Viewing Thread:
"G8 Summit - A Fraud & A Circus, who cares?"

[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]

Haha! I raised a point for discussion, if you found it offensive then that's your thin-skinned little problem.

Many of these countries have had a productive agricultural industry, only for heavily-subsidized foreign goods like rice, maize, etc, to flood the market, ruining the livelihoods of millions. That's one of the policies of the IMF and World Bank which people are hoping to change. Even with productive cash-crops like coffee the profits go to Western companies.

They like to show starving babies on the TV, of course, but it's whole communities that suffer. Obviously Hedfix's knowledge only extends that far, which is why he comes out with such a ridiculously naive and offensive theory.

Like I said, if Live8 was all about raising awareness then it obviously failed miserably.

I read it.
Thing is, I don't know who's biased, who's exadurating or what...

and what allows those situations to arise? Having more people than there are jobs/than the country is able to sustain: providing a cheap workforce.

How do you get that? By having "too many people".

Hedfix wrote:
> Sometimes I just think "Stop humping so much".

And then you come to your senses, right? The problem is not caused by 'too many people'. It's caused by bad economics, corruption, unfair trade practices, etc.

Btw, I originally made this post to get some opinions on the Pilger article. Has anyone here actually read it?

Sometimes I just think "Stop humping so much".

Sorry, sometimes I think it's humanity's inability to control some of the basic drives that gets places into these kind of situations.

"Oh you've got 8 children? Nice..."

Insane Bartender wrote:
>
> Oh please. The citizens of the UK owe credit companies and banks over
> one trillion pounds, much of which is tied in mortgages (where the
> bank owns the property you're paying for), secured loans (where the
> bank can take the home you might still be paying for if you can't
> keep up payments on it) and extortionate credit cards with interest
> rates that have absolutely no relation to the bank of england base
> rate.
>
> If you consider it a crime to lend money to someone who asks for it,
> and is largely able to pay it back, what do you make of the measures
> these borrowers have gone to once the influx of loans was cut off? If
> you even know anything about it that is.

Not sure I entirely understand you, but I'll have a go at replying anyway. Your analogy between the citizens of the UK and African countries is flawed because the two situations are entirely different. A UK citizen who borrows money chooses to do some himself. It is an individual decision, and the individual therefore has the responsibility. The people of a country, especially ruled over by a dictator, have not had the choice.

Also (though again I may have misunderstood you) - "largely able to pay it back". My understanding of the situation is that many countrys are NOT able to pay it back, not even able to pay the INTEREST they are charged every year yet alone pay back the loan itself.

>> Pray tell why we should. Billions in donations and tax payers' money
> has been poured at Africa for decades. They've lapped it up like a
> proverbial nation of Oliver Twist demons and begged for more. All the
> while, the endless stream of charity ultimately achieves nothing.
> Africa needs help, sure, but cancelling their debts would free up
> huge revenue streams for these empoverished countries, and there is
> no evidence to suggest that they will not pump that cash into fueling
> internal bickering and border disputes as they have done with every
> spare penny for the last two decades.

It has 'achieved nothing'. Right. Do you really mean that? Because if you do, that is a quite absurd claim. Feeding people, or providing them with clean water (as for example WaterAid do), is hardly 'achieving nothing' in my opinion.

It's a tad unnecessary, the concept involved within the thread is now becoming seemingly less relevent per each post (to what Chr1s and brown todger said)

pauliewalnuts wrote:
> What about the fact that these debts are b-llshit in the first place?
> Money lent to dictators to buy arms, at ridiculous rates of interest.
> How can you make a country pay back debts which are many times over
> the amount originally borrowed, and many times over what it can ever
> afford to pay?

Oh please. The citizens of the UK owe credit companies and banks over one trillion pounds, much of which is tied in mortgages (where the bank owns the property you're paying for), secured loans (where the bank can take the home you might still be paying for if you can't keep up payments on it) and extortionate credit cards with interest rates that have absolutely no relation to the bank of england base rate.

If you consider it a crime to lend money to someone who asks for it, and is largely able to pay it back, what do you make of the measures these borrowers have gone to once the influx of loans was cut off? If you even know anything about it that is.


> Anyway, I think this is my last post on these boards. What a poor
> response, and what a sorry state of affairs if no-one even gives a
> sh-t about Africa.

Pray tell why we should. Billions in donations and tax payers' money has been poured at Africa for decades. They've lapped it up like a proverbial nation of Oliver Twist demons and begged for more. All the while, the endless stream of charity ultimately achieves nothing. Africa needs help, sure, but cancelling their debts would free up huge revenue streams for these empoverished countries, and there is no evidence to suggest that they will not pump that cash into fueling internal bickering and border disputes as they have done with every spare penny for the last two decades.

> People would rather sling a few quid in a bucket
> than actually learn about the problem, so don't ask them to have an
> opinion.

I wouldn't even go that far. Africa doesn't get a penny of my money bar that which the government gives them from my taxes, and they won't get any until the aid they're provided with is the kind that can build a better continent for future generations, rather than helping maintain their destitution.


> That's the greatest friend of these arrogant, ignorant, vain, pompous
> millionaires who act in our name. Apathy. They can literally get away
> with murder.

Apathy is insignificant next to the power of ignorance.

And probably pauliewalnuts as well.
You go on about how bad the debts are - perhaps initially for some dubious purposes, but it's the people who are suffering for them now. And then you go onto criticise the biggest attempt to put pressure on an end to the repayments.

It's very easy to sit there all critical and bubbling over with hyperbole, but how else would you suggest doing such a thing?