under European rule anyway.

If the Brits want to flex their influence why don't they use it to help spread the value of religious freedom in places like China and continental europe and the middle east?

Because we're a relatively secular society (compared to the US, anyway), and generally couldn't give a toss about religion. There are better uses for international aid than religion.

Ypu've got to have your wires crossed somewhere if your first reaction to Blair and Bush agreeing to some extra measures to help out Africa is a negative one, automatically seeking ulterior motives, and therefore saying it's some sort of neo-imperialism. Whittier--, you sound exactly like all the lefties who bang on about how Bush is just after the oil in Iraq.

Blair has a messiah complex - that's a fairly well-established observation here in the UK. Normally that makes him faintly ridiculous, but if it means that he's turning his energies towards helping out some of the poorest people in the world, then good for him. Aid and debt reduction won't solve the problem, but it won't hurt either.

Incidentally, one of the things that I actually like about Bush is that he has already increased aid to Africa quite significantly, particularly in combating AIDS.

but an American who is getting upset over the british trying to procure oil is beyond all forms of belief.
Only made more amusing by the fact that the UK is a net exporter of oil. Forgive us, it's the educational system. It's ment to take the top 30% and prepare the rest for menial labor.

Only made more amusing by the fact that the UK is a net exporter of oil.
Actually, starting this year, it is a net importer of both oil and gas, with production continuing the 7% per annum decline rate is has held since 1999.

Energy is now a vital concern for the UK. Unless it wants half its electricity supply to be generated from Russian gas imports passing through just a couple of pipelines.

Or Blair might make his manifesto pledge on Energy for once.

Who am I kidding.

Hm. I well aren't I the dumb bunny.

In my eyes, there is no question that the only way we are going to meet our energy needs and reduce pollution is to build more nuclear power plants. We need to replace our existing ones as it is and we need more after that as well. My opinion but i think that is what's needed. The new technologies are not only in their infancy, they do not provide much power and are somewhat impractical in my eyes

My children you should, with eager eyes, be following the fate of the ITER project (just google it). For it is in the ITER project that we see the future of our energy needs.

However it is currently stalled, and has been for some time because no-one cna reach an agreement as to whether to build it in France or Japan, the US has long since walked away leavingeveryone else ot argue. What seems most despicable to me, apart form the fact that every days delay slows down the transition to this cleaner more environmentally sound form of energy, is the fact that France i believe produces sufficient electricity to power itself, Japan however still imports NINTEY percent. However France wishes to be the one that houses such an auspiscious projects and is letting this selfish concenr get in the way of securing the future of mankind.

However France wishes to be the one that houses such an auspiscious projects and is letting this selfish concenr get in the way of securing the future of mankind.
That really does not surprise me.

Don't you guys have problems of your own though? What are you getting out of this?


Countries other than the US, mainly in europe, where they have a social conscience, have an altruistic interest in helping the poor and the disadvantaged.

It is also the christian thing to do, the christianity of jesus rather than of paul.

The Brits seem to be making a big deal about Africa these days. Why?
They always talking about Africa's problems. They just got Bush to pledge a huge aid package to Africa. Why? Don't the Brits have problems of their own.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Africa that has the largest untouched reserves of oil.
*sigh* let's not even get started on your country. You've openly gone to war over oil reserves.