Help Make Poverty History!!

[skye_eiden]

since no one has made a thread on this yet :)

http://www.live8live.com/

Every single day, 30,000 children die, needlessly, of extreme poverty.

On July 6th, we finally have the opportunity to stop that shameful statistic.

8 world leaders, gathered in Scotland for the G8 summit, will be presented with a workable plan to double aid, drop the debt and make the trade laws fair. If these 8 men agree, then we will become the generation that made poverty history.

But they'll only do it if enough people tell them to.

That's why we're staging LIVE 8. 10 concerts, 100 artists, a million spectators, 2 billion viewers, and 1 message... To get those 8 men, in that 1 room, to stop 30,000 children dying every single day of extreme poverty.

We don't want your money - we want you!

And the LIVE8 concert is on replay! You can check it out at
http://music.aol.com/live_8_concert/live_now

please take the time to sign the petition! It's a worthy cause :D

[Eric]

So the United States has no right to be the world police yet we are obligated to be the world's piggy bank....

[AnguishedBlade]

So the United States has no right to be the world police yet we are obligated to be the world's piggy bank....


1. It already is. Do you know how many U.S soldiers are stationed in Asia, Europe, Africa, Austrailia, and South America? Do you know just how many damn nukes we have? When was the last time we dismantled one? We are a world police. We just took the U.N's job. Only thing is, no one really likes us for it. I mean, if French troops were suddenly marching in American soil (cause they're the world police), you'd be pretty pissed right? Well, that's what U.S troops are doing.

2. She's not only directing this to the United States. Nor is she expecting the U.S more money.

[JFA_bobguy]

[1] I don't think it's really possible to end poverty, but it sure helps to at least fight it. But, I'm not so sure that the overall message presented through all these concerts is enough to make these eight men sit down and solve their problems.

I'm not saying this is a bad idea, I'm saying it's good and progressive, not necessarily the end of poverty.

[2] I really, really hate it when things like this turn into fiery arguments.

[Kinael]

Start threads in political!

Regardless, the concerts are trivializing the situations a bit though I think.

[Kyreii]

I've heard of this. I think it's the second time they've done this. If memory serves correctly, the last concert was about 20-30 years ago. :D

[Sevi]

've heard of this. I think it's the second time they've done this. If memory serves correctly, the last concert was about 20-30 years ago.

Yeah, they had Band Aid in '84 I think, and Live Aid in '85... Both organized by Bob Geldolf. But Band aid was a much smaller affair.

I understand that they're trying to breed awareness, but it should have been more of a charity event. The money raised from ticket sales gets donated to relief stations or something. Instead of free tickets to put pressure on government leaders.

Really, the G8 countries COULD forgive 3rd world debt (since they're not getting the money back either way); however, its not going to make a lick of a difference in these countries. The governments of many of the African nations are the reasons why they're so poor and people are starving. To forgive the debt, fine, but to then provide more money- we're putting them back into the same situation.

[Eric]

Well, Gadafi (sp) does make a good point that the debt comes from interest, which he wants the G8 countries to forgive.

I'm kinda pissed that people claim that we have no right intervene in a foreign country but foreign aid is clearly an intervention in a foreign country.

[Kinael]

I remember reading in Ferguson's Colossus that the aid we (donor countries) give already exceeds the interests we get. Unfortunately, I've lent the book out so I cannot check it.

[Kinael]

Saturday's Live 8 concerts in Barrie and around the world fell on tone-deaf ears in Canada as the government declined to increase its financial commitment to Africa. Aides to Prime Minister Paul Martin, who arrived in the rain in Ireland yesterday afternoon, said there is no chance of a last-minute policy change.

Group of Eight members Italy, France, Britain and Germany have committed to giving 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2015. Canada, Japan and the United States have not. The 8th member, Russia, is not considered a donor nation.

The concerts, called Live 8, are a pun on the original Live Aid concert and the forthcoming G8 summit. Bob Geldof, the organizer, has condemned Mr. Martin's refusal to commit to the 0.7-per-cent target. He said Canada's position provides moral cover to the United States.

