The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3088772.stm
$87bn needed.
Can't help thinking that you could solve pretty much the entire world's food shortages, homelessness and disease with that.
Yet we can muster it to kill.
*shakes head*
$87bn needed.
Can't help thinking that you could solve pretty much the entire world's food shortages, homelessness and disease with that.
Yet we can muster it to kill.
*shakes head*
Page:
unknown kernel wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> It's for the WHOLE of Africa not, as you said, for South Africa. I
> know this because the graph says 'Africa' not 'South Africa', and
> because I read the article that the graph was a part of. It
> undermines your whole point that the money spent on the Iraq war
> would have made no difference to African (or whatever) development.
But the original point was not that the money would have no effect at all, the point was that it would not totally solve the problems and certainly the paltry amount spent on the Iraq war would not totally solve the problems.
Goatboy wrote
>Can't help thinking that you could solve pretty much the entire world's >food shortages, homelessness and disease with that.
See, he says clearly that it would solve the world's problems. Admittedly I thought it was South Africa, but the total spent is still correct, an Africa still has problems despite way more than 87 billion being spent on it. If 105 billion doesn't totally solve the problems in one continent then 87 billion certainly won't sort out the world, hence my point stands I believe. Goatboy was naive beyond words to believe 87 billion could do so much.
> Belldandy wrote:
> It's for the WHOLE of Africa not, as you said, for South Africa. I
> know this because the graph says 'Africa' not 'South Africa', and
> because I read the article that the graph was a part of. It
> undermines your whole point that the money spent on the Iraq war
> would have made no difference to African (or whatever) development.
But the original point was not that the money would have no effect at all, the point was that it would not totally solve the problems and certainly the paltry amount spent on the Iraq war would not totally solve the problems.
Goatboy wrote
>Can't help thinking that you could solve pretty much the entire world's >food shortages, homelessness and disease with that.
See, he says clearly that it would solve the world's problems. Admittedly I thought it was South Africa, but the total spent is still correct, an Africa still has problems despite way more than 87 billion being spent on it. If 105 billion doesn't totally solve the problems in one continent then 87 billion certainly won't sort out the world, hence my point stands I believe. Goatboy was naive beyond words to believe 87 billion could do so much.
Belldandy wrote:
>
>
> And no, Light, unknown kernel does not go in the list, and nor is
> Blank, nor is Snuggly, just two people on the list. Why ? Well for
> starters unknown kernel can discuss a point in a civil way, he
> doesn't agree, but he stays civil.
Bwaaaaaaaaah hahahahahahahaaa! Did you read unknown_kernal's p!sstake of you concerning how easy it is to pull at Uni? No? Didn't think so...Let me give you a hint; it ain't civil.
Good god; even when you try to be prissy you just come across as an ignorant fool...
>
>
> And no, Light, unknown kernel does not go in the list, and nor is
> Blank, nor is Snuggly, just two people on the list. Why ? Well for
> starters unknown kernel can discuss a point in a civil way, he
> doesn't agree, but he stays civil.
Bwaaaaaaaaah hahahahahahahaaa! Did you read unknown_kernal's p!sstake of you concerning how easy it is to pull at Uni? No? Didn't think so...Let me give you a hint; it ain't civil.
Good god; even when you try to be prissy you just come across as an ignorant fool...
Belldandy wrote:
> unknown kernel can discuss a point in a civil way, he
> doesn't agree, but he stays civil.
To be fair, I was extremely uncivil in another thread.
> unknown kernel can discuss a point in a civil way, he
> doesn't agree, but he stays civil.
To be fair, I was extremely uncivil in another thread.
Belldandy wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> This.
>
> Were you wrong about this?
>
> Did South Africa really receive $105 billion in aid over five years?
>
> Did you read the graph wrong, or not at all?
>
> Well it shows total ODA decreasing (Official Development Assistance)
> per year, over that period, in US$ billions. So, how else do you read
> the graph then, and why's it taken so long for you to even commment
> on it ?
It's for the WHOLE of Africa not, as you said, for South Africa. I know this because the graph says 'Africa' not 'South Africa', and because I read the article that the graph was a part of. It undermines your whole point that the money spent on the Iraq war would have made no difference to African (or whatever) development.
And it didn't take me very long to comment it at all: I did so near the beginning of the thread, when you promptly disappeared. There are links in my original post.
> unknown kernel wrote:
> This.
>
> Were you wrong about this?
>
> Did South Africa really receive $105 billion in aid over five years?
>
> Did you read the graph wrong, or not at all?
>
> Well it shows total ODA decreasing (Official Development Assistance)
> per year, over that period, in US$ billions. So, how else do you read
> the graph then, and why's it taken so long for you to even commment
> on it ?
It's for the WHOLE of Africa not, as you said, for South Africa. I know this because the graph says 'Africa' not 'South Africa', and because I read the article that the graph was a part of. It undermines your whole point that the money spent on the Iraq war would have made no difference to African (or whatever) development.
And it didn't take me very long to comment it at all: I did so near the beginning of the thread, when you promptly disappeared. There are links in my original post.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Nope, not that. You are right of course. I forgot momentarily that
> you were more knowledgable about international development than the
> World Bank, WHO and OECD.
Brilliant institutions, but ultimately Western financed and run institutions who, arguably, puruse policies aimed at keeping countries reliant on them rather than giving a degree of independence to them whenever possible. If the WB is so brilliant, why did it fail to see that the vast majority of loans it was allowing in the 1970's were being given to countries who could in no way pay them back on time ? Why did it fail to foresee what would happen in Mexico as the economy went free fall when Mexico declared itself bankrupt ?
I wrote my opinion on your frankly short sighted view that the people in such countries can be sorted with a few basic sanitation devices.
