NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: I get so sick of reading the same people making the same posts time after time about how the US never does anything except "invade countries and kill hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians." Here's a short article that puts the lie to that sort of statement made by people who supposedly should know better.


In Africa, Life After AIDS (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/opinion/09brooks.html?th&emc=th)

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 9, 2005
Windhoek, Namibia

Bobwalla is a black woman born in Cape Town and raised under apartheid. She lived in a shack with her husband, who drank and beat her for the first nine years of their marriage. Then she tested positive for H.I.V., and cried for days. It was a death sentence.

But she was lucky enough to find a clinic that could give her antiretroviral drugs. She persuaded her husband, who is also H.I.V.-positive, to get treatment. He stopped drinking as part of the treatment, and has stopped abusing her and sleeping around. Now she counsels pregnant women on how not to pass H.I.V. on to their babies.

"For some, H.I.V. brings death," she says. "For me, H.I.V. brought life into my home."

You come to Southern Africa to visit AIDS hospitals, and you expect, or at least I expected, to find unrelieved sadness. But something positive has happened recently because of the confluence of three factors. The first is the spread of antiretroviral treatment programs. Second, some African governments have gone on the offensive against the disease. And third, the U.S. and other countries are pouring in money to pay for treatments.

So now you run across health workers who have been laboring for years and watching people die, but who suddenly have the means to offer life. You have, amid the ocean of despair, this archipelago of hope, hospitals that are ramping up treatment programs as fast as they can, even while bursting out of their walls. In Namibia, for example, only 500 people were receiving treatment in January 2004. Now over 9,000 people are, and the number is rising rapidly.

Here in Windhoek, Namibia's capital, you run into people like a 6-year-old who was born to parents who were both H.I.V.-positive. They gave her the name Haunapawa, which reflected their mood at the time. It means, "There is no good in the world." But the parents are both still alive, and the girl, once racked by pneumonia, is thriving on the medicine.

You run into scenes like the one I saw at Oshakati Hospital in northern Namibia, by the Angolan border, where a young Zimbabwean doctor, Gram Mutandi, works at his clinic. Patients can wait for eight hours to receive treatment and counseling.

One woman, Josephina, had been dying of AIDS. Her mother had already died. So had her sister and brother-in-law, and she was looking after their children. Then she got on the treatment program, and now she has the irrepressible joy of someone who has come back from death.

Next to her was a woman who showed a photograph of herself at the depths of her disease, frail and emaciated. With treatment, she's robust now. "I want to thank Dr. Mutandi," she said. "You saved my life."

You can imagine what this has done for the morale of the health workers. You can imagine how it has helped them in their efforts to get more people tested for H.I.V. Now a positive test is not a death sentence. Something can be done.

Obviously there's a long way to go. You can still go out and visit children in mud huts who are raising themselves because their parents, aunts and uncles are all dead. Only a small fraction of those who need treatment are getting it. At the Lutheran Hospital in Onandjokwe, Namibia, the staff tested 858 women in the first quarter of this year, but could get only five of their male partners to even come in for testing.

But there's something perversely akin here to Silicon Valley in the early 1990's. All these little treatment facilities are trying to get really big really fast. Thanks in part to American money, they're building new wings and desperately scrounging for qualified staff.

They're facing the problems start-ups face: how to offer treatment to hundreds when you have only one sink and one phone, how to use the survivors who suddenly have the rest of their lives to lead.

I came here expecting despair, but now realize that we should be redoubling our efforts out of a sense of opportunity. I came here aware of controversies about abstinence versus condoms in AIDS prevention programs, about U.S. aid versus multilateral aid, and now realize that all that nonsense is irrelevant on the ground.

This is a world of people trying everything, of doctors from Russia, Egypt, Cuba, Germany and Zimbabwe. Many are backed by money from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, finally doing the work they've always dreamed of doing.

We could be on the verge of a recovery boom.

The US tries to subvert or kill every AIDS programme the UN introduces, for religiously-motivated ideological reasons. Abstinence this, faith-based that, their record is so questionable that reading some claims that they are doing some good somewhere, you don't know if that is representative of the big picture.

And this perception problem is America's to fix.

Surely it's simple why people don't talk about the good stuff as well as the bad?

Nothing spreads faster than bad news.

On the otherhand, that's fantastically good news, and a good thing (tm), I'm also glad to see other countries get behind the effort.

<sigh>

Some on here hate the U.S.

Most of us that criticize some US policies past and present, love the U.S. That is why we hate to see America's power misused.

Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.
~James Bryce

Glad to see the world is doing something about this crisis, lets hope its not too little too late

And I can't imagine one of us criticizing any of it, unless we believe that our wealthy nation should be providing more aid -- And that's really not much of a criticism. I applaud our President, our Congress, our citizens and the American doctors who are apparently part of this effort.

I can't stand our current President. I can't stand his war-mongering, the pretense of stupidity he has adopted because he believes it makes him more likable to the American public, or his general inability to practice the Christianity he so claims to believe.

I truly believe that the Americans who have volunteered to defend our country have been done a great disservice; we sent them into battle on shaky intelligence, into a war we must have known couldn't really be won, with substandard vehicles and equipment, into an action that almost nobody can consider defense. I believe we owe all of our soldiers (past and present) a huge debt of gratitude, and an enormous apology to our current soldiers. If only our President put the same value on adult life as he does on the life of the unborn, many more soldiers would still be alive. To me that is shameful.

However, that doesn't mean I'm unable or unwilling to recognize when W has done something good. And he has. And I am grateful to him.

Why wasn't I talking about that? Because I hadn't read that specific article.

Here's a link of my own. A 150-page UN document on women's rights, including issues relating to HIV, and the US was going to scrap it because it mentioned abortion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4305487.stm

After much arguing, they let it pass. I read in the Guardian at the time, that the US was virtually alone in their objections. I think the Vatican might have been against it too. How good an image does the US project by trying to block a women's rights declaration?

Then there's ongoing funding contraints. The following article makes a nice contrast with the one you quote, as it essentially contradicts it:

http://medilinkz.org/news/news2.asp?NewsID=4075
Additonal reference: http://www.globalgagrule.org

So I think you can see why I have come to view good news from such initiatives with scepticism.

I love America a lot. But in reference to your actual article, keep this in mind:

"The U.S. is the largest foreign donor in absolute dollar terms ($13.2 billion in 2002), but badly trails virtually every developed nation in contributions as a percentage of GDP. While Norway and Denmark provide almost 1% of GDP in foreign aid, the U.S. lags at 0.13%, behind such powers as Luxembourg, Portugal and Greece."

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000063.htm

I'm sorry Mr. Eutrusca, but the US spending some cash on Africa doesn't wipe clean it's dirty areas on it's record. Besides, the US never supports effective Aids prevention (read:free condoms w/instruction) because most of our polticians thump bibles on a regular basis.