Full article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050704.wg80704/BNStory/National/

[AnguishedBlade]

I'm kinda pissed that people claim that we have no right intervene in a foreign country but foreign aid is clearly an intervention in a foreign country.

That depends on what "kind" of intervention it is. When you mean intervention as in sending 1000-3000 men and women with weapons in foreign land, a third party will claim that that nation has no right to do that. On the other hand, if it's helping out with poverty, sickness, and debt, or whatnot...then the third party will have no problem with that, they might even encourage it.

Fucking pacifists believe we have no right to intervene in other countries but it is our duty and obligation to shit money out our asses and give it to countries that have absolutely no bearing with us. Is it me or that is a little bit (just a tiny bit) hypocritical?

I'll take your opening two words as a personal insult. "Fucking pacifists" aside, in my honest opinion, this does not just apply to the U.S, but this applies to countries who are rather prosperous and are able to "shit" out money from "their fucking asses". It's a great way to build trust with other people, and a good way to make freinds. Maybe you won't like it, but it's the peoples of the world's way of establishing a global community. And this isn't about giving aid to countrie's governments, it's for their people in general. It's not like we're giving these guys free Audis, or free Volkswagens, Hondas, free mansions, or free flat screen TV's.

[kyrien]

I am not too familiar with foreign affairs so I hesitate to take an actual stand on the issue. But, from what I've been reading, I agree with both AB and Eric in regards to what the US has done, and is "expected" to do.

Eric has a good point: why is it that the United States is often criticized of sticking their business where they have no business, be it for the sake of "justice" or for our* own agendas whilst helping (supposedly anyway) people of the foreign country, but then get criticized as well when we do not spit out enough money to save everyone from poverty. Why the double standard?

On the flip side, because we are entering an era where the world is getting smaller and a global community is a reality, we should donate where we can to help our overseas neighbors. I see a lot of wasted food that could go to feeding the poor, be it hte poor/homeless in America, or those abroad. This country can feed itself and then let some spoil. Why let the surplus go to waste when it can be put to good use?

To take the typical Chinese middle road ideals, if you want some, you should be expected to give some. This goes with the US wanting a stronghold in the Middle East or wherever, and expecting to give aid... Just as it is for foreign countries to want to US to give aid, and realizing that in return the US is going to want some influence in the global scene. Whether what the US wants is justified, is another matter (ie, the war, etc.), but if countries want the US to provide aid, be it financial or food or whatever, they are not in a position to expect the US to not take up the position as the "world police" to secure their investments. That money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is not just from within the country itself.

As nice and pretty the idea of ideal charity is, it's just that, an ideal.


* - I use "our" because I'm American.

[Kinael]

What do you mean this isn't about giving aid to countries' governments? It's the sovereign governments who administer the aid. Do you remember the Oil-For-Food program?

[phlyRy]

I don't know IF there is a way to fix this, but I do think that in the matters of food, the world is really messed up. In the US, we rush and don't eat properly, and might even eat excessively, where we now have tons of commercials on TV about indigestion medicine. Also, the poorer children in the states are also overeating, becoming too fat and having high cholesterol issues. Then outside the states, we have children starving in Africa, because there is no food. I would imagine that if we stopped abusing our stomaches we could save a lot on medical costs. Instead, those costs could just go to feeding the poor countries. Is it really that hard to keep human stomaches happy? I mean shouldn't life be just properly filling people's bellies?

[Eric]

That depends on what "kind" of intervention it is. When you mean intervention as in sending 1000-3000 men and women with weapons in foreign land, a third party will claim that that nation has no right to do that. On the other hand, if it's helping out with poverty, sickness, and debt, or whatnot...then the third party will have no problem with that, they might even encourage it.

This is like a kid telling the parent, “You have no right to tell me what to do,” then the next minute saying, “Give me my allowance money!” What the hell? Most parents would say, "Fine, go work for your own money!"

I'll take your opening two words as a personal insult. "Fucking pacifists" aside, in my honest opinion, this does not just apply to the U.S, but this applies to countries who are rather prosperous and are able to "shit" out money from "their fucking asses". It's a great way to build trust with other people, and a good way to make freinds. Maybe you won't like it, but it's the peoples of the world's way of establishing a global community. And this isn't about giving aid to countrie's governments, it's for their people in general. It's not like we're giving these guys free Audis, or free Volkswagens, Hondas, free mansions, or free flat screen TV's.

We have no obligation or responsibility to Africa. Any aid to Africa is out of American generosity, not obligation or responsibility. Like you said, we have no right to intervene in a foreign country. Furthermore, Africa has nothing to offer us. Now, if they are willing to trade political influence for foreign aid, then we’ll talk! But if I am loaning money to Africa with a demand to erase debt and interest, do you really think I am compelled to grant another aid or loan?

[Kinael]

Anyway, weren't you Democrats moaning about poverty in America during the election campaigns? Forgot John Edwards's Two Americas speeches already??? Screw Africa! Fight poverty in America!!

[Eric]

I'm not a Democrat, I'm a fascist. :)

[kyrien]

Poverty is an issue in every country. I don't mean it in an elitist way, nor do I mean that poverty is "natural" because there has to be a social structure, etc. But as some people have brought up in other threads and in discussions I've had with friends, America probably has the wealthiest poor people in the world. I think this country already does a lot for the poor, what with welfare, homeless shelters, charities, etc. Sure, more could be done, but there comes a point when we ask when is it enough? There was a story about homeless people complaining that their homeless shelter doesn't have a gym or recreation facility. WTF man, it's a homeless shelter, not a free condo. Maybe that was just an extreme case, but I found that quite absurd that the homeless can live with more luxuries (not necessities) than those who work for their money, and at the same time not worry about having enough mone left over to put food on the table because, hello, the food is free too!

That was a bit off topic, but my point is, sometimes there is just so much we can do. After a while, we just have to shake our heads and say, "sorry dude, the rest is up to you."

As for Africa, I agree with Eric that the US is not obliged to give any aid to Africa, and if they do, it's just a gesture of generosity. However, I sometimes wonder if aid to Africa would actually be a better way to donate money than to continuously feed American families that have been on welfare for 3+ generations.

[AnguishedBlade]

So the point of everyone's message here is to screw charity?

[Kinael]

My last comment was more of a joke than anything, really. I'm not opposed to the idea of aid as long as it serves some kind of purpose that is beneficial to both my country's national interest and the recipient countr(ies). I am not, in principal, opposed to providing interest-free, loans (or aid) and the like to countries to serve as some PR work, but considering my faith in the attention span of the average Joe, I'd rather save those money to bring the Canadian Armed Forces up to speed with international standards.

So the point of everyone's message here is to screw charity?

No one is saying screw charity. Get off that damned horse of yours and read the posts. I didn't elect my head of government to look after the welfare of some place thousands of miles away from Ottawa.

[kyrien]

The point of my post is that charity is charity, and is not an obligation, especially if it's for another country on another continent on the other side of the ocean (at least for the N/S Americans). I think the pressure on the G8 countries, particularly the US is, "If you're so intent on dropping a few hundred million in bombs every dew days in the middle east, why not give some of that money to the people who really need it?" Frankly, I want a refund on some of my tax money that are supporting a war I don't =P (but that's another can of worms).

To reiterate, I think the idea of forgiving the loan and providing interest-free aid to Africa's poor, hopefully in the form of food, is good for public relations. Although it doesn't benefit my community directly, I'd support it because it's a far better way to spend money than bombing the crap out of an already bombed out country (IMO anyway). On the other hand, one can only give so much to charity to help another party (not necessarily Africa, but the American "homeless" I had mentioned before) get back on their feet before we have to step back and say that unless they do something to help themselves, this "charity" deal will never end.

But, my impession of the problem in a lot of African countries is corrupt governments. If that can be solved or at least addressed, then a lot of the poverty can probably be eliminated. Last week there was news of I think the Zimbabwe (sp?) president raising vegetables farms and houses in the poor areas. I believe the poor were doing what they can to survive, plant vegetables in vacant lots and I support helping them to be able to get food to feed themselves but the gov't razed their homes anyway under the pretense of "throwing out trash". As such, I don't believe in funding the governments of some of these countries because some of them will probably just use the money for their own pleasures and not help the poor citizens at all.

Whether the problem in Africa can be solved... I really don't know. And I don't think it's really our position to tell them what to do just as I don't think it's the US' position to decide the future for Iraq. But in the meantime, I think any help to Africa's poor (ideally in the form of food and basic necessities as opposed to money) is a good idea, just like I like the idea of sending care packages to the troops in Iraq even though I do not agree with the war.

[Kinael]

Well, the guns or butter argument is open to debate, but I won't pursue it since that's not what this thread is about. But let's take Iraq, for example.

Saddam Hussein was able to bribe officials and impoverish the country, all the while building grand palaces for himself. Those who are so keen on the welfare of others need to reflect on the case of Iraq more seriously (not directed to rwen).

I don't know what's going on Zimbabwe now (since I've been away for most of this summer that has past), but Zimbabwe's condition was largely the doing of Mugabe, who seized the farms of white owners. The farms are now producing way below their normal rates (unless that has changed but I doubt it). Anyway, all this brings us back to the corruption problem.

[phlyRy]

Speaking of poverty and how the poor live off of welfare in the US, I also feel like we are heading in a really bad position just the same way I feel about feeding people. The way that welfare is helping the poor, the most unfortunate of all classes is the middle class. Yes, the poor should deserve better, but it starts looking like the standard of living for the middle class is resembling more and more of that of the lower class. If this continues, what will happen?

There needs to be a line drawn. Yes, it's a very humane thing to do to help others more unfortunate than we are, but there's a good way to do it and there's a bad way. It seems like we haven't been very good at it, be it inside or outside of the country.

[Yukie]

SALT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks



That is very interesting indeed, being drafted and issued during the Vietnam War...

---------

I don't think it is possible to eliminate poverty unless they all resort to a socialist government, and even then socialism only provides the basic support you need not to mention that the system is not garanteed to be executed perfectly.
The very claim to "eliminate" poverty is utterly unrealistic in itself.
In general, the reasons why people are so poor in third world countries (excuse the term) are caused by men. Political instability, constantly at war, terrible policies or poor economical arrangements. Whatever it is, they are man made, natural disasters are only a very very small part of it. So in other words, as long as humans are in control, there will be problems somewhere. These eight countries of the G8 can't even really eliminate poverty in their own countries, what makes them think that they can elsewhere?
In my opinion, if they have that much effort and money to dedicate to other counties that are totally unrelated to them, why don't they use that money on their own citizens. It's our tax money anyway. Frankly, I'd like to see better benefits, lower taxes, nicer public services and a lot of other improvements in the US before they use 1/4 of my salary to help god knows who. (or bomb god knows who... all the same)
Very practically put, it doesn't matter to me who lives well or not in another country. But I'm not a charity, and I don't want these nation leaders to make themselves a charity at my expense. Maybe from my taxes alone, it's so insignificant that they can't do crap with it, but I keep thinking, if they have less or none of these "let's help everyone else!" or "let's fight for our own agenda but pretend that we're fighting for someone else!"... my income taxes can be cut down like 10% and be within a range that I find more acceptible.
So yes, like Rwen, I want a refund of my tax money, but not only for war efforts but for these charities as well. Some people are ashamed to openly speak against charity in fear that it may make them look bad, but I don't care. If I ever want to donate anything, I'll do it in my own time thank you.

[Kinael]

Start voting Libertarian /gg

[Eric]

No, facism!

[Kinael]

I suggest pacifists, anti-globalization-ers and tree-huggers unite and support the War on Terror. Clearly, the London attack has stolen the limelight of more important issues such as debt relief and global warming. Terrorists must, therefore, be destroyed before we can even conceive of solving C0(2) emissions and whatnot.

[AnguishedBlade]

I suggest pacifists, anti-globalization-ers and tree-huggers unite and support the War on Terror

No way. At least that would be my answer. Otherwise I'd be a damned hypocrite. It's the government's fault that terrorism still exists. It's the government's fault that terrorists have a reason to do what they do. Despite how terrible the bombing in London was, and despite sympathy, I'd still hold to my thought. And I don't care if I'm the only one holding on to it. 32 people killed (may they rest in peace) and hundrerds more injured does not compare to the thousands more dying from diesease and malnutrition, and millions more starving due to war, disease, corruption, and whatnot. You know, it's easy for people to forget about a natural disaster that killed 4 -20x many people that a terorrist attack that killed 1/8 or 1/4 of that? I'm not saying completely forget about the victims of terrorism, I'm saying both need just as much attention as each other. When was the last time I've heard anyone mention the tsunami in Indonesia? I think I've 9/11 about 12 times today! Am I going to change my pacifist view because of this? No. Martin Luther King and his movement didn't despite being attacked. Why should I?


Let me ask you this. Can terrorism be shot? No. Can you see terrorism? No. Can you prevent it? Yes. The bombing of London was because of lax security IN THE HOME COUNTRY. It should not be a signal of declaring war, it is signal to be a hell lot more careful.

Even if I did support the so-called "War on terrorism" do you think eliminating every single country that harbors terroism will necessarily end terrorism? NO! Terrorism is a spontaneous attack, let me repeat that, SPONTANEOUS. It can come out of nowhere, the least you can do when you SUSPECT where it will happen is you have to check EVERY single person that walks through that station, airport, or whatnot. And usually when it happens, it means that the politicians of you're country are not doing their best to make amends with their enemy. They are giving the terrorists an excuse to bomb them. For all I know, the terrorists may have been fathers of children killed in a gunfight of some other country, because the head of government of U.K permitted use of action in that country. You can also blame it on the security guards, for not being cautious enough, the policemen for not being careful enough.

I hope U.K does NOT follow what the U.S did on 9/11. If they're so lenient on ending terrorism, then they should increase their numbers of policemen, and their counter-terrorist units. The military is used for war, when you intend on destroying property and people to reach a point. U.K should NOT invade a country or go to war, as it will only piss other countries off, and probably increase terroism. U.K should not see this as an incentive for WAR, even if the entire population agrees that WAR should be declared. And if U.K decides to use it's military, they better keep them where they belong, the U.K. They should use them to patrol the streets, subways, roads, and airports. Not some other place in the other side of the world.

This isn't WW2 here, where every needs to be patriotic about war, and everyone is happy when they hear their soldiers invade another contry. This is the cold war again. This should be about taking percaution, not going crazy about war and believing it's beautiful to die for your country. This isn't about a war of heroism or glory, it's a war where you keep your mouth shut, and keep on the lookout. This is not a war where we have 10's of thousands of men with arms shooting, bombing, and raiding people and places. No. This is a war of discretion. I ought to leave this "WAR" to the right people. The policemen. Terrorists are no foreign soldiers in my eyes, they are simple criminals to me, just like any burglar, rapist, or arsonist. And I will still keep my dovish view. Soldiers and war should not be synonymous with security. That's the policeman's job. Soldiers are meant to attack people, and destroy property regardless of it being either security, or offensives. They are simply pawns of the government. That is what they signed up for no? If these young kids are against terrorism, they should be cops.

Hell, this should not even be called a war. This is just a result of poor law enforcement.

[Kinael]

That's like saying, if someone breaks into my house it's because I didn't put up iron gates, barbed wires and a minefield surrounding the vicinity. . . . Of course; I should've known better! I'm sorry, but "giving the terrorists an excuse to bomb them" is one of the lamest defense against anti-terrorist actions I've ever heard.

And this,

For all I know, the terrorists may have been fathers of children killed in a gunfight of some other country, because the head of government of U.K permitted use of action in that country. You can also blame it on the security guards, for not being cautious enough, the policemen for not being careful enough.

