Rich dummies

[paradoxPanda]

I do think that $24 million is a great donation to world healthcare. But that amount is great, but it is not completely necessary. Ten American dollars could completely stock an African pharmacy for about a year. Look how much money was wasted in that $24 million.

so you think the cost of world healthcare is under $24 million? Where on earth are you getting THAT from?

[m]

It was in fact 24 Billion with a B. And in the context of health, disease and human suffering, 24 billion, unfortunately does not go very far. George Bush is giving 300 billion to help the AIDS crisis in Africa. This will help, but will not solve or stop the problem.

Ten American dollars could completely stock an African pharmacy for about a year. Look how much money was wasted in that $24 million.

Medicines by themselves are cheap, but you have to remember with a contageous disease or an illness like AIDS, the ravages of malnutrition, or the wounds sustained from the wars there. There are alot of other costs involved. And some of these people suffer from all that I listed.

Food, isolation, blankets, beds, costs to rent or buy building space for the patients, paying the medical staff -- even if that isn't much, disposal of waste, human and material, replacing surgical instruments, buying and maintaining medical equipment, bandages, splints, everything -- as much as possible -- a modern hospital needs. That's where all the money goes.

[strangelilboi]

The world is not in a medieval peasant system that I'm aware of.

I'm jsut saying that it will get there at the rate its going. And it maybe just me but i am suspiscious of the motives of large companies and rich people as whether they honestly care.

About the whole $24b thing, its not the amount of money that goes to these countries the problem, its how it is used there.

For instance, millions of Zimbabweans are starving because of Mugabe. He's diverting all the money and aid going in there to his own supporters and himself. Thats how he's in power - not because anyone likes him. Poverty is a great way to be a tyrant.

A lot of aid money goes to the middle men.

And for people who ask, why we should. For centuries the West plundered and stole from these countries, well a lot of them. I think its more than a moral obligation, I reckon we outright owe them all they help they need.

[paradoxPanda]

For instance, millions of Zimbabweans are starving because of Mugabe. He's diverting all the money and aid going in there to his own supporters and himself. Thats how he's in power - not because anyone likes him. Poverty is a great way to be a tyrant.


So the solution is.....?

For centuries the West plundered and stole from these countries, well a lot of them.

I don't want to be unfair, but that's life. Social Darwinism. If we choose to give back, great. If not, it's not our responsibility. They would have done the same to us given the same resources.

[m]

And it maybe just me but i am suspiscious of the motives of large companies and rich people as whether they honestly care.

At this point we need all the help we can get, and I don't think we can afford to be choosy. 24 bills is 24 bills no matter where it comes from.

About the whole $24b thing, its not the amount of money that goes to these countries the problem, its how it is used there.

For instance, millions of Zimbabweans are starving because of Mugabe. He's diverting all the money and aid going in there to his own supporters and himself. Thats how he's in power - not because anyone likes him. Poverty is a great way to be a tyrant.

Very true! When aid is brought to a country with a despotic ruler, alot of the money is chewed up in paying off bribes and for stolen goods meant for the poor. Saddam did the same, and so do others. They cry poverty, their people are dying of disease, and hunger, but somehow they manage to buy the latest air force jets, and build big palaces, but the roads are crap, the bridges are ready to fall down and the water is a cocktail of disease.

And for people who ask, why we should. For centuries the West plundered and stole from these countries, well a lot of them. I think its more than a moral obligation, I reckon we outright owe them all they help they need.

I sort of agree with that. I do think we should help, as a moral obligation, but not to pay back what mistakes our ancestors made. It's like there's people threatening legislation for reparations to be paid to the descendants of slaves. By whom? My ancestors were't even here when that was going on. And like it or not, and NOT TO EXCUSE SLAVERY but there are descendants of slaves that are enjoying a quality of life that would be unimaginable if they lived under Mugabe's regime.

[YourCapnSpeaking]

Panda, you asked what the solution to the problem with these tyrants in Africa is ... well here's my solution. KILL EM ALL!

Do to them just like we did to the Taliban and Saddam. Toast the sons of bitches.

I agree with LilBoi when he said that it does matter how the money is used, not how much is given. As far as I am concerned, the solution to the AIDs problem is to send out a team(s) into Africa. Find people with AIDs and those that do, prevent them from reproducing. Because now it's come down to the fact that people with AIDs were born with it.

Another soluton to the AIDs problem there is to buy them some condoms. Give them what we use for safe sex here in America. Do not give money to them to find a cure unless the money is going to a real medical. Let labs do the research! As far as I am concerned, I would actually prefer that ALL AIDs research is done at the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia. At least if something mutates and is let loose, it can be contained within the CDC.

I have seen numerous videos about where they do the high security research with diseases like AIDs ... believe me, I would feel a lot better of some mutation they accidentaly made killed five people rather than an entire city.

All I gotta say is quit giving them money to help AIDs unless it does the two tasks I mentioned above. Also, there are times when eugenics ain't such a bad idea when it comes to that country or any other place in the world.

[paradoxPanda]

Find people with AIDs and those that do, prevent them from reproducing.

That's huge number of people, I'm not sure how many, but it's certainly in the millions. How do you plan to "keep them from reproducing"? Do you plan to perform surgery on a million people to make them sterile? That, to me, seems both impossible and to be violating basic human rights.