If I had seen an article that said - US apologized for false claims made in creating a case for the War in Iraq, agrees to withdraw its forces from the bases it has established all around the world, slashed the military budget and agreed not to engage in any future offensive military operations unless accepted by the world as neccesary, and stopped threatening N Korea and Iran, I'd be with you in a heartbeat, because that would be a wonderful step in a more peaceful direction. But that seems a tad unlikely.

Don't get me wrong, foreign aid is awesome and I do take it into account when I evaluate the US, but aid alone will not change mine or most other people's opinions on the US. Real change in policies would be needed, to see a real change in people's opinions.

For the same reason I have the Burroughs quote in my signature. And things like this (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=kaplan). When we don't know a working system when we see it and instead stick to our puritan ideals instead of doing real work.
[Brazil] national AIDS commissioner, HIV doctor Pedro Chequer, turned down $40 million in US assistance for its fight against AIDS rather than sign a statement condemning prostitution. "For us it was an ethical issue," Chequer told The Nation. "We have to reach every segment of society, with no discrimination. Besides, no country is supposed to decide what another country must do."
...
Brazil's aggressive approach to controlling AIDS, which includes HIV treatment, massive condom distribution and explicit HIV education, has produced one of the few success stories in the developing world: In the early 1990s experts projected 1.2 million infections in Brazil by 2000, but the interventions cut that number in half. In meetings over the past several weeks, Chequer convinced USAID to pull its emphasis on abstinence from the grant agreement. But the anti-prostitution policy was a deal breaker. He says this "theological" restriction would have "wasted money, wasted time and promoted the dissemination of HIV."

Because this is the same ol' same ol', dictating terms even if what the people are doing is actually working. So I'm not going to jump up and down because some countries are too desperate to be able to take the stand that Brazil could.

... with substandard vehicles and equipment ...
See? This is the sort of thing that just warps my mind! I'm taking just one item from your lengthy list of misconceptions just to illustrate a point. I have no intention of rehashing things I have explained time without number already.

The American forces went into Iraq with the best possible equipment, weapons, supplies and training this Country could provide, which is just about the best in the world ( with a few notable exceptions ). Yet, here you are, making the totally unfounded claim that seems to be a theme in so much of the literature dessiminated by those who ( whatever their reasons ) want the US to appear in a bad light.

Where did this unfounded misconception originate? Probably from the fact that, prior to the current conflict, many combat service support vehicles had not been "up-armored" because they were in Reserve and National Guard units which had ( PRIOR to Iraq ) relatively low combat identifiers. Contrary to popular belief, the US military does not have unlimited funding. Decisions must constantly be made concerning which units are "high priority" for almost everything in the military supply inventory ... literally millions of items. If you're not anticipating sending a National Guard unit into a support situation where armor for the trucks and Hummvees is needed, then you allocate the funds for up-armoring to units you think will need it, given their mission requirements.

And yet this relatively simple fact of military logistics has been turned into a friggn' propaganda campaign based on ignorance, by those who wish our military ill. As I said, this is just one example. I realaize that I'm probably wasting my time telling you this, but perhaps someone who reads this and has the power of logical thought will begin to understand.

The US tries to subvert or kill every AIDS programme the UN introduces, for religiously-motivated ideological reasons. Abstinence this, faith-based that, their record is so questionable that reading some claims that they are doing some good somewhere, you don't know if that is representative of the big picture.
Well, abstinence is the only 100% chance way of avoiding AIDS (yea yea yea, counter how ppl won't always practice it; but both points are true)

Well, abstinence is the only 100% chance way of avoiding AIDS (yea yea yea, counter how ppl won't always practice it; but both points are true)
Blood transfusion, needle sharing...

It should be mentioned that the African programs have recently had a shake up with the Bush Administration forbidding monies going to group that promote the use of condoms in order to stop the spread of AIDS, even its use within marriage. Instead monies have been given to groups that do not have a track record in working in Africa (not saying thay are bad groups, but that they do not have the experiance and contacts that the other groups have).

And, of course, the Bush Administration has also raised a yardstick for money as well, declairing that aid will only be given the proven countries that will responcibly use the money, which sounds great except that the yardstick isn't in plain view so there's no way to tell HOW the Administration is measuring said countries as well as this also means the areas that need that aid the most are most likely not to get it.

As with all things, from every country, it's the good with the bad.

Probably from the fact that, prior to the current conflict, many combat service support vehicles had not been "up-armored" because they were in Reserve and National Guard units which had ( PRIOR to Iraq ) relatively low combat identifiers. Contrary to popular belief, the US military does not have unlimited funding. Decisions must constantly be made concerning which units are "high priority" for almost everything in the military supply inventory ... literally millions of items. If you're not anticipating sending a National Guard unit into a support situation where armor for the trucks and Hummvees is needed, then you allocate the funds for up-armoring to units you think will need it, given their mission requirements.

And until the trucks and Hummvees had been up-armored, we shouldn't have sent them over there for use by soldiers. We owe our military the absolute best protection we can provide them in all cases. It's one thing if the action into which an un-up-armored vehicle has been activated is a necessary defense function, on our own soil. Then, we are protecting the soldiers protecting us better than we could without the vehicle at all. It's completely different when we've sent our volunteer army into harm's way in an offensive action without the best possible protection. Technology we have, and have implemented.

I respect the lives of our American soldiers too much to accept lack of funding as an adequate explanation. Allocate more money, raise taxes -- but the lives of the soldiers must not be sacrificed (or even endangered) because we "couldn't afford" to properly equip them.

And until the trucks and Hummvees had been up-armored, we shouldn't have sent them over there for use by soldiers. We owe our military the absolute best protection we can provide them in all cases. It's one thing if the action into which an un-up-armored vehicle has been activated is a necessary defense function, on our own soil. Then, we are protecting the soldiers protecting us better than we could without the vehicle at all. It's completely different when we've sent our volunteer army into harm's way in an offensive action without the best possible protection. Technology we have, and have implemented.

I respect the lives of our American soldiers too much to accept lack of funding as an adequate explanation. Allocate more money, raise taxes -- but the lives of the soldiers must not be sacrificed because we "couldn't afford" to properly equip them.
I had to take a moment to quit swearing when I read this. How old are you? About 12? The US military IS sent into harm's way with the best possible protection! Apparently you either misread what I wrote in the post you quote, or you didn't read it at all. There are literally MILLIONS of items in the US military supply inventory. If you waited for all units to have all the changes/upgrades to every item, they would never leave the continental US.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend???

I love America a lot. But in reference to your actual article, keep this in mind:

"The U.S. is the largest foreign donor in absolute dollar terms ($13.2 billion in 2002), but badly trails virtually every developed nation in contributions as a percentage of GDP. While Norway and Denmark provide almost 1% of GDP in foreign aid, the U.S. lags at 0.13%, behind such powers as Luxembourg, Portugal and Greece."

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000063.htm
Just remember that the VAST majority of the aid that the US donates isn't considered by the accounting methods employed.

If the US is actually happy to improve the situation of poor people in the 3rd world, then why is it that they refuse to acknowledge "the right to food" as a human right? (last time I checked)
How could that possibly be against their interests?

And third, the U.S. and other countries are pouring in money to pay for treatments.

And other countries? So what your really saying, is this is a multinational effort and you want all the credit to go to you. And before you say "we gave more" So you should, each as they can afford. Do you really think gave all you could afford? I doubt it, cappitalists, probably only gave the minimum nessasairy to get your name in the paper.

And other countries? So what your really saying, is this is a multinational effort and you want all the credit to go to you. And before you say "we gave more" So you should, each as they can afford. Do you really think gave all you could afford? I doubt it, cappitalists, probably only gave the minimum nessasairy to get your name in the paper.
[ invites Georgead to go perform an impossible act upon his or her own body ]

Where did I ever indicate anything of the sort? Tell me. I want to know.

Did someone mention when the US bought the commercial anti-AIDS drugs instead of the generics because the pharaceutical douches hold the Repub leashes pretty firm. This resulted in less anti-AIDS drugs being available since the commerical ones are more expenisive.

I'm too tired to read all the posts. Sorry. :(

Why do these threads always end up (quite quickly) being about Iraq... :rolleyes:

Its rather tiring...

I had to take a moment to quit swearing when I read this. How old are you? About 12? The US military IS sent into harm's way with the best possible protection!

If the equipment doesn't meet the very best standards we have, it's not the best possible protection. BY DEFINITION. If the vehicle isn't "up-armored" it could be safer.

Apparently you either misread what I wrote in the post you quote, or you didn't read it at all. There are literally MILLIONS of items in the US military supply inventory. If you waited for all units to have all the changes/upgrades to every item, they would never leave the continental US.

And maybe our fearless leader should have considered this before he started his holy war. Maybe waited a little longer before we attacked. Maybe hired civillian mechanics/autobuilders to assist. If anyone I loved were in combat and could be just a little bit safer, but wasn't, I'd be livid. Hell, nobody I love is in the military and I'm livid.

***************
Oh, and I'm 29.

Why do these threads always end up (quite quickly) being about Iraq... :rolleyes:

Its rather tiring...


I aplogize. This time it's my fault. :headbang:

(Edit: I won't respond either. As far as I'm concerned, Iraq is done in this thread.)

Where did I ever indicate anything of the sort? Tell me. I want to know.
This thread is a perfect illustration of why the US shouldn't even think about providing any foreign aid, and should heavily tax personal donations to all charities that operate abroad.

The US tries to subvert or kill every AIDS programme the UN introduces, for religiously-motivated ideological reasons. Abstinence this, faith-based that, their record is so questionable that reading some claims that they are doing some good somewhere, you don't know if that is representative of the big picture.

And this perception problem is America's to fix.
Gee Whiz, did you read the article?

Gee Whiz, did you read the article?
Yeah. Did you read my post?

Yeah. Did you read my post?
Yep, it seemed to ignore any mention by the original article that the U.S. was donating tons of support to African Aids. Who needs the U.N. if we can do it directly?

Yes but as a proportion of its GDP it lags seriously behind many other countries- particularly the Scandinavians and some other comparitivley poorer countries.

The US does a lot but there is a tendancy to tie in aid with terms and conditions- something that the trans nationality of the UN doesn't need or want.

If the equipment doesn't meet the very best standards we have, it's not the best possible protection. BY DEFINITION. If the vehicle isn't "up-armored" it could be safer.


And maybe our fearless leader should have considered this before he started his holy war. Maybe waited a little longer before we attacked. Maybe hired civillian mechanics/autobuilders to assist. If anyone I loved were in combat and could be just a little bit safer, but wasn't, I'd be livid. Hell, nobody I love is in the military and I'm livid.

***************
Oh, and I'm 29.

I would have taken you more seriously if you WHERE 12. o.0

I am not pleased with the behavior in this topic.

That was a hint. I suggest that everyone take the hint.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

and people wonder why this country is said to be so bad... why dont you stop arguing CUZ ITS NOT GIONG TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!! and come upon an agreement to do something about whatever you're talking about AND DO IT!!!

Debate is a natural effect of Democracy. Keep up the good work Eutrusca.

Yep, it seemed to ignore any mention by the original article that the U.S. was donating tons of support to African Aids. Who needs the U.N. if we can do it directly?
Yeah, essentially, if the US acts as a barrier to the UN's efforts in this direction, I do not give a toss what it achieves on its own, and give it no credit.

Harsh, but learn the lesson, if you work against people rather than with them, they will never appreciate what you do manage to do.

Well, abstinence is the only 100% chance way of avoiding AIDS (yea yea yea, counter how ppl won't always practice it; but both points are true)

It's a great fantasy. If only the world and people were that simple.

As to the money question; it's great if it makes it over there.

When I was in Europe I saw a news blip that said much of the money earmarked for the Sunami relief was side tracked for Iraq. Germany has given the most at the moment.

I saw a similar report on the plane ride home. American news bit.

If the Africans have the money, hopefully it will not have strings attached(ie you have to teach abstinance which will not work there for the majority. Different mind set). They have all the money and they are not forced to pay whatever the pharmies decide to gauge them as they see fit.

Wow. Favourable articles suddenly have the power to erase decades of neglect?! You American's have such short memories.

each as they can afford.

I think the words you were look for were "From each according to his ability", comrade.

Favourable articles suddenly have the power to erase decades of neglect?!

Since when has Africa been our responsibility? Maybe you should be looking to it's former colonizers in Europe for future handouts.

Yeah, essentially, if the US acts as a barrier to the UN's efforts in this direction, I do not give a toss what it achieves on its own, and give it no credit.

Hmm, an example of the new nationalism (not really but the fervor with which it is supported is equal to that of nationalism) that's springing up in Europe. I don't have a name for but basically it involves uniting the entire world and getting along in mutual cooperation in a pseudo free-market union, except the US, of course. I see a lot of it expressed on this forum.

Anyway let me get this strait, even if the US solved the AIDS crises in Africa (we have our own to worry about as well you know so this would be extremely generous) you would still be angry at us for keeping the child raping UN "peace keepers" out of the region. Huh. At least your honest about it.

Also a question about those statistics saying that Scandinavians donate a higher percentage of their GDP. Does that include private donations to international charities or just foreign aid from the government?

Eutrusca its obvious America started the AIDS Virus to destroy the Blacks* and Homosexuals!
*1 Quarter of Blacks in the Southern States believe this.**
**As ive been Informed by Newspapers.

Also a question about those statistics saying that Scandinavians donate a higher percentage of their GDP. Does that include private donations to international charities or just foreign aid from the government?
Those figures don't account for any aid provided from the private sector, once more they discount certain kinds of assistance, and all kinds of assistance depending on who in a government providing it. For instance if the Army core of Engineers builds a damn, a road, a school, whatever, because they're attached to the US military, that assistance, irrespective of what form it takes, is entirely discounted. Basically, the standards are written for 'scandinavian liberal paradises' so they can get the most PR out of their checkbook diplomacy. Not exactly something to be proud.

<sigh>

Some on here hate the U.S.

Most of us that criticize some US policies past and present, love the U.S. That is why we hate to see America's power misused.

Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.
~James Bryce

Amen to that.

Those figures don't account for any aid provided from the private sector, once more they discount certain kinds of assistance, and all kinds of assistance depending on who in a government providing it. For instance if the Army core of Engineers builds a damn, a road, a school, whatever, because they're attached to the US military, that assistance, irrespective of what form it takes, is entirely discounted. Basically, the standards are written for 'scandinavian liberal paradises' so they can get the most PR out of their checkbook diplomacy. Not exactly something to be proud.

Thank you. I can just hear the Euro-Socialist response,

"What? The private sector can provide aid without the government forcing them? And the US military can do 'good' things? I don't understand, my head hurts."

snip America give some foreign aid to Africa

Fine, now why did Bush cut so much money from the world fund who has been doing this sort of thing with greater success since before Bush ever came into office?

Bush cut money from a program that teaches safe sex and population control in poverty stricken regions to help ease their suffering so that he could promote efforts that teach abstinence before marriage. As though that's going to help when 40% of the population has HIV.

So now he's promoting efforts that help treat AIDS while making sure that there'll always be lots of AIDS to treat. How much you want to bet that this money is going to American pharmecutical companies? American companies can't get rich off of population control, but they can get rich off of AIDS.

Why is Bush so opposed to generic AIDS drugs when Canada, with no objection from the US, was so quick to introduce generic Cipro in the wake of the SARS outbreak? (the US didn't object because the company voluntarily lowered prices recognizing the implied threat when the White House told them that they didn't think doing as Canada did was necessary yet.)

Way to go Republican government. Now why don't you start remining east Asian rice paddies and selling disposable prosthetic limbs to vietnamese peasants? Make sure they're disposable though, don't want them to have something that they might be able to pass down to their own children when they get their legs blown off.

cut so much money from the world fund

4 words, Complete and Total Corruption.

4 words, Complete and Total Corruption.
Well here we come to my point again, if the US consistently sabotages the programmes of "corrupt" international bodies and attempts to do a better job itself, what reason is there for either side to respect each others' efforts? No respect shown, no respect due. Honestly, I don't see how the US continues to labour under the illusion that its actions will one day be regarded as positive, when it heaps scorn on everyone else's parallel efforts. What does the US want, a cookie? Not if it keeps trying to scrap foreign projects just because they mention prostitutes or abortion.

Wow. Favourable articles suddenly have the power to erase decades of neglect?! You American's have such short memories.

Hmmm who did most of the damange to Africa?

I will give you a hint. It's one word that starts and ends with the letter E.

But hey. I like you limmies all the same! :p

[ invites Georgead to go perform an impossible act upon his or her own body ]

Where did I ever indicate anything of the sort? Tell me. I want to know.

here->

Why are none of you who always rag on the US talking about this? Huh?

here->

Thanks in part to American money, they're building new wings and desperately scrounging for qualified staff.

And as for your impossible act, mines long enough to reach.

Those figures don't account for any aid provided from the private sector, once more they discount certain kinds of assistance, and all kinds of assistance depending on who in a government providing it. For instance if the Army core of Engineers builds a damn, a road, a school, whatever, because they're attached to the US military, that assistance, irrespective of what form it takes, is entirely discounted. Basically, the standards are written for 'scandinavian liberal paradises' so they can get the most PR out of their checkbook diplomacy. Not exactly something to be proud.
I don't understand this competition at all. The percentage of GPD we are talking about is always what the governments give. Governments have promised to give at least 0.7% of their GDP. Not many do.

I can believe that Americans donate, as private citizens, more than anyone else. Good for you. You ought to be proud. But that doesn't change the fact that your government is not giving as much as it has promised to give. (Neither does mine. We give only about 0.4%. :mad: Trying to change that...)

You think that our armies/churches/companies don't do anything around the world? Of course they do, just like your army/churches/companies.

I don't understand this competition at all. The percentage of GPD we are talking about is always what the governments give. Governments have promised to give at least 0.7% of their GDP. Not many do.

I can believe that Americans donate, as private citizens, more than anyone else. Good for you. You ought to be proud. But that doesn't change the fact that your government is not giving as much as it has promised to give. (Neither does mine. We give only about 0.4%. :mad: Trying to change that...)

You think that our armies/churches/companies don't do anything around the world? Of course they do, just like your army/churches/companies.
There are two issues here. One is much of the assistance from the US government is discounted, Army core of engineers being one example, discounting the assistance of the US military units during disasters such as the tsunami another. One could even make a very convincing case that ALL US military aid should be counted including that given to Japan and South Korea. In the case of Japan, the US forces have allowed them to table the taking up of nuclear arms. Which in addition to requiring quite the examination of their national identity, involves a significant economic cost (not because they are difficult to produce but because they are prohibitively expensive to secure and maintain), and otherwise free up their economy to concentrate on creating wealth. To say nothing of the CIAs success in entirely dismanteling Taiwan's nuclear weapons program in 1992, an accomplishment that might well have prevented WWIII (the expense of which defies reduction into simple monetary terms).

The second is the US economic and political philosophy, the government shouldn't act as a nanny. In so far as their is foreign aid, it should exist only for the strategic benefit of all US citizens. In so far as other causes are deserving of aid, the government should leave the people as much of their wealth as is practicable so that they can make their own determinations on how to live the best life with the reasources they have. Including determinations of who is how worthy of their largess or truly painful generosity. One man in the US who's made his life's work fighting global hunger is credited with saving ONE BILLION people from starvation world wide, through his efforts, and those of people he's been able to rally to his cause. Clearly, this philosophy works.

Even given that philosophy, it's unquestionable success, the great discounting of US aid, including non-military aid, the US STILL leads the world in absolute contribution just from the government. If the Europeans want to have a big party and talk about how awesome their governments are when the real details aren't considered, fine. That's their apathetic, dilettante, perogative. And if that's all it takes to make them happy so they can sleep at night following a good finger wag at the atlantic ocean, bully for them.

Even given that philosophy, it's unquestionable success, the great discounting of US aid, including non-military aid, the US STILL leads the world in absolute contribution just from the government. If the Europeans want to have a big party and talk about how awesome their governments are when the real details aren't considered, fine. That's their apathetic, dilettante, perogative. And if that's all it takes to make them happy so they can sleep at night following a good finger wag at the atlantic ocean, bully for them.

I nearly shed a tear of joy as I read that.

The second is the US economic and political philosophy, the government shouldn't act as a nanny. In so far as their is foreign aid, it should exist only for the strategic benefit of all US citizens.
First: so you do not believe that other countries give different aid too? that USA is the only one who aids through army?
Second (the quote) This is the main difference. Our government thinks that we should not choose who to help by how it would be beneficial to us. We think that it's not our job to tell them how to live and deal with things. Of course we try to look after that the money goes where it's meant to go. Trying to benefit from helping is not really helping at all. It's business.

Even given that philosophy, it's unquestionable success, the great discounting of US aid, including non-military aid, the US STILL leads the world in absolute contribution just from the government. If the Europeans want to have a big party and talk about how awesome their governments are when the real details aren't considered, fine. That's their apathetic, dilettante, perogative. And if that's all it takes to make them happy so they can sleep at night following a good finger wag at the atlantic ocean, bully for them.
As already said, I can believe this. Good for you. The biggest European country that gives any help is three times smaller than USA. Is it that surprising that you give more? BTW do you know any site where I could see the list of countries who give the most, considering all aid? I'd be interested to see one.

I don't think Europeans are talking about how awesome their governments are. As far as I know, as a European, most bash their governments because they are not doing enough. Just like I am.

In the case of Japan, the US forces have allowed them to table the taking up of nuclear arms. Which in addition to requiring quite the examination of their national identity, involves a significant economic cost (not because they are difficult to produce but because they are prohibitively expensive to secure and maintain), and otherwise free up their economy to concentrate on creating wealth.
Your example here is not correct, or rather while it seems to be the ideal of Americans, the Japanese see it in a far, FAR different light. Japan has flirted with the idea of nuclear weapons, but never really seriously considered it due to the reactions of the population thanks to the memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, NOT because of Japan being under the US nuclear umbrella.

Even now, with North Korea aiming stuff this way, the issue is barely mentioned.

Oh, and Japan has one of the most well equiped and expensive military forces in the world.

Your argument is valid, but this example was not.

Blood transfusion, needle sharing...

Yeah, which account for almost 0.001% of African AIDS cases.. :p

Hmmm who did most of the damange to Africa?

I will give you a hint. It's one word that starts and ends with the letter E.

But hey. I like you limmies all the same! :p
Part of Africas problem is the speed with which European powers were forced to withdraw their control after WWII as part of the deal with the Marshal aid package. Countries which had worked well under European rule (I know forced occupation but still working efficiently) were dropped like hot potatoes to get that US aid. Africa seems to have paid a high price for rebuilding Europe. This was part of the US's policy to reduce other countries influnence in the world. If you pull someone down you by default are raised higher.

Part of Africas problem is the speed with which European powers were forced to withdraw their control after WWII as part of the deal with the Marshal aid package. Countries which had worked well under European rule (I know forced occupation but still working efficiently) were dropped like hot potatoes to get that US aid. Africa seems to have paid a high price for rebuilding Europe. This was part of the US's policy to reduce other countries influnence in the world. If you pull someone down you by default are raised higher.

Haha.. I knew someone would make some ridiculous excuse.. kidos, sir. ;)

Since when has Africa been our responsibility? Maybe you should be looking to it's former colonizers in Europe for future handouts.

Of course it is not America's responsibility. However, acting as late as this, and with possible terms, means that after watching a car accident and standing still for several years/decades, the nation of America has decided to actually do something about it. Of course with the possibility of terms as well, it does quite seem like a deal with a devil. Interpret that how you may.

NOTE: I get so sick of reading the same people making the same posts time after time about how the US never does anything except "invade countries and kill hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians." Here's a short article that puts the lie to that sort of statement made by people who supposedly should know better.


In Africa, Life After AIDS (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/opinion/09brooks.html?th&emc=th)

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 9, 2005
Windhoek, Namibia

Bobwalla is a black woman born in Cape Town and raised under apartheid. She lived in a shack with her husband, who drank and beat her for the first nine years of their marriage. Then she tested positive for H.I.V., and cried for days. It was a death sentence.

But she was lucky enough to find a clinic that could give her antiretroviral drugs. She persuaded her husband, who is also H.I.V.-positive, to get treatment. He stopped drinking as part of the treatment, and has stopped abusing her and sleeping around. Now she counsels pregnant women on how not to pass H.I.V. on to their babies.

"For some, H.I.V. brings death," she says. "For me, H.I.V. brought life into my home."

You come to Southern Africa to visit AIDS hospitals, and you expect, or at least I expected, to find unrelieved sadness. But something positive has happened recently because of the confluence of three factors. The first is the spread of antiretroviral treatment programs. Second, some African governments have gone on the offensive against the disease. And third, the U.S. and other countries are pouring in money to pay for treatments.

So now you run across health workers who have been laboring for years and watching people die, but who suddenly have the means to offer life. You have, amid the ocean of despair, this archipelago of hope, hospitals that are ramping up treatment programs as fast as they can, even while bursting out of their walls. In Namibia, for example, only 500 people were receiving treatment in January 2004. Now over 9,000 people are, and the number is rising rapidly.

Here in Windhoek, Namibia's capital, you run into people like a 6-year-old who was born to parents who were both H.I.V.-positive. They gave her the name Haunapawa, which reflected their mood at the time. It means, "There is no good in the world." But the parents are both still alive, and the girl, once racked by pneumonia, is thriving on the medicine.

You run into scenes like the one I saw at Oshakati Hospital in northern Namibia, by the Angolan border, where a young Zimbabwean doctor, Gram Mutandi, works at his clinic. Patients can wait for eight hours to receive treatment and counseling.

One woman, Josephina, had been dying of AIDS. Her mother had already died. So had her sister and brother-in-law, and she was looking after their children. Then she got on the treatment program, and now she has the irrepressible joy of someone who has come back from death.

Next to her was a woman who showed a photograph of herself at the depths of her disease, frail and emaciated. With treatment, she's robust now. "I want to thank Dr. Mutandi," she said. "You saved my life."

You can imagine what this has done for the morale of the health workers. You can imagine how it has helped them in their efforts to get more people tested for H.I.V. Now a positive test is not a death sentence. Something can be done.

Obviously there's a long way to go. You can still go out and visit children in mud huts who are raising themselves because their parents, aunts and uncles are all dead. Only a small fraction of those who need treatment are getting it. At the Lutheran Hospital in Onandjokwe, Namibia, the staff tested 858 women in the first quarter of this year, but could get only five of their male partners to even come in for testing.

But there's something perversely akin here to Silicon Valley in the early 1990's. All these little treatment facilities are trying to get really big really fast. Thanks in part to American money, they're building new wings and desperately scrounging for qualified staff.

They're facing the problems start-ups face: how to offer treatment to hundreds when you have only one sink and one phone, how to use the survivors who suddenly have the rest of their lives to lead.

I came here expecting despair, but now realize that we should be redoubling our efforts out of a sense of opportunity. I came here aware of controversies about abstinence versus condoms in AIDS prevention programs, about U.S. aid versus multilateral aid, and now realize that all that nonsense is irrelevant on the ground.

This is a world of people trying everything, of doctors from Russia, Egypt, Cuba, Germany and Zimbabwe. Many are backed by money from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, finally doing the work they've always dreamed of doing.

We could be on the verge of a recovery boom.


you call that a short article...also tis good what as happend.

This is an artical written for an American audience, no? Therefor is it not likey that small parts such as "In part to American money" be added to make it more tasteful to the reader and therefor get greater sales?

sorry there mate but the US aid contribution is utterly pathetic, its a token at best.

Haha.. I knew someone would make some ridiculous excuse.. kidos, sir. ;)
No, your right, it is and was ridiculous. Europe was keen to drop colonies which were getting expensive to maintain. The US just gave us an easy out but had any side had the moral fibre to withdraw slowly, to not allow USSR and US interference after withdrawal or in the case of the US to insist that ex-colonies were left in a stable and maintainable state the world would be a better place than it is today.
The British put Idi Amin in power. Good move that.
The US and USSR financed wars and rebelions in the congo, angola and ethiopia to name 3 I can think of off the top of my head.
It was all shit and we now have to pay to pick up the pieces. That's why none of us can take a moral stand and say "look how well WE do compared to you" because almost every major first world country is responsible in some way for this problem.
If you stay in afriends house for a few days and accidentally break all his cups you don't give him you left over tooth mug when you leave. You either buy hima new tea service or a complete set of matching, bone china mugs to make ammends.
We need to make ammends for how we treated Africa.

First: so you do not believe that other countries give different aid too? that USA is the only one who aids through army?
Second (the quote) This is the main difference. Our government thinks that we should not choose who to help by how it would be beneficial to us. We think that it's not our job to tell them how to live and deal with things. Of course we try to look after that the money goes where it's meant to go. Trying to benefit from helping is not really helping at all. It's business.

As already said, I can believe this. Good for you. The biggest European country that gives any help is three times smaller than USA. Is it that surprising that you give more? BTW do you know any site where I could see the list of countries who give the most, considering all aid? I'd be interested to see one.

I don't think Europeans are talking about how awesome their governments are. As far as I know, as a European, most bash their governments because they are not doing enough. Just like I am.
They primarily leave that responsability to their government. In the US, that decision is primarily a private enterprise. Because of MY personal ideological views, I go out of my way to make sure I give to secular institutions in my local community, and particularly off-season. As for aid through the military, no most countries don't give aid through their militaries the way the US does. And to no where near the extent. Whitness the tsunami aftermath, how many nations had a aircraft carrier, a hospital ship, and airlift wings delivering aid? Then on top of that the long history of the US Army Core of Engineers, a very badass organization that greatly deserves more pimping, is very different than otherwise similar elements of other nations.

Don't think the European governments are free from graft. You *trust* a bureaucracy to efficently distribute and contribute on your behalf, and you *trust* that the media (who doesn't care, it's boring) will discover misdeeds and peer into the dark corners. Those notions are completely antithetical to the American way of thinking. We have charities that compete to be open, and efficent. Many of them having grown into powerful multinational entities in their own right. More over, it's a free country, and creates a vibrant market where nearly every nich is filled, (and mass mailings are subsidised by people who hate email, the need to send greeting cards and formal invitations.) We've industrialized charity, europeans entrust it to the shadowed corners of government, while eating up shiney press releases. But don't delude yourself into thinking that strategic aims don't influence where your government decides to focus it's charity. And even if *your* country is the rare one that does, perhaps it's governance is undertaken solely by true believers, many others, even most, tie their aid to strategic/economic aims. But please note, the UN doesn't necessarily discount that.

By selectively giving to charities, people aren't telling people how to live. They're deciding for themselves where their time (and that's what money really is) is best spent. It's a problem that lends itself to a decentralized solution. Strategic aid, that's good to centralize. There needs to be a vision, and a plan. But making the world a better place in general, that needs to happen all over. And 320 million, industrious, innovative, relatively wealthy people, they get a lot done. Not to mention their ownership, and involvement. It's not something they just trust in. It's an evaluation they make, and reconsider based on the many opportunities that present themselves.

As far as sites, the UN used to, and I'm sure still does, maintain a record of aid by the aforementioned rules. For the more indepth discussion, such as what I've eluded to, you're going to have to look for rather more dense economic, and other publications. Which will necessarily change over time. But I've never found anything that provided a complete accounting. So it is quite a bit more difficult. I tried it once for the US, and I was only able to come up with a very incomplete estimate, I think for 1999. But through the effort I learned a lot. Once you get a few of the numbers and start putting them in perspective..... Well, the American philosophy shows its merits.

It's interesting. It really is the sort of thing a government should do, perhaps as part of the CIA factbook. But the US doesn't because we're not really that concerned with the numbers. Which is no doubt why they're so hard to find. Our policy, even broader than as presented by our government, isn't about the bragging rights. It's very focused on the good being done. And there is a very real downside to that. I'm quite certain that our industrial ways, and over zealous generosity have obliterated more than their fair share of economic activity. I think that's a real problem and in the long run does much evil despite the very best of intentions. What's particularly dangerous is our quintessentially short term view, leaves Americans with the opposite impression, encouraging the behavior.

Re Nervun:

I think you'd find it troublesome to plausibly claim that the protection of the US nuclear umbrella played no roll in the Japanese decision to basically table the idea of taking up nuclear arms. There certainly have been no technical hurdles, even well before the cold war had ended. And Japan certainly has no shortage of plutonium. Would it even take them a month to assemble an atomic weapon they'd be able to deploy?

It's certainly a mutually beneficial arrangement we all enjoyed. Everyone gets increased regional stability (North Koreas latest game excepted), smaller militaries, cheaper militaries, reduced nuclear proliferation. (Which really keenly demonstrates the lack of foresight the Republican congresses under Clinton, and the current administration have displayed with respect to North Korea). If Japan takes up Nukes, then China needs more, and South Korea might need Nukes, and it's something Taiwan might want to revisit (with another trapdoor) again, and so on until the system reaches a new equilibrium. And with Taiwan and nukes, that new equilibrium could be WWIII.

Even if that never came to pass, those weapons would exact a horrible economic toll on a recovering region. Just the fact that Japan is seriously revisiting the issue in the context of an erratic North Korea is proof of the reliability of what had been foreign policy as usual. I don't imagine its an issue the Japanese politicians and military take lightly, particularly as sensitive as their system of government can be to undesirable policy. Granted I don't know much about Japanese politics, but they sure seem happy to kick the crap out of a prime minister who steps wrong.

wow, this is really idiotic.. :rolleyes:

some American posters seem to think the European posters are ragging on the US for not doing enough while saying how great their own govts. are... they're NOT. They bash the inadequacys of their own govts as much as the US- you guys just don't know european and internal politics. Because you US posters don't see or hear such internal bashing yourselves, you're inclined to believe whatever you like! Get over your selves!

Military aid invariably involves strings attached, terms and conditions that impinge and violate the state sovereignty of the Third World country. It is govt.'l aid that was debated about here first. As a percentage, the US could do a lot more- as could many other states, but since this thread was about the US, if you want to debate the inadequecy of European govts., then start a fresh thread!

Instead of always thinking about- 'well whats it got to do with us?' 'why do we always have to do it?' blah blah blah.... your obligation stems from the fact your a human- and fellow humans are suffering where you can assist them. The basic common link between us all is being yet again overlooked due to politics, national bone-headed pride and jingoism. Give your selves a clap on the back, well done.

Kibolonia:- You seem to know your US markets well but don't understand Europe at all.

I can only speak for the UK but I'm sure we are not remarkable in the EU.

The Royal Engineers are very active in rebuilding projects around the world.

The UK has a great number of private charities, you may of heard of Oxfam, War on Want, Christian Aid, Live Aid and many many others all of whom do good work, are completely open with their books, and are completely privately financed "business's".
What makes you think that money given by EU governments will be mis-managed but money given by the US government wont? This seems to be what you are suggesting.

We all give a lot more than the base government figures show. The point is that on any scale of measurement the US gives less per head than most of Europe and puts conditions which others find unreasonable on their giving.

I think you'd find it troublesome to plausibly claim that the protection of the US nuclear umbrella played no roll in the Japanese decision to basically table the idea of taking up nuclear arms. There certainly have been no technical hurdles, even well before the cold war had ended. And Japan certainly has no shortage of plutonium. Would it even take them a month to assemble an atomic weapon they'd be able to deploy?

It's certainly a mutually beneficial arrangement we all enjoyed. Everyone gets increased regional stability (North Koreas latest game excepted), smaller militaries, cheaper militaries, reduced nuclear proliferation. (Which really keenly demonstrates the lack of foresight the Republican congresses under Clinton, and the current administration have displayed with respect to North Korea). If Japan takes up Nukes, then China needs more, and South Korea might need Nukes, and it's something Taiwan might want to revisit (with another trapdoor) again, and so on until the system reaches a new equilibrium. And with Taiwan and nukes, that new equilibrium could be WWIII.

Even if that never came to pass, those weapons would exact a horrible economic toll on a recovering region. Just the fact that Japan is seriously revisiting the issue in the context of an erratic North Korea is proof of the reliability of what had been foreign policy as usual. I don't imagine its an issue the Japanese politicians and military take lightly, particularly as sensitive as their system of government can be to undesirable policy. Granted I don't know much about Japanese politics, but they sure seem happy to kick the crap out of a prime minister who steps wrong.
A roll, yes, but not a large one. It is the view of most Americans that the Japanese goverment uses American forces here to to protect itself, leaving it without the burden of the costs. However, as I said, in Japan this is seen quite differently. Very, VERY differently. Most Japanese view the American military presence here as protection for the US, not Japan. And most would be happy to see a much reduced presence here as well. The Japanese public is not happy with current US military action as well as the deployment of the Japanese Ground Self Defence Force (JSDF) in Iraq (PM Kozumi is walking a tightrope right now).

What you fail to understand with my rejoinder is that the Japanese goverment has not seriously considered nukes, EVEN NOW, due to the all out resistance of the Japanese public at large. It is drilled into every Japanese child the horrors of atomic weapondry to the point that Congress had to pass a measure to allow the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS John F Kennedy to continue functioning as the carrier (currently the USS Kitty Hawk) stationed with the 7th fleet in Japan even when the Navy would like to retire them. Why? Because the Japanese people, through the Japanese goverment, will not acccept nuclear powered ships in Japan. Japanese law states specifically that nuclear weapons cannot be devloped, built, stored, shipped, or sold in Japan.

It was a major scandle over here when it came to light a few months ago that the goverment opened talks with Washington to aquire nukes... back in the 1970's.

The US nukes have nothing to do with this, the public remains adamatly opposed to nukes and the goverment knows it. Maybe, after the last survisor of the bombing dies the Japanese goverment might be able to revisit it, but not now.

They primarily leave that responsability to their government. In the US, that decision is primarily a private enterprise. Because of MY personal ideological views, I go out of my way to make sure I give to secular institutions in my local community, and particularly off-season. As for aid through the military, no most countries don't give aid through their militaries the way the US does. And to no where near the extent. Whitness the tsunami aftermath, how many nations had a aircraft carrier, a hospital ship, and airlift wings delivering aid? Then on top of that the long history of the US Army Core of Engineers, a very badass organization that greatly deserves more pimping, is very different than otherwise similar elements of other nations.

Primarily? How do you know that? They? Who do you mean? How could "they" leave that responsibility to anyone else than governments? Should "they" force private industries to give more aid? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just lost here.

Because of my personal ideological views I give money to aid organisations. Just like most of my fellow country men and most of your fellow country men.

Yes, US give more aid through military than anyone else. US also spends more on military than anyone else in the world (=US military spending is about half of the military spending of all countries combined). One could also ask, what were those aircraft carriers doing around there in the first place. Pretty far from home, I'd say. Why would any other country have that kind of military ships on the other side of the globe? Now don't get me wrong. It was really good that they were over there.



Don't think the European governments are free from graft. You *trust* a bureaucracy to efficently distribute and contribute on your behalf, and you *trust* that the media (who doesn't care, it's boring) will discover misdeeds and peer into the dark corners. Those notions are completely antithetical to the American way of thinking. We have charities that compete to be open, and efficent. Many of them having grown into powerful multinational entities in their own right. More over, it's a free country, and creates a vibrant market where nearly every nich is filled, (and mass mailings are subsidised by people who hate email, the need to send greeting cards and formal invitations.) We've industrialized charity, europeans entrust it to the shadowed corners of government, while eating up shiney press releases...

You think a lot. I don't trust European governments. But I trust private industries even less. Again you seem to think that Europeans do no charity work or ever donate money. "europeans entrust it to the shadowed corners of government" Nice conclusions...I'm still waiting to see the stats which shows how much every country donates when all the donations are included. And what shiny press releases??? Every single press release around here is about how we are not helping as much as we should.


By selectively giving to charities, people aren't telling people how to live.
They're deciding for themselves where their time (and that's what money really is) is best spent.

And what about those cases when USA won't help if prostitution will not be illegalized? Or in which the aid workers want to teach how to use condoms? Or when they don't want to buy an American system with the aid money because it will be too expensive for anyone to use? etc
Citizens can choose where their money is spent. They can tell people how to live. I'm not against that. Governments should not do that. Centralization is needed, of course. That's choosing. But we can make agreements that e.g. Finland aids Nepal, Sweden aids Bhutan. It can be done without thinking about the benefits. Every country that manages to raise from the ruins is beneficial to the whole world. That's what we're after.


And 320 million, industrious, innovative, relatively wealthy people, they get a lot done. Not to mention their ownership, and involvement. It's not something they just trust in. It's an evaluation they make, and reconsider based on the many opportunities that present themselves.

Sorry, I'm lost again. Who are these 320 million wealthy people?


...But I've never found anything that provided a complete accounting. So it is quite a bit more difficult. I tried it once for the US, and I was only able to come up with a very incomplete estimate, I think for 1999. But through the effort I learned a lot. Once you get a few of the numbers and start putting them in perspective..... Well, the American philosophy shows its merits...

If you don't know it, how can you say that your system is working better than let's say Denmark's? This is the main problem with everything you've said this far. You have quite strong opinions based on nothing.

hmm interesting site. I'm not through yet, but here's the first quote

"Many economists and others, including Adelman in the article above, point out that personal remittances are effective. They “don’t require the expensive overhead of government consultants, or the interference of corrupt foreign officials. Studies have shown that roads, clinics, schools and water pumps are being funded by these private dollars. For most developing countries, private philanthropy and investment flows are much larger than official aid.”

Unfortunately Adelman doesn’t cite the studies she mentions as “these private dollars” do not seem to be remittance dollars, but private investment. Economists at the IMF surveyed literature on remittances and admitted that, “the role of remittances in development and economic growth is not well understood ... partly because the literatures on the causes and effects of remittances remain separate.” When they tried to see what role remittances played, they concluded that “remittances have a negative effect on economic growth” as it usually goes into private consumption, and takes place under asymmetric information and economic uncertainty.

Even if that turns out to be wrong, the other issue also is whether personal remmittances can be counted as American giving, as people point out that it is often foreign immigrant workers sending savings back to their families in other countries. Political commentator Daniel Drezner takes up this issue. “Americans aren’t remitting this money — foreign nationals are,” he notes."

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#Sidenoteonprivatecontributions

next

“The US gives 13c/day/person in government aid....American’s private giving—another 5c/day—is high by international standards but does not close the gap with most other rich countries. Norway gives $1.02/day in public aid and 24c/day in private aid” per person."

Seems to me that the "generous American" is just a myth.

Yeah, which account for almost 0.001% of African AIDS cases.. :p
Rape?

That's the big method of transmission in Africa.

just one more

" Commenting on the latest US pledge [of $10 billion], Julian Borger and Charlotte Denny of the Guardian (UK) say Washington is desperate to deflect attention in Monterrey from the size of its aid budget. But for more generous donors, says the story, Washington’s conversion to the cause of effective aid spending is hard to swallow. Among the big donors, the US has the worst record for spending its aid budget on itself — 70 percent of its aid is spent on US goods and services. And more than half is spent in middle income countries in the Middle East. Only $3bn a year goes to South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa."

— Monterrey: US Will 'Seek Advice On Spending Aid', World Bank, March 21, 2002

“The US gives 13c/day/person in government aid....American’s private giving—another 5c/day—is high by international standards but does not close the gap with most other rich countries. Norway gives $1.02/day in public aid and 24c/day in private aid” per person."

This is the sort of statistic which offers some perspective.

After these I'd like to add that EU's record is not so clean either. If we would really like to help we would stop giving tax money to farmers. We deny it from poor countries but keep doing it ourselves.

and not just to farmers, another example
"The total cost to developing countries of restrictions on textile imports into the developed world has been estimated to be some $50 billion a year. This is more or less equivalent to the total amount of annual development assistance provided by Northern governments to the Third World."

Re Helioterra,

Well it's been a few days. Mostly because, hey, it's summer. Also, Miyazaki is the shit, yo.

I certainly found your provided site (post #68) enlightening. Normally, I would have looked at their 'about page' and renewed my search for something with a little bit less of an axe to grind. But because you linked it, I felt obligated to acctually read it. And lo' and behold, I agree with most of what is written. Indeed I have written as much in this very thread.

There's a lot to agree with and disagree with, as is no doubt the case with every complicated issue. Specifically, I'd take issue with Daniel Drezner commentary (note he's not an economist). If we shouldn't count the remittences of foreign nationals, or even US Citizens, sending American dollars out of the country, should we count the support that those foreign nationals recieve IN the US states? (Free medical assistance in US emergency rooms, increased costs of law enforcement, infrastructure, NGOs and private individuals who help foreign nationals settle and acclimate to the US). Hell, this year alone remittences to just Mexico are expected to be 20 billion dollars, providing the second biggest segment of Mexico's economy. Let's imagine that disappearing, a thought experiment Mr. Drezner is willing to entirely discount.

With respect to Farm Subsidies. That's a non-starter. Sure, some of them are pork. A lot of that is in tobacco. And 3rd world nations aren't prevented from selling that in the US because of subsidies. But some of those subsidies are the result of trying to prevent a group of people from falling into the trap of doing long term ecological damage in pursuit of short term profits. The 3rd world isn't the loser in this reguard either. If push comes to shove, and the agricultural centers of America and the US aren't able to produce an abundance of food, it's not the rich nations who'll suffer famine first.

In general the site is concerned with saving people in the near term. I don't think that does any good what so ever. The kind of aid their talking about only delays death, and does nothing to prevent it. It might be useful to have a discussion on making that aid more efficent so that some of it might be diverted to more useful aims. But that's not something that's seriously undertaken by many organizations. A little food today won't ultimately save the people in the empoverished nations. Security, stability, access to potable water, access to energy that doesn't cause respatory ailments, communications infrastructure, the ability to enforce a contract, and most of all technology will save more lives over the long term.

Bioengineered foods would save more lives, and improve quality of life for more people than condoms. The Bush administration (for entirely mercenary reasons makes the right choice on the first, and for entirely non-sensical ideological notions makes the entirely wrong choice on the second.) The europeans and many local governments oppose the engineered foods, for completely irrational notions of natural and healthy. Completely happy to ignore the fact that BILLIONS of lives would ultimately be saved and improved.

The gift of easy access to the information networks and a great many of the current and free tools of the West offer a promise of wealth to the few who can find their way to understanding, and obtaining access to the opportunity.

Aid won't fix poverty. Or famine that isn't caused by a particularly inopportune disaster. They've got a serious problem to solve. Their pre-industrial lifestyle, and our industrial goods. And it's going to cost the lives of everyone who isn't able to adapt, for whatever reason. Fair, no. But it's the price they pay for not inventing the steam engine first. Instead of pursuing aid that would a year or two to average 3rd world life expectancies, isn't it more reasonable to more vigorously pursue cheaper less immediate stratagies, some of which might add a decade?

It may be the massive amounts of beer talking, but I think the retardedness that we are teaching these people abstinence outweighs any good that we are doing. Yes, a drunk teenager outsmarted the president yet again.