Remember Live 8? I was well enthusiastic about it and thought that poverty was going to be made history in my lifetime.
The Man Who Betrayed the Poor
Even as the G8 promises fall apart, Geldof stays silent
by George Monbiot
America's black children are twice as likely as whites to die before their first birthday.
I saw somewhere that half of the children in the third world live in poverty.
Pverty isn't history.
And Geldof says........??????????
9 comments:
what surely you can't have been expecting him to actually do it?
that's what all the hippies were about in the dream, your idealism gone rampant and wild.
shit these word verification tests are getting more and more difficult...
"Poverty isn't history
Nor is it likely to become so using the current techniques.
Give me the motivation, Dave. You're a third world dictator. The UN or the US or whoever gives you a billion dollars to help your poor. Now, maybe you or I might give the entire amount to the poor, but I don't see any of it flowing to the poor in these African countries.
My church supports a medical mission that goes to Zambia every year. The country's rulers are hopelessly corrupt, but are at least friendly to Christians. We ship food, crayolas for the kids, clothing, and mostly medical aid the poor there. Every year doctors, nurses, and even mechanics spend 5 weeks in Zambia treating medical problems, giving to the poor, and sharing the Gospel of Christ. Churches are springing up. AIDS infection rate is beginning to decrease.
To the Southeast is Zimbabwe. This nation's rulers won't allow even a hint of Christianity into the country. Its people continues to starve at the whim of its leadership.
It seems that the only "aid" that is working is one on one "on the ground" "up close and personal" type stuff. Nothing else seems to reach its target.
I think attempting to help the poor through the U.N. or through the U.S. or even the U.K. simply isn't going to work and, in fact, is probably making the problem(s) worse.
Probably the only way to really help the poor in those countries is to overthrow their corrupt dicatorships and install a government that fosters opportunities. But when we try to do that (AKA Afganastan, Iraq, etc), the U.S. catches holy hell from the other countries. We really can't legally do that except where it is a fight against terror.
We're screwed if we do, and screwed if we don't, Dave. Or should I say, ultimately, the poor who are the recipients of the direst of poverty.
Who cares what Geldof says? If he got 10 bucks to poor folks in Africa that's 10 bucks more than they had. He probably achieved nothing politically because the people at the G8 level are gonna do what they're gonna do, whether we like it or not. We don't count as far as they are concerned. Welcome to the real socialist agenda.
Good article, by the way.
If Geldof opened his mouth, even now, he could achieve something with the worldwide publicity focused.
Your work in Africa is honourable. Much more than I am doing.
If Bush and co made as much effort overturning African leaders to set the poor free I would be up for this type of "globalization".
I don't believe his intentions in Afghanistan or Iraq have been for the poor. The leader in Afghanistan was in the pay of Oil companies.
I think this is his buisness.
I disagree about Bush and oil companies.
1. Bush is from Midland, Texas. I don't know him personally, but know those that do. The oil business was definately not his strong suit.
2. We're not taking Iraq's oil. If we were taking Iraq's oil in repayment of what it cost to free the millions of Iraqis, I would agree with that move. But we are not. Why not?
3. There are a lot of resources in Africa, why aren't we moving to take those? Cause we don't do that, that's why.
Do you think Bush sacrifices to an owl god? (hint: he doesn't take July off, he takes August off).
ISA 8:12-13 Do not fear conspiracy theories, but it is the Lord whom you should fear (my translation)
"2. We're not taking Iraq's oil. If we were taking Iraq's oil in repayment of what it cost to free the millions of Iraqis, I would agree with that move. But we are not. Why not?"
This was thought-provoking in that it prodded me into researching a little bit what exactly is happening with Iraq's oil.
The US ("we"? Who, you personally?) are not taking Iraq's oil in the sense that tanker's are shipping millions of barrels of it home as spoils of war. But the US have guaranteed that it will keep flowing (and the contracts landing) in the direction of itself or vaguely friendly/allied countries.
Is it really so difficult to simply agree to the proposition: "One of the contributing/influencing factors in how the Gulf wars have played out is Iraq's oil wealth"?
How can you possibly disagree with that?
Look this, which quotes various sources on the subject.
No idea about the Owl God. Not enough information to make a judgement.
Doesn't Karzai work for Unocal or used to?
"U.S. oil reserves (at current production levels) would only last only a decade if the U.S. was cut off from all other oil sources." (from the article)
Untrue. I just read an article last week claiming a 1000 year supply of oil shale underneath federal lands in Colorado alone. The price / barrel is now sufficiently high to make it worth going after.
If the war was about oil, would it be worth it? I don't know, maybe. Oil is certainly a part of the U.S. / U.K. security equation. But I have read several places about the Iraqi/Hussein connection to the 911 attacks, so I doubt that oil is the only or even the primary factor.
"But the US have guaranteed that it will keep flowing (and the contracts landing) in the direction of itself or vaguely friendly/allied countries."
I certainly hope you're right about that ...
One link on the "owl god" stuff.
here.
Post a Comment