Spending by the EU on AIDS in Africa

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

wolfwill23

War Child
Joined
Nov 2, 2000
Messages
649
Location
New York, NY
I can't believe the EU is only willing to put up a billion dollars when George 'Satan' Bush is talking about putting up 15 billion dollars. What gives Europe (France and Germany!)?
 
one big heck load of money & support to other causes/ poor countries
(without -so obviously- trying to string money and demands that benefit them together)


:shrug:

that is my "guess"
 
Last edited:
considering that they give 3 times to foreign aid as we do, I imagine their resources are already out there.
 
Just wait for the elections here in Europe,...beautifull promises will apearing here also,....
 
wolfwill23 said:
I can't believe the EU is only willing to put up a billion dollars when George 'Satan' Bush is talking about putting up 15 billion dollars. What gives Europe (France and Germany!)?

Europe and the European Union are two different things. Every country of the EU is in Europe, but not every European country is in the EU.
 
wolfwill23 said:
I can't believe the EU is only willing to put up a billion dollars when George 'Satan' Bush is talking about putting up 15 billion dollars. What gives Europe (France and Germany!)?


Just wait and see,...




Bush in Africa: Compassionate Protectionism

On the public health front, President Bush has received credit for pledging $15 billion over five years to help treat and prevent AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. But there are doubts about how much of this money is going to materialize, and when. One year ago the Administration promised $500 million for prevention of HIV transmission from mothers to newborn children, but no money has yet been appropriated.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16384

More than a year ago :
New Bush AIDS Plan Outrages Activists

President George W. Bush dined with top pharmaceutical company executives at the ritzy Mayflower Hotel in downtown Washington D.C. Wednesday night, while activists protested his newly announced $500 million AIDS initiative outside.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13421
 
I think that the economic situation between the EU and the US are probably different. Asking for $15 billion from the US is pocket change (considering we have no problem accumulating a $400 billion deficit in one year), while $15 billion from the EU is a lot, considering the weaker economies they have. I think the EU is more of an emerging economy, rather than an existing one.

Melon
 
melon said:
I think that the economic situation between the EU and the US are probably different. Asking for $15 billion from the US is pocket change (considering we have no problem accumulating a $400 billion deficit in one year), while $15 billion from the EU is a lot, considering the weaker economies they have. I think the EU is more of an emerging economy, rather than an existing one.

Melon

I am not disputing your claim that EU economies are emerging. However, I would like to see a percentage of aid from the US vs. the EU. Is the US economy really that much stronger than 15 of the most 'developed' European nations?
 
wolfwill23 said:


I am not disputing your claim that EU economies are emerging. However, I would like to see a percentage of aid from the US vs. the EU. Is the US economy really that much stronger than 15 of the most 'developed' European nations?

I can only say that the Dutch goverment is spending 0.7 % of the national bruto product ( I do not know if that is a good translation ) at economic help to the third world. ( the EU has a rule that it should be a minimum of 0.4 % )
 
Last edited:
Rono said:
Will US Aids cash make a difference?

While the new law allows for up to $15 billion over the five year period, it does not bind the administration to this amount - the administration could trim the programme in future years if it wished.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2943572.stm

While what you state is true, the BBC article is spin, spin, spin. Their arguement is that the 15bil. won't solve the problem, so why even bother? What?! EVERY dollar can help with such a crisis.

I question the BBC's reporting. The news organization is obviously left leaning and it seems like it is in the BBC's interest in reporting on anything that presents Americans (particulary Bush) in a negative light, as it sells papers these days.

I find it disturbing that even when Bush is doing something like pledging money for AIDS in Africa (which will undoubtly save lives) organizations like the BBC can still print nothing but negative spin about the president.
 
wolfwill23 said:

I question the BBC's reporting. The news organization is obviously left leaning and it seems like it is in the BBC's interest in reporting on anything that presents Americans (particulary Bush) in a negative light, as it sells papers these days.

Perhaps you would prefer a fair, reliable, unbiased and credible news service with years of experience to draw upon and a stellar reputation throughout the world? Fox News?
 
Actually the BBC is obliged to be impartial as its funded by the British government. I'm not claiming it always succeeds in achieving impartiality, but it is certainly not a "left-leaning" news source.

Also, the BBC doesn't "sell papers" - it's tv, radio and internet based and the few paper publications it has are not daily newspapers but rather monthly magazines and are generally non-political.
 
sulawesigirl4 said:


Perhaps you would prefer a fair, reliable, unbiased and credible news service with years of experience to draw upon and a stellar reputation throughout the world? Fox News?

This does not help me believe that the BBC's reporting is unbiased.
 
Does the fact that it's funded by the British state and so mandated to be unbiased (in so far as reporting free of bias is possible) help you believe the BBC's reporting is less biased than that of, for example, Fox News?
 
this znet article discusses the bush administrations promotion of genetically modified foods. in this section the link between genetically modified foods and 'the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003' bill is explained

The US has therefore found a way out to force the African countries into submission. The US Senate has passed a Bill "the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003," (HR 1298)", which in a diplomatic way (calling it as `sense of Congress') links financial aid for combating HIV AIDS with GM food acceptance. Section 104A states that "individuals infected with HIV have higher nutritional requirements than individuals who are not infected with HIV, particularly with respect to the need for protein. Also, there is evidence to suggest that the full benefit of therapy to treat HIV/AIDS may not be achieved in individuals who are malnourished, particularly in pregnant and lactating women.
The next sentence reads: "It is therefore the sense of Congress that the US food assistance should be accepted by countries with large populations of individuals infected or living with HIV/AIDS, particularly African countries, in order to help feed such individuals."

american spending is not without its self serving benefits.
 
kobayashi said:
this znet article discusses the bush administrations promotion of genetically modified foods. in this section the link between genetically modified foods and 'the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003' bill is explained



american spending is not without its self serving benefits.
They just looking for a way to sell their Genetic engeneerd food,...nobody else want to have it.
 
They also have to promise not to use generic AIDS pharmacuticals for their people, basically wiping out the good the US money could do.
Got to look after one of his biggest contributors.
 
Klaus said:
Rono:
The WTO forces the EU to allow Genetic engineered food in their countries - so.. i guess there will be a big market for that crap in the near future
Depents of the resistance of the consumers. I do not know for Europe but here in the Netherlands there is a law that it should be on the label if a product is made with GM ingredi?nts. The most consumers do not want GM food so i would be hard to make GM products profit making. But for Africa it is a different situation, they have no choice to refuse those products at the end,...:(
 
Rono said:
They just looking for a way to sell their Genetic engeneerd food,...nobody else want to have it.

I knew it must have been something. Damn. Even though the US is giving billions towards AIDS, it's only to help the evil, US corporations and those nasty farmers.
 
wolfwill23 said:


I knew it must have been something. Damn. Even though the US is giving billions towards AIDS, it's only to help the evil, US corporations and those nasty farmers.
Would not suprise me,...
 
Last edited:
Rono said:
Would not suprise me,...

Yeah, would not surprise me either. Damn, evil Americans. What do you think their plan is after they feed starving African's with GM food? What's their next step? Freeing a country from an evil dictator? Stopping the spread of Communisim? Or will they stop the killing of 6mil innocent Jews?

I'm with you. Those Americans are always up to something and we don't owe them anything!
 
They also installed several dictators and killed several millions native americans.
The US did lots of good and lots of bad things - i guess counting them all from the past isn't helpful at all.

I guess everyone should be interested what their government really does. Being sceptical is the only way i know not to get tricked.

Klaus
 
wolfwill23 said:


Yeah, would not surprise me either. Damn, evil Americans. What do you think their plan is after they feed starving African's with GM food? What's their next step? Freeing a country from an evil dictator? Stopping the spread of Communisim? Or will they stop the killing of 6mil innocent Jews?

I'm with you. Those Americans are always up to something and we don't owe them anything!

Hey, you are a little overreacting here, just bomb me.

Africa could easy be helped with non GM food. If a African country is accepting GM Food, that country would never be able to sell there own crops to countries who refuse to buy GM infected produkts. That is why for example Zambia do not want American aid.


The western countries should listen to Africa for what the need, instead we decide what they get.
 
Rono said:



The western countries should listen to Africa for what the need, instead we decide what they get.

It's hard to listen to what the African people need when the majority of the trouble spots in Africa are run by warlords who use the aid to further oppress the African people.
 
Back
Top Bottom