The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://pilger.carlton.com/print[/URL]
So a few million people enjoyed the concerts, but how many actually give a sh-t about the millions who die needlessly every year?
I don't want to form an opinion from one article, but it seems about right to me. Live 8 was all about raising awareness apparently, but I think on that score it failed miserably.
And why did the BBC cut to 'Wossy' when the video messages were playing? That was just OBSCENE. Forget the serious bits, lets have some jokes and music clips.
Any thoughts? (please read the article).[URL]http://pilger.carlton.com/print[/URL]
So a few million people enjoyed the concerts, but how many actually give a sh-t about the millions who die needlessly every year?
I don't want to form an opinion from one article, but it seems about right to me. Live 8 was all about raising awareness apparently, but I think on that score it failed miserably.
And why did the BBC cut to 'Wossy' when the video messages were playing? That was just OBSCENE. Forget the serious bits, lets have some jokes and music clips.
Any thoughts? (please read the article).[URL]http://pilger.carlton.com/print[/URL]
Page:
I don't think he's coming back.
pop for the last time...
And again.
Just popping this so IB can reply.
Insane Bartender wrote:
>
> 1. MC, I don't disagree that economics is a significant factor in the
> poverty of these nations, however, the defiant ignorance of the people
> is no small contribution also. If economics were the only factor of
> importance, the problems could all be solved by throwing money at
> them. As history has proven, such a measure is woefully inadequate.
"If economics were the only factor of importance, the problems could all be solved by throwing money at them"
You seem to be confusing the idea of money with the idea of a prosperous economic system. I agree, aid hasn't made everything better. But allowing countries to implement trade barriers (an economic device that, almost without exception, has been important to the development of every wealthy nation) to create a better economic system is completely different to 'throwing money' at a problem.
A lack of education is surely the cause of the 'defiant ignorance' that you speak of, and so improvements in education would solve the problem. As it stands, many countrys spend more on debt repayment than education. One of the ideas behind debt cancellation (which you, I think, disagree with?) is that the money now not being spent on debt repayment would be used for education. I think that ignorance is a consequence of the economic situation - the two are not seperate.
>
> 1. MC, I don't disagree that economics is a significant factor in the
> poverty of these nations, however, the defiant ignorance of the people
> is no small contribution also. If economics were the only factor of
> importance, the problems could all be solved by throwing money at
> them. As history has proven, such a measure is woefully inadequate.
"If economics were the only factor of importance, the problems could all be solved by throwing money at them"
You seem to be confusing the idea of money with the idea of a prosperous economic system. I agree, aid hasn't made everything better. But allowing countries to implement trade barriers (an economic device that, almost without exception, has been important to the development of every wealthy nation) to create a better economic system is completely different to 'throwing money' at a problem.
A lack of education is surely the cause of the 'defiant ignorance' that you speak of, and so improvements in education would solve the problem. As it stands, many countrys spend more on debt repayment than education. One of the ideas behind debt cancellation (which you, I think, disagree with?) is that the money now not being spent on debt repayment would be used for education. I think that ignorance is a consequence of the economic situation - the two are not seperate.
In regard to sex and AIDs, no AIDs was not 'thrust' upon Africa by the West, but it's hardly something you can blame Africa for either... It's something they neither want nor created themselves, it's just something that emerged...
With regard to sex itself, you can hardly blame people for not managing to abstain from sex... Yeah, it's a damn good idea to use protection, but I'm guessing it's not all that easy to get a hold of... Especially if living in a catholic area where people selling or giving out contraception would be looked down on or something because it goes against religion...
On war, you can't seriously believe most people go to war because they think it'll be a laugh firing guns? One atrocity will create a desire for revenge, and if the cycle isn't broken then pretty soon you've descended into mindless violence. Governments are always going to use any attack to their advantage to get what they want. Look at the London bombings, now Blair and co are hoping to rush through 'anti-terror' laws like ID cards (which would have been utterly useless in this case anyway). And although there has to be a willing market there for the West to be able to sell arms, it still is rather rich that we preach peace to them and then sell them guns. Even if they did get weapons from elsewhere, the West has (in general) more advanced weaponry, and we'd look less like hypocrites... I do really dislike the old argument of "if we didn't do it someone else would, so we may as well be the ones to profit from it"... Where have having ethics and morals gone?
The West intervening (or not as is generally the case) in genocides is completely hypocritical. It's all well and good saying we'd just be 'interfering' again, but we were part of the reason this has happened. You can't just run practically an entire continent, then up and leave and wash your hands of any and all responsibilty for what happens next. Like it or not, the West played a key role in forming Africa as we know it. Thereofre there's a responsibility on us. I'm not really one for grouping people together and saying "this is your fault". I believe every person is responsible for their own actions. But to simply turn your back on thousands of people, many completely innocent with no violent intent, who are being murdered in cold blood under the pretense that you don't want to meddle is inhumane.
With regard to sex itself, you can hardly blame people for not managing to abstain from sex... Yeah, it's a damn good idea to use protection, but I'm guessing it's not all that easy to get a hold of... Especially if living in a catholic area where people selling or giving out contraception would be looked down on or something because it goes against religion...