And no, Light, unknown kernel does not go in the list, and nor is Blank, nor is Snuggly, just two people on the list. Why ? Well for starters unknown kernel can discuss a point in a civil way, he doesn't agree, but he stays civil.
> Nope, not that. You are right of course. I forgot momentarily that
> you were more knowledgable about international development than the
> World Bank, WHO and OECD.
Brilliant institutions, but ultimately Western financed and run institutions who, arguably, puruse policies aimed at keeping countries reliant on them rather than giving a degree of independence to them whenever possible. If the WB is so brilliant, why did it fail to see that the vast majority of loans it was allowing in the 1970's were being given to countries who could in no way pay them back on time ? Why did it fail to foresee what would happen in Mexico as the economy went free fall when Mexico declared itself bankrupt ?
I wrote my opinion on your frankly short sighted view that the people in such countries can be sorted with a few basic sanitation devices.
And no, Light, unknown kernel does not go in the list, and nor is Blank, nor is Snuggly, just two people on the list. Why ? Well for starters unknown kernel can discuss a point in a civil way, he doesn't agree, but he stays civil.
unknown kernel wrote:
> This.
>
> Were you wrong about this?
>
> Did South Africa really receive $105 billion in aid over five years?
>
> Did you read the graph wrong, or not at all?
Well it shows total ODA decreasing (Official Development Assistance) per year, over that period, in US$ billions. So, how else do you read the graph then, and why's it taken so long for you to even commment on it ?
> This.
>
> Were you wrong about this?
>
> Did South Africa really receive $105 billion in aid over five years?
>
> Did you read the graph wrong, or not at all?
Well it shows total ODA decreasing (Official Development Assistance) per year, over that period, in US$ billions. So, how else do you read the graph then, and why's it taken so long for you to even commment on it ?
Does this mean that unknown kernal joins the list of people who pick on you for no reason, Bell?
That makes me, Goaty, Blank, Snuggly, unknown...boy, that list is really growing huh? It's almost as if....as if it's maybe your blinkered and ignorant cowardice that is the problem, and not a nasty bunch of liberals ganging up on you.
Cretin.
That makes me, Goaty, Blank, Snuggly, unknown...boy, that list is really growing huh? It's almost as if....as if it's maybe your blinkered and ignorant cowardice that is the problem, and not a nasty bunch of liberals ganging up on you.
Cretin.
Practical Magic wrote:
> And by
> the way, http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/
> vol13no1/06odalg.gif is an old table showing aid given to just South
> Africa between 93-97 , totalling close to US$105 billion, so if any
> of you think you're going to solve the world's problems with a paltry
> $87 billion then I suggest you contact the UN - the authors of that
> graph - with your plan, because they're gonna want to know about
> it....
This.
Were you wrong about this?
Did South Africa really receive $105 billion in aid over five years?
Did you read the graph wrong, or not at all?
> And by
> the way, http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/
> vol13no1/06odalg.gif is an old table showing aid given to just South
> Africa between 93-97 , totalling close to US$105 billion, so if any
> of you think you're going to solve the world's problems with a paltry
> $87 billion then I suggest you contact the UN - the authors of that
> graph - with your plan, because they're gonna want to know about
> it....
This.
Were you wrong about this?
Did South Africa really receive $105 billion in aid over five years?
Did you read the graph wrong, or not at all?
Nope, not that. You are right of course. I forgot momentarily that you were more knowledgable about international development than the World Bank, WHO and OECD.
Wrong about what ?
unknown kernel wrote:
> As I said, those figures aren't mine but they do come from respectable
> organisations who have presumably researched the problems pretty
> thoroughly.
The figures were crap - I assume were still talking about the "a few billions solves the world's entire problems" story ?
> To be honest I thought the figures for education and sanitation were
> very low, but this is obviously about providing basic neccessities
> rather than a western standard. Water and sanitation don't need vast
> treatment plants; they can be provided with cheap wells and latrines
> built from local materials.
Rubbish, guess what ?
If sanitation in developing countries was as easy as "cheap wells and latrines built from local materials" then there'd be no problem. Those solutions are short term and stop-gap ones at best. Sanitation is one of the all important things to crack in countries with problems because improving it can prevent many diseases - which not only cuts health costs but also increases econmomic activity.
Wells and chemical toilets are fine for isolated villages, but guess what ? Most of the people without access to clean water and sanitation live in large urban areas in developing countries now, and these large areas need treatment plants just as any Western urban area would.
As for education in developing countries, it's not a question of throwing money at the problem as it is in developed countries, there are other issues which need to be adressed alongside it such as child labour, the local and national economy, cultural issues....and more.
unknown kernel wrote:
> As I said, those figures aren't mine but they do come from respectable
> organisations who have presumably researched the problems pretty
> thoroughly.
The figures were crap - I assume were still talking about the "a few billions solves the world's entire problems" story ?
> To be honest I thought the figures for education and sanitation were
> very low, but this is obviously about providing basic neccessities
> rather than a western standard. Water and sanitation don't need vast
> treatment plants; they can be provided with cheap wells and latrines
> built from local materials.
Rubbish, guess what ?
If sanitation in developing countries was as easy as "cheap wells and latrines built from local materials" then there'd be no problem. Those solutions are short term and stop-gap ones at best. Sanitation is one of the all important things to crack in countries with problems because improving it can prevent many diseases - which not only cuts health costs but also increases econmomic activity.
Wells and chemical toilets are fine for isolated villages, but guess what ? Most of the people without access to clean water and sanitation live in large urban areas in developing countries now, and these large areas need treatment plants just as any Western urban area would.
As for education in developing countries, it's not a question of throwing money at the problem as it is in developed countries, there are other issues which need to be adressed alongside it such as child labour, the local and national economy, cultural issues....and more.
Page: