African Conflicts

[SimpleGenin]

Should all African conflicts be handled by African countries themselves, and not by third parties?

Something to think about.

1) United States has spends billions of dollars resolving conflicts all over the world, some might even say it might be one of the many reasons why the United States have suffered economically.

2) Such large action naturally needs money. Money comes from tax payers. Tax payers who might not want to support the cause.

3) Genocide throughout Africa

4) Rise of another Hitler

5) Caused many American lives in the past genocide

Should Africa deal with their own conflict? Why?

[lolohwd]

no, well morally they should. then again they have been screwed by so many different superpowers,which is the reason all the conflicts go on. africa is a broken continent. theres no unity. so i think that for the time being countries should help out. i mean if you and a bunch of ur friends saw this giant beautiful sandcastle named africa and you went over there and started to destroy it.
wouldnt you feel obligated to help at least flatten out the land so it can be ressurected

plus america is way to nosy they have there hand in everything so its there fault there in iraq why? cause one disaster and all of a sudden were the overloards of hundreds of middle eastern coutries

[ベーゼル]

I done a Cida project in Mali. Which is obviously in Africa. They really do suffer horrible. I think they might not know how to deal with the issue since they are in stage 1 a state where it's suficantly suffer from high death rate and low inmorility. As well as low infertility. Even though Africa suffer massively through disease, cleanness and so much more. I think Africa should still have support from other countries. Besides I am sure America's prime minister does not decide whether he/she should give donation to Africa when he/she knows his/her own country is under debt. Therefore, I believe countries should help each other when their country can and when it is necessary (this is also if they can support them too.)

Stage 1 in Africa on this graph for 2010. Scroll down till you find 2010. Link below.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/...e_distribution

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by SimpleGenin

Should all African conflicts be handled by African countries themselves, and not by third parties?

Something to think about.

1) United States has spends billions of dollars resolving conflicts all over the world, some might even say it might be one of the many reasons why the United States have suffered economically.

2) Such large action naturally needs money. Money comes from tax payers. Tax payers who might not want to support the cause.

3) Genocide throughout Africa

4) Rise of another Hitler

5) Caused many American lives in the past genocide

Should Africa deal with their own conflict? Why?

The U.S should not tax it's own citizens for foreign aid to anyone.

Charity to Africa should be something the private sector deals with...
That is if they CHOOSE to help out. Charity should never be forced.

The only "foreign aid" the U.S should ever do is taking out the bad guys.

[Wooster]

There are stable African governments. Also, there are organizations such as the ANC made up of a number of countries.

Unless you are talking about colonial times, outsiders getting involved in Africa really doesn't work out so well.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Wooster

There are stable African governments. Also, there are organizations such as the ANC made up of a number of countries.

Unless you are talking about colonial times, outsiders getting involved in Africa really doesn't work out so well.

ANC?

African National Congress?


Ok Wooster, so should the u.s tax it's citizens to help Sudan?

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

ANC?

African National Congress?


Ok Wooster, so should the u.s tax it's citizens to help Sudan?

Whoops that's right. That is a South African party. Well I can't remember the acronyms tight now.

Sudan? What part of it? In terms of diplomacy sure. South Sudan should soon separate from the Northern half, we should probably make sure Omar al-Bashir lets them.

If you mean Darfur, we already do through the UN. There is also African Union troops there. I guess you could break down further and say do we at least support the refugees, but not try to stop the fighting.

The question always is does aid lift another country up enough that the increased revenue through trade make up the difference? I don't know that it ever has. In fact, it may cause a dependency in the African countries and prop up cruel dictators.

There is also the point that other African are more accept by the population than other foreigners.

So I say no to a military presence at least.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Whoops that's right. That is a South African party. Well I can't remember the acronyms tight now.

Sudan? What part of it? In terms of diplomacy sure. South Sudan should soon separate from the Northern half, we should probably make sure Omar al-Bashir lets them.

If you mean Darfur, we already do through the UN. There is also African Union troops there. I guess you could break down further and say do we at least support the refugees, but not try to stop the fighting.

The question always is does aid lift another country up enough that the increased revenue through trade make up the difference? I don't know that it ever has. In fact, it may cause a dependency in the African countries and prop up cruel dictators.

There is also the point that other African are more accept by the population than other foreigners.

So I say no to a military presence at least.

I meant more of should the U.S tax it's citizens or leave charity to the private sector? Is foreign aid the U.S government's business?

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

I meant more of should the U.S tax it's citizens or leave charity to the private sector? Is foreign aid the U.S government's business?

Depends on the situation, but I don't know if there is much of a difference between charity and government aid.

Now businesses that target low income countries like micro loans and cell phone prepaid cards used essentially as transferable cash, seem to have helped a lot.

But that is the Hayek in me talking.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Depends on the situation, but I don't know if there is much of a difference between charity and government aid.

Now businesses that target low income countries like micro loans and cell phone prepaid cards used essentially as transferable cash, seem to have helped a lot.

But that is the Hayek in me talking.

The difference is that government aid would come from taxes whereas
charity does not. Government foreign aid is either spending more than necessary or it is spending on government foreign aid rather than something else that may be beneficial to the country.
Charity is done by choice. Foreign aid you don't have much say.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

The difference is that government aid would come from taxes whereas
charity does not. Government foreign aid is either spending more than necessary or it is spending on government foreign aid rather than something else that may be beneficial to the country.
Charity is done by choice. Foreign aid you don't have much say.

I am just considering effectiveness. Sometimes these charity organizations tend to run into each other and are not very good at getting out services like for example the U.N. or the U.S. military.

Again, perhaps spending on foreign aid may limit future expenses such as war.
Difficult to say.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Wooster

I am just considering effectiveness. Sometimes these charity organizations tend to run into each other and are not very good at getting out services like for example the U.N. or the U.S. military.

Again, perhaps spending on foreign aid may limit future expenses such as war.
Difficult to say.

I see.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

I see.

Do you?

Did you ever express you opinion on the matter?
Edit: Yes, you did. I covered your point.

[gama-sennin]

The thing is US has to help the African countries in whatever way possible. Like it or not US is the only superpower and has got a role and responsibility to fulfill. Even if you say let the UN do it, the UN gets most of its funds from US which is almost the same thing.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Do you?

Did you ever express you opinion on the matter?
Edit: Yes, you did. I covered your point.

Best Edit EVER!

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

Best Edit EVER!

Hey, you think I would waste my time scrolling down while I am posting?
Ahem:
bit approved!

Originally Posted by gama-sennin

The thing is US has to help the African countries in whatever way possible. Like it or not US is the only superpower and has got a role and responsibility to fulfill. Even if you say let the UN do it, the UN gets most of its funds from US which is almost the same thing.

Spoiler:

[gama-sennin]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Hey, you think I would waste my time scrolling down while I am posting?
Ahem:
bit approved!

Spoiler:

China is in early stages of superpower status, they have to play bully in order to show their power and that tactic doesn't always work. Even Google defied them and got away with it. US is way past that stage. US has already been-no matter how reluctantly-accepted as THE world leader and with that position, come a few responsibilities.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by gama-sennin

China is in early stages of superpower status, they have to play bully in order to show their power and that tactic doesn't always work. Even Google defied them and got away with it. US is way past that stage. US has already been-no matter how reluctantly-accepted as THE world leader and with that position, come a few responsibilities.

Nope in African they just hand out money and ignore the problems. Dictators love them. Really Google caved to China.

After the finical crisis, China isn't really listening to anyone in the Western world. They believe they know better.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Nope in African they just hand out money and ignore the problems. Dictators love them. Really Google caved to China.

After the finical crisis, China isn't really listening to anyone in the Western world. They believe they know better.

So basically China's version of foreign aid is throwing some cash
and hoping the right people pick it up?

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

So basically China's version of foreign aid is throwing some cash
and hoping the right people pick it up?

Nope, it's giving infrastructure to the ruling government and picking up oil, copper, and other natural resources.

Brilliant.