On war, you can't seriously believe most people go to war because they think it'll be a laugh firing guns? One atrocity will create a desire for revenge, and if the cycle isn't broken then pretty soon you've descended into mindless violence. Governments are always going to use any attack to their advantage to get what they want. Look at the London bombings, now Blair and co are hoping to rush through 'anti-terror' laws like ID cards (which would have been utterly useless in this case anyway). And although there has to be a willing market there for the West to be able to sell arms, it still is rather rich that we preach peace to them and then sell them guns. Even if they did get weapons from elsewhere, the West has (in general) more advanced weaponry, and we'd look less like hypocrites... I do really dislike the old argument of "if we didn't do it someone else would, so we may as well be the ones to profit from it"... Where have having ethics and morals gone?
The West intervening (or not as is generally the case) in genocides is completely hypocritical. It's all well and good saying we'd just be 'interfering' again, but we were part of the reason this has happened. You can't just run practically an entire continent, then up and leave and wash your hands of any and all responsibilty for what happens next. Like it or not, the West played a key role in forming Africa as we know it. Thereofre there's a responsibility on us. I'm not really one for grouping people together and saying "this is your fault". I believe every person is responsible for their own actions. But to simply turn your back on thousands of people, many completely innocent with no violent intent, who are being murdered in cold blood under the pretense that you don't want to meddle is inhumane.
Too much to reply to at once, but here we go:
1. MC, I don't disagree that economics is a significant factor in the poverty of these nations, however, the defiant ignorance of the people is no small contribution also. If economics were the only factor of importance, the problems could all be solved by throwing money at them. As history has proven, such a measure is woefully inadequate.
2. Sibs, the religion we are discussing here is the same one that also prohibits sex before marriage, and sexual indiscretion thereafter is it not? If that is the case, how does one explain the rapid and uncontrolled spread of sexual disease, if the people actually follow the religion. Or is religion simply an excuse to prevent the need from having to bother with protection?
3. Sibs, firstly, manipulation by governments to force people into war is often not necessary. As is often the case, people will go to war because they are 'warriors', or because they enjoy shooting guns, or because it pays to do so. There is little manipulation beyond that done in people's pockets.
4. Sibs, you can take it as racist if you like, it's merely a personal observation. I'm sure there are tribes hiding out there in perfect, uninterrupted peace. However, the last time I looked, AIDs was not thrust onto the African people by western oppression. And although you can blame the western world for selling arms that fuelled wars, it was the African nations themselves that were asking to buy them. Make no mistake, many African 'tribes' have always been prone to violence and war, the very climate of the majority of their continent has practically demanded such an attitude in order to control resources, given no advanced society to find a better way. But these are not the days of tribes and Zulu warriors fighting for hides. The modern era has given these people access to advanced weaponry that they would have bought from the West, the East, or anyone willing to sell them. If no-one was selling them, do not be so foolish as to think they would not eventually have endeavoured to make such weapons themselves.
As for your points regarding the interception of genocide, would that not be the Western world, once again interfering with African politics? No, it is the Africans themselves that instigate such atrocities.
As a final note, it hould also be remembered that long before the west started selling Africans as slaves, the Africans were doing it to themselves.
1. MC, I don't disagree that economics is a significant factor in the poverty of these nations, however, the defiant ignorance of the people is no small contribution also. If economics were the only factor of importance, the problems could all be solved by throwing money at them. As history has proven, such a measure is woefully inadequate.
2. Sibs, the religion we are discussing here is the same one that also prohibits sex before marriage, and sexual indiscretion thereafter is it not? If that is the case, how does one explain the rapid and uncontrolled spread of sexual disease, if the people actually follow the religion. Or is religion simply an excuse to prevent the need from having to bother with protection?
3. Sibs, firstly, manipulation by governments to force people into war is often not necessary. As is often the case, people will go to war because they are 'warriors', or because they enjoy shooting guns, or because it pays to do so. There is little manipulation beyond that done in people's pockets.
4. Sibs, you can take it as racist if you like, it's merely a personal observation. I'm sure there are tribes hiding out there in perfect, uninterrupted peace. However, the last time I looked, AIDs was not thrust onto the African people by western oppression. And although you can blame the western world for selling arms that fuelled wars, it was the African nations themselves that were asking to buy them. Make no mistake, many African 'tribes' have always been prone to violence and war, the very climate of the majority of their continent has practically demanded such an attitude in order to control resources, given no advanced society to find a better way. But these are not the days of tribes and Zulu warriors fighting for hides. The modern era has given these people access to advanced weaponry that they would have bought from the West, the East, or anyone willing to sell them. If no-one was selling them, do not be so foolish as to think they would not eventually have endeavoured to make such weapons themselves.
As for your points regarding the interception of genocide, would that not be the Western world, once again interfering with African politics? No, it is the Africans themselves that instigate such atrocities.
As a final note, it hould also be remembered that long before the west started selling Africans as slaves, the Africans were doing it to themselves.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> While it is certainly argued that free will may be something of a
> falsity, the object of choice most certainly isn't.
>
> 1. Have 10 chidlren, when I barely have food to feed one, so that
> family lives in cyclical poverty, and the children die before they're
> old enough to feed themselves.
>
> 2. Just have one, or none, and live a little more comfortably, at
> least not forever on the edge of death.
You know, people can get pregnant without 'choosing' to do so... They can use protection, yes, but as has already been stated, this often goes against religion... A religion exported to them by the West.
> People can certainly choose one over the other.
>
> And as for war being the decision of government... War is the
> decision of every individual who takes arms to fight in it.
Please. People can very easily be manipulated by those in power. Many areas have no real independant media, there is only the word of government.
> Perhaps I'm just too misanthropic, but the way I see it, there are a
> great many more people to blame than politicians and governments.
> Lifestyle is a heavy factor. Corrupt politicians will come and go (is
> there another kind?), but so long as the African way of life is
> preserved, they will always require aid.
Wow, that sounded unreservedly racist... So you're saying the entire African culture is to blame for their poverty...? So it has nothing to do with the West stealing their lands, selling their people as slaves, taking their natural resources... When countries were finally 'given back' Western companies continued to sell arms to countries and militias, fuelling wars in Africa. And we've failed to intervene in mass genocides there because frankly we're not that bothered. And you're saying it's the fault of the African way of life? Funny, then that tribe's that have been found that no-one knew of until a few decades back have been surviving in harmony with their surroundings for centuries then eh? I'm thinking that would be more the African way of life than the capitalist model we thrust upon them...
> While it is certainly argued that free will may be something of a
> falsity, the object of choice most certainly isn't.
>
> 1. Have 10 chidlren, when I barely have food to feed one, so that
> family lives in cyclical poverty, and the children die before they're
> old enough to feed themselves.
>
> 2. Just have one, or none, and live a little more comfortably, at
> least not forever on the edge of death.
You know, people can get pregnant without 'choosing' to do so... They can use protection, yes, but as has already been stated, this often goes against religion... A religion exported to them by the West.
> People can certainly choose one over the other.
>
> And as for war being the decision of government... War is the
> decision of every individual who takes arms to fight in it.
Please. People can very easily be manipulated by those in power. Many areas have no real independant media, there is only the word of government.
> Perhaps I'm just too misanthropic, but the way I see it, there are a
> great many more people to blame than politicians and governments.
> Lifestyle is a heavy factor. Corrupt politicians will come and go (is
> there another kind?), but so long as the African way of life is
> preserved, they will always require aid.
Wow, that sounded unreservedly racist... So you're saying the entire African culture is to blame for their poverty...? So it has nothing to do with the West stealing their lands, selling their people as slaves, taking their natural resources... When countries were finally 'given back' Western companies continued to sell arms to countries and militias, fuelling wars in Africa. And we've failed to intervene in mass genocides there because frankly we're not that bothered. And you're saying it's the fault of the African way of life? Funny, then that tribe's that have been found that no-one knew of until a few decades back have been surviving in harmony with their surroundings for centuries then eh? I'm thinking that would be more the African way of life than the capitalist model we thrust upon them...
"People can certainly choose one over the other"
Yes. But that choice is determined by the environment (which includes the ideas, attitudes, beliefs etc), and so surely all the West can do is try to create an environment which has more positive results?
Noticed you havn't said anything about the cause of 'the poverty of the vast and overwhelming majority of those in need' being economic arrangements and not those in need themselves. Have you just not got round to posting, or do you agree with me?
Yes. But that choice is determined by the environment (which includes the ideas, attitudes, beliefs etc), and so surely all the West can do is try to create an environment which has more positive results?
Noticed you havn't said anything about the cause of 'the poverty of the vast and overwhelming majority of those in need' being economic arrangements and not those in need themselves. Have you just not got round to posting, or do you agree with me?
While it is certainly argued that free will may be something of a falsity, the object of choice most certainly isn't.
1. Have 10 chidlren, when I barely have food to feed one, so that family lives in cyclical poverty, and the children die before they're old enough to feed themselves.
2. Just have one, or none, and live a little more comfortably, at least not forever on the edge of death.
People can certainly choose one over the other.
And as for war being the decision of government... War is the decision of every individual who takes arms to fight in it.
Perhaps I'm just too misanthropic, but the way I see it, there are a great many more people to blame than politicians and governments. Lifestyle is a heavy factor. Corrupt politicians will come and go (is there another kind?), but so long as the African way of life is preserved, they will always require aid.
1. Have 10 chidlren, when I barely have food to feed one, so that family lives in cyclical poverty, and the children die before they're old enough to feed themselves.
2. Just have one, or none, and live a little more comfortably, at least not forever on the edge of death.
People can certainly choose one over the other.
And as for war being the decision of government... War is the decision of every individual who takes arms to fight in it.
Perhaps I'm just too misanthropic, but the way I see it, there are a great many more people to blame than politicians and governments. Lifestyle is a heavy factor. Corrupt politicians will come and go (is there another kind?), but so long as the African way of life is preserved, they will always require aid.
Page: