Bush opposes UK Africa debt plan

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

ClaytonMan

War Child
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
658
Location
North England
"Mr Bush said a key part of the plan did not fit with the US budget process.

Mr Bush's stance sets up a possible clash with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, due in Washington next week.

The UK is pushing hard for major debt relief and a doubling of aid to Africa, and Chancellor Gordon Brown laid out a set of ambitious plans on Thursday.

This was a time for 100% debt relief not "timidity", Mr Brown said.

The UK has said that 2005 is a vital year for Africa, and argues that without significantly more money the United Nations' Millennium Goal of halving world poverty by 2015 will be impossible to meet. "

Great to see the American goverment doing there bit again!!!!!

Whats a few million lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:


what are your thoughts?

MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY


Looks like it will be a long way off.
 
my sentiments exactly :mad:

and theres more:

As well as 100% debt relief, Mr Brown wants to set up an International Finance Facility (IFF) to help pay for immunisation programmes in Africa

He also said that aid should be doubled to $80bn a year by 2010.

But the US remains concerned that the UK is proposing that the debt plans should be financed in part by selling gold reserves held by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
 
Last edited:
Call me cynical but I think Gordon Brown may be bluffing. He knows that there is no way all the G8 countries will agree to his plans and therefore they won't go ahead. This means he'll still look good though. Is anyone going to Edinburgh? I am but then again I am only coming from Glasgow and I can stay with my parents.
 
everyone remember than when western countries refuse to give money that it is our money not the leaders money.
 
Everyone remember that when the tsunami hit, The UK gave three times as much Government Aid as USA did then USA went oh dear we look like right idiots here lets give more than ukl but put restrictions on the aid
 
Oh, so we can spend countless amounts of money on some stupid war, but we can't spare any more for people dying in Africa?

Ack. I can't believe I supported this guy. What was I thinking? :huh:

Eh, oh well. Not as if I can vote anyway. :wink:
 
XHendrix24 said:
Oh, so we can spend countless amounts of money on some stupid war, but we can't spare any more for people dying in Africa?

Ack. I can't believe I supported this guy. What was I thinking? :huh:

Eh, oh well. Not as if I can vote anyway. :wink:

Well said well said, I was gonna say that when i got home from work.

Pollution: Cant comply.
Debt: Cant Comply
War: Yes please.
War = Money
Debt does not
 
ClaytonMan said:


But the US remains concerned that the UK is proposing that the debt plans should be financed in part by selling gold reserves held by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The IMF has enough resources that it CAN cancel 100% of heavily indebted poor country debts WITHOUT affecting it's credit rating or abilility to lend.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

This is a very insidious form of rascism going on here. This wouldn't even be an issue if it was happening here or in Europe.
 
From what I've read, Gordon Brown's plan would only relieve poor countries of 30-35% of their debts as the debt relief period would end in 2015.
 
One of the reasons I stopped calling myself an American and started using the more technical label of "American citizen." That distance is allowing me to contain the rage I've been feeling. When I can reconnect with the values my leaders are showing, I'll reconsider. I love my country, but I don't identify with it much nowadays. I'm disenfranchised and disaffected and neither side speaks with my voice. Now I'm just sad.
 
BonosSaint said:
One of the reasons I stopped calling myself an American and started using the more technical label of "American citizen."


I hear you.


I believe "Christian" has been hi-jacked by the same people seeking political power.

If I were to label myself I would say I am a
"follower of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth".
 
deep said:



I hear you.


I believe "Christian" has been hi-jacked by the same people seeking political power.

If I were to label myself I would say I am a
"follower of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth".

And I hear you!
 
meegannie said:
From what I've read, Gordon Brown's plan would only relieve poor countries of 30-35% of their debts as the debt relief period would end in 2015.

That being true, but its a start, it will obviously be looked into before this period of time would end. But this is not the point, the point is that America (being one of the richest countries in the world) is not willing to do what is right, Uk isnt that big yet it has the heart to at least recognise that progress needs to be made. I think that 30 - 35% Is reasonable for one country if that is what you meant, theres another 7 members in the G8 that need to understand the enormity of the problem.

Th UK is taking this on board. what about the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Call me cynical but did anyone really think Bush was going to put any real effort into Africa?

I definitely did not. If this jerk offered a drowning man a glass of water, I'd be surprised....

:censored:-damn :censored: Texas :censored: Republican...
 