You are, for all intents and purposes, attempting to excuse or make lite of the terrorist attacks. If you're so willing to understand what the terrorists' intents are (for all I know, the said terrorists could just be some kids looking to act macho and stupid), what do you make of the innocents that died in the attacks? I suppose you think they should blame the UK government for "inciting" terrorist attacks. Never mind they never had dying in mind when they were born in the UK.

Anyway, being a representative democracy, the government in UK (and elsewhere) have the consent of a majority/plurality of the people. You cannot simply blame everything on the government, because the government represents the people. Bitch all you want about how you didn't want Bush reelected, or Blair reelected, or whoever; the fact is their administration and government came into power legally, with a good many people approving of their leaderships. If you blame the government, you blame the people as well.

[AnguishedBlade]

If you blame the government, you blame the people as well.

Not necessarily. Am I blaming the ones who voted for Bush's opponent? And when you use people, do you mean every single person?

You are, for all intents and purposes, attempting to excuse or make lite of the terrorist attacks

Wrong. Did I want to justify murder? No. Do I justify murder? No! Murder is not justifiable even IF the motives behind it are understandable or not. No. I'm saying that this a failure of security, not an excuse for war. Are you trying to make me look terrible? Do you have anything personal against me? Are you trying to get everyone in the forum to ostracize me? Tell me then. Because this is the message I'm getting from you and Eric. Do both of you personally have something against me?


No, no. I hate it when people die from anything, but why is it that terrorism always grabs attention, and why is it CERTAIN countries get MORE attention than others? I just feel it's completely unfair. All incidents of major death be it natural, or artificial deserve equal attention. I am angry at this because nearly every single person in the world cried for the U.S when 9/11 happened, and when the recent bombings in Europe including the U.K's happened. But when it happened elsewhere, not much people really gave a shit. They could have cared more or less. Or how about natural disasters? Not many many people cared about that as much as 9/11. That's why I'm angry. I'm angry because you wanted the recent bombings to supercede the issue of poverty. It's not fair.

[Eric]

Dude, the police stop black people, not arabs....

[Kinael]

I have nothing against you. I don't know you, and the fact that you are simply someone whom I converse with on a minimum basis over the Internet makes your assumption that I have a personal agenda against you even more absurd. Maybe if I were a 12 year old jerk who hogs my parents' phonelines to play Neopets, but I'm not so immature.

I will tell you what I think of you, though. You are a pacifist, which I have nothing against since that's your personal belief. What I find annoying is that you are so bent on that ideology of yours, you find everything short of your idea of pacifism to be incompatible in this world. You think war is wrong, that's fine with me. What is not fine with me is that you seem to take anyone who supports the use of force, justified or not, to be bloody murderers or advocates of violence without reason. Sorry, but that is something so flagrantly wrong that I find disgusting.

But when it happened elsewhere, not much people really gave a shit. They could have cared more or less. Or how about natural disasters? Not many many people cared about that as much as 9/11 did. That's why I'm angry. I'm angry because you wanted the recent bombings to supercede the issue of poverty. It's not fair.

"Not much people really gave a shit." As if you're the only person who pays attention to world affairs. 9/11 took place in the most powerful country on earth, in one of the most important stock exchanges in the world, where decisions made everyday affect billions of people. It is only logical that more people are aware of an attacking taking place there. You want to bet there are more people who has heard of New York City than there are people who has heard of Khartoum? Why are you comparing natural disasters to an act of violence anyway.

Also, if you want to place poverty over national security, go ahead; that's your prerogative. You don't see me getting all angry at you. Who are you to judge what I believe is fair or not, anyway? Are you the Praefectus Morum of the Dominion of Canada? I place national security over the issue of poverty because an immediate death through a terrorist attack or aggressive actions of another state so clearly supercedes what is happening beyond the borders of my country, that I cannot fathom caring about poverty where there are more pressing matters at hand, such as maybe dying the next day I walk to school. You obviously care about a lot of things in this world; I don't and I can't. That's me, live with it you intolerant moralizer.