[YourCapnSpeaking]

I do not think that it violates human rights if you are trying to stop the spread of a deadly disease. And I do propose mass sterilization. The German SS did it back in World War II ... so it being the 21st century, it should be a lot easier.

That, or like I said above, pass out condoms. I mean, a condom costs what? Fifty, Seventy-Five cents in a gas station rest room? I do not think it would cost too much compared to what the United States or other countries pull in.

But you did not address the issue of the African dictators ... Do you have a solution you little tree-hugging fag?

[paradoxPanda]

But you did not address the issue of the African dictators ... Do you have a solution you little tree-hugging fag?

......Did you seriously just say that?

......I cannot believe there is anyone in this world who would have said that. Wow. Take a few deep breaths. Get over yourself.

[paradoxPanda]

Okay, now back to the debate.

And I do propose mass sterilization. The German SS did it back in World War II

Yes, and the German SS were BIG proponents of basic human rights.

That, or like I said above, pass out condoms.

Of course people are trying that, and it's very important. However, making condoms available does not make people use them, nor does it change their mentality.

But you did not address the issue of the African dictators

I didn't address it because I feel there is nothing that other nations can do. The only way is for the people to overthrow the dictator, and while it's possible, it's very difficult and will take time. I predict that by 2100, most African dictators will have been overthrown.

[80s Child]

YourCapnSpeaking, that kind of language is not tolerated on this board. This is a place for debate, not for insults. Consider this your first warning.

[strangelilboi]

^^^^ wow for a change thats not me! lol sorry.

Erm... yeah as i was saying, its not how much but what the money is used for.

OBR, dont you think there are grave moral implications and debts to be paid off to unscrupulous (hope thats spelt right.. ) people if we just borrow money from all over the place? Debt is whats crippling these countries.

Agreed that it does cost us to help them. But we need to sort out a way to alleviate their debt.

STERILISATION...nah mate, that is just impossible. There's so many million people in Africa who live under the poverty line and are not fortunate enough to have education. EDUCATION IS THE KEY.

Knowing is what they need to do. The more they know about AIDS the better. Thats the only real solution. I mean, why didnt the world jsut sterilise itself in the early 80's when the disease was everywhere?!

One reason is that it cuts out an important human right, the right to have children (not commenting on population control and one-child policy... incidently the only solution for overgrowing populations that run countries into the ground)

About dictators, there's nothing do-able, except for a general uprising in the country. Military action...pls dont bring that into this.

WE NEED TO CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN!

[YourCapnSpeaking]

Panda, you really need to grip with reality. The world will not let the African dictators sit there for the next century. We need to solve the problem with the political scene NOW.

I propose military action against all hostile African political regimes. You could gather a UN coalition and move in and sweep out the political regimes there within a month. You use quick, simultaneous attacks.

The B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers could annihilate the leaders within a matter of days. Then, you send in an armored column (tanks) to crush any infantry uprisings. It would be simple and cost effective. Sending in a tank and bombers is a lot less risky than sending in a platoon of grunts. The loss of life will be less and you don't have to send in any letters to mothers or fathers telling them that their son or daughter died.

And it is not as if the African regimes would be able to put up much of a fight against American weapons. Bomb the African dictators back to the Stone Age and all they'll be saying is "YAY! UPGRADE!"

Swift military action ... that is all that is necessary. And once the old regime is out of the way, declare martial law and let Britain or some European country move in. The British or the Germans ... those countries have fought desert battles in the past.

Do not send in the French, they don't have the balls to do it. Send in ANYONE except the French. Hell, send in CANADA! They aren't doing anything.

**** I apologize for saying that about the French and Canadians. I am not insulting the Canadians, so do not take that as an insult. However, the French "military" (not sure if that is an oxymoron or not) has never put up much of a fight or helped anyone in the past. And we all know about their transactions with Saddam. Just remember that ...

[paradoxPanda]

B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers could annihilate the leaders within a matter of days.

That's a ridiculous, childish solution. First, it's neither our right nor our duty to 'annihilate' everyone we don't like. Second, I doubt that the bombs would only 'annihilate' the leaders. Instead, they would most likely damage villages and people, who have already faced enough trouble.

May I ask, are you really just suggesting that your country annihilate every country it perceives as having a problem? Yeah, that's a really lovely way to fix it.

[m]

military action against all hostile African political regimes. You could gather a UN coalition and move in and sweep out the political regimes there within a month. You use quick, simultaneous attacks.

Okay, that would mean an area the size of the American Midwest. You have soldiers that would fight feircely and unceasingly, and it would not be military casualties that increase the body count.

The B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers could annihilate the leaders within a matter of days. Then, you send in an armored column (tanks) to crush any infantry uprisings. It would be simple and cost effective.

What happens after a power vaccuum has been created, we're having enough trouble with Iraq.

And it is not as if the African regimes would be able to put up much of a fight against American weapons. Bomb the African dictators back to the Stone Age and all they'll be saying is "YAY! UPGRADE!"

Don't forget about political sympathizers who will, and would fight to the death and don't care whom they take out in the deal. If you knock a country back to the stone age, be prepared for epidemics you ain't heard of yet and would be many times worse. The loss of life to our military and others would be staggering. And for what, to kill a few bad guys.

Swift military action ... that is all that is necessary. And once the old regime is out of the way,

It would make Vietnam seem like a Sunday drive.