BonosSaint said:
One of the reasons I stopped calling myself an American and started using the more technical label of "American citizen." That distance is allowing me to contain the rage I've been feeling. When I can reconnect with the values my leaders are showing, I'll reconsider. I love my country, but I don't identify with it much nowadays. I'm disenfranchised and disaffected and neither side speaks with my voice. Now I'm just sad.

Sad doesn't cover it. I am ashamed. I am ashamed of my country, my government, certain of my fellow Americans who are so insular and selfish that they don't care what happens to the rest of the world....I am ashamed. It makes me want to scream. Or burn a flag.
 
deep said:



I hear you.


I believe "Christian" has been hi-jacked by the same people seeking political power.

If I were to label myself I would say I am a
"follower of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth".

That I can appreciate.
 
Um guys....

Coming from this leftist New Yorker...


Don't overboard please. There's no need to damn Texas, ( a great place), or Republicans in general. Some of the country's greatest people are Republicans, though I couldn't vote for them (I believe in Big Gov't these days, as a foil to Big Business) and dasly in Congress they seem to be the older ones.

As to Christian...people say "Christian" as a n abberviation for "born-again Christian" (someone who has invited Jesus Christ into their lives as their personal Lord and Savior and undergone a baptism process in which they recieve the gift of glossolalia. Or at least you are purified. This takes different forms in different denominations but the end result is the same.)

Now, it has taken on a more insidious meaning, as differentiating conservative, Republican (OF COURSE) "people of faith" who adhere to a certain political party line on certain issues and have a ploitical mindset and activism that is often contrary to the inculsive and compassionate teachings of Jeus Christ. These days, you are supposed to be able to tell a Christain by what they AREN'T.

That's why I say, "I;m saved" if I'm witht he right people, and "I have an active spiritual life" if I'm not.
 
ClaytonMan said:


I think that 30 - 35% Is reasonable for one country if that is what you meant, theres another 7 members in the G8 that need to understand the enormity of the problem.


The 30-35% total debt relief percent is for the whole plan, not just the UK's contribution. Less than half of the countries identified by Jubilee 2000T as needed debt relief are elligible under Brown's plan. There are also a lot of concerns about the conditions of British aid, like privatization of water and other public services and trade liberalization.
 
echo0001 said:


Sad doesn't cover it. I am ashamed. I am ashamed of my country, my government, certain of my fellow Americans who are so insular and selfish that they don't care what happens to the rest of the world....I am ashamed. It makes me want to scream. Or burn a flag.

It's sad that you feel ashamed, though I dont think you should. Many Americans do care as much as or less, or even more than others. It isn't uniquely American, and not your country as a whole which is to blame or be angered at or ashamed of. Even some people who support Bush will care. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the thinking that Bush's party is going with is not reflective of any one group and certainly not your whole country.
 
So what happened to the 3.2 Billion dollars of aid that Bush is giving to Africa, which is triple of what was being given before he took office.

according to the Bush administration - (quoted from NYT)
"the United States favors a more gradual build up of aid, the officials said. It contends that the problem is less a lack of money than the ability of poor countries with weak institutions to spend it wisely."

opposing one plan doesn't mean Bush has never or will never put effort into Africa, although i do think that the more we do the better.
 
Why a gradual build up when we have the resources and they are available now?

And secondly, the prejudice that the inability of poor countries to handle aid because of corruption is really not accuracte. Africa's governance is poor because Africa is poor.
 
echo0001 said:


Sad doesn't cover it. I am ashamed. I am ashamed of my country, my government, certain of my fellow Americans who are so insular and selfish that they don't care what happens to the rest of the world....I am ashamed. It makes me want to scream. Or burn a flag.

Then take a look around at the millions of people in America who give generously and get proud.
 
learn2kneel said:
So what happened to the 3.2 Billion dollars of aid that Bush is giving to Africa, which is triple of what was being given before he took office.

according to the Bush administration - (quoted from NYT)
"the United States favors a more gradual build up of aid, the officials said. It contends that the problem is less a lack of money than the ability of poor countries with weak institutions to spend it wisely."

opposing one plan doesn't mean Bush has never or will never put effort into Africa, although i do think that the more we do the better.

The fact is he hasn't done shit. He promised he would do one thing, but couldn't get his party to vote on it. Now we all know how his party is devoted to him(they've blinded voted for everything except this). If his party didn't vote for it, then he did nothing to promote.

He's all talk and a lot of BULLSHIT!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom