Live 8

[Razor]

Surprised there hasn't been a post on this already in relation to the concerts effects on the G8 summit and the leaders of the rich nations of the world.

http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.as...ortlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252

Msn reports that over 3/4 of the British population, well the ones that watch Sky News anyway, have no faith that the concerts or the demonstrations organised by Bob Geldof will actually do anything at all. And even more of them think that Africa's problems stem directly from Africa. Now there are people claiming that Africa's problems comes from colonisation by the old Empires of the world, namely the British, French and Portugeuse, but that was 50 years ago and we should stop using that excuse now. In my opinion, the concerts will do far more to add credibility to the artists performing and far more to entertain the crowd who are only really going as a it is a free gig to see some great bands and to be part of something amazing, and absolutely nothing at all when it comes to helping Africa interms of their political situation.

If Bob cares so much about Africa, he should be doing the concert in Zimbabwe and protesting against Mugabe and encouraging the African leaders to band together to ensure that people like Mugabe aren't supported and that Africa can get themselves out of poverty, not protesting against Blair and the other G8 leaders who have already set in motion the ending of debt to roughly 16 African nations.


A lot of people say that 16 nations isn't enough, but i would have to agree with Blair on this one over Bob, the African nations need to prove that they have a stable government that is free from corruption and that the government will give the extra money to help them grow into a global power or an Africa leading power, rather then on weapons. This encourages the other African leaders to put in motion policies that do ensure lower corruption and better conditions for the people.

 

[CptStern]

if the g8 countries want to do something besides point fingers, they should eliminate 3rd world debt

 

[Tinneth]

Give us your fookin money.

 

[Razor]

if the g8 countries want to do something besides point fingers, they should eliminate 3rd world debt

Which they are in the process of doing now, but why should the eliminate the debt to countries that are highly unstable, corrupt, in civil wars, a dictatorship, etc? Would you elimate debt to Zimbabwe when Mugabe would just squander it on weapons or a nice new house or something? He has destroyed Zimbabwe's economy single handedly...and Zimbabwe isn't the only thorn in the side of Africa. I have also heard rumours that South Africa is careering very quickly towards the edge of a cliff as well with the political problems there.

Africa's problems wouldn't be solved by getting rid of 3rd world debt, but this way, they might encourage African nations to go in the right direction to try to earn the ability for their nation to have the debt cancelled.

 

[Solaris]

The debt cancelling is only to select countries, and if they follow certain capitalist rules.

I demand all debt cancellation in all 3rd world countries unconditionally.

Its our fault there screwed. Becuase of colonilasition. And we lent them money to buy arms of us and now there paying us back, at the cost of lives. Goddammit.

Mugabe is screwing up his country, maybe we shouldnt have sold him weapons as well.

 

[Gray Fox]

Yes but it's not so easy, this will also make it harder for the pore countries to lend money, cause nations may think that in the end thye just end up not paying and the debt will be cancelled, not all pore nations want this.

 

[Icarusintel]

how the hell does cancelling the debt help if they cannot work on their own to create a stable enough economy to raise any money for themselves, they'll just borrow more and go into more debt, what needs to happen is to help them build their economies, and then let them pay off their debts, they can do it over time if they actually get help with economy and nation building, but debt cancellation just begets more debt

 

[K e r b e r o s]

^^ Here, here!

 

[CptStern]

how the hell does cancelling the debt help if they cannot work on their own to create a stable enough economy to raise any money for themselves, they'll just borrow more and go into more debt, what needs to happen is to help them build their economies, and then let them pay off their debts, they can do it over time if they actually get help with economy and nation building, but debt cancellation just begets more debt

how many children on average in a typical classroom in the US? 28-32? well in say the sudan the rate is 300 per teacher ...eliminating their debt would allow that revenue to go into programs like education ...seriously I dont see how you could NOT see the benefits


btw they're not paying their debts ...they're paying the INTEREST on their debts ...they will never be able to pay the balance

 

[Icarusintel]

how many children on average in a typical classroom in the US? 28-32? well in say the sudan the rate is 300 per teacher ...eliminating their debt would allow that revenue to go into programs like education ...seriously I dont see how you could NOT see the benefits

ok, so they get more money, these countries have been recieving money for years now and they have yet to climb out of debt, now, i could see a good reason to halt interest payments for a period while they build up, but totally cancelling it just says that we can't think of any way to help them except give them another handout, which shouldn;t be the answer to every problem, seriously, the problem has a deeper core than just cancelling the debt, there are many economic and social problems and injustices that need to be dealt with

 

[Razor]

how many children on average in a typical classroom in the US? 28-32? well in say the sudan the rate is 300 per teacher ...eliminating their debt would allow that revenue to go into programs like education ...seriously I dont see how you could NOT see the benefits


btw they're not paying their debts ...they're paying the INTEREST on their debts ...they will never be able to pay the balance

Yes, but with the program of only giving it to countries which meet certain criteria, the money stands a far more likely chance of being invested in such programs, instead of new palaces or a few new fighter aircraft or a few new tanks or whatever.

Bit off topic, but in opinion, even 28 kids in a class is too high.

 

[CptStern]

I agree ..canada is trying to cut it down to 20 per class by 2008 ...IMO not likely


oh and it's not the charities fault that the money is mispent ..actually there's an arm of the UN that deals with distributing charitable goods to countries ...surely either the UN or the IMF could handle debt relief ...especially since no actual money would change hands

 

[jonbob]

I'm all in favour of debt relief, but I want Bob Geldof to fall off a cliff.

 

[Dag]

how many children on average in a typical classroom in the US? 28-32? well in say the sudan the rate is 300 per teacher ...eliminating their debt would allow that revenue to go into programs like education ...seriously I dont see how you could NOT see the benefits


btw they're not paying their debts ...they're paying the INTEREST on their debts ...they will never be able to pay the balance

How would you give these countries money to pay of debt? Just hand it to them, so then they can turn around and blow it off on thier government, get better weapons, and wipe out opponents? Or would you rather they force them to spend the money on something good by marching in there with army's every time the don't spend correctly?

 

[CptStern]

How would you give these countries money to pay of debt? Just hand it to them, so then they can turn around and blow it off on thier government, get better weapons, and wipe out opponents? Or would you rather they force them to spend the money on something good by marching in there with army's every time the don't spend correctly?

:upstare: ...like talking to a bunch of 4th graders ...for the last time NO MONEY EXCHANGES HANDS. THE DEBT IS WIPED CLEAN

 

[jonbob]

No money will change hands, but the affected countries will still be better off for not having to make debt repayments.

 

[CptStern]

No money will change hands, but the affected countries will still be better off for not having to make debt repayments.

exactly my point

 

[burner69]

If you ask me, the reason so many third world countries are unstable is because they're so poor. People get poor, they rob for food, a lot of people start robbing you need strict law enforcement, this escalates into a spooky iron-fist government, anti-government rebels appear and bingo - one unstable nation (of course it's a tad more complex than that).

The whole third world debt thing is a farce to begin with, as Stern pointed out earlier. Anyone happy to see a country with poor health, poor education etc in part (but by no means totally because) they're paying off the interest on money we lent them years ago is a bit sick IMO.

Yes many places have sketchy governments, but that dosen't mean debt relief won't help the average joe.

And anyone who thinks debt relief will be snapped up by evil dictators to train armies to attack the west has been watching FAR too much FOX.

Peace

 

[Dag]

The f***ing industrial revolution is the reason most third world countries are third world countries. You can blame it on other things, but it all goes back to the industrial revolution. Third world countries have not been industrialized. But if said countries got thier debts wiped free, they now have in mind that "Hey, we don't need to pay people back anymore, they'll just wipe us free."