Africa...Can we do anything?
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 02:38
VIEWED: 5821
PAGE 4 of 7
A problem with monetary aid - even just local aid - is that besides driving corruption, the influx of money ALSO sparks local inflation. (Recent examples are the tsunami areas receiving aid.) And if no monetary aid is given corrupt governments will have no treasury to raid. Also while political excess ('slum clearing') can wreak havoc on material gains painfully made by people, greed per se will never make them a target of the national government if their wealth is in the form of a well, or school, or bridge, or a road they can drive their carts down without breaking the wheels.
I agree that 'boots-on-the-ground' effort will NOT work in an area that lacks basic security even from their own government. However, with security, direct non-monetary aid guarantees that people will benefit.
One variation of direct non-monetary aid could be requiring that locals (women too) decide on the local project out of a list of projects, and contribute either work, materials or a small amount of money. It would be genuine help for them to accomplish what they need.
As to whether or not there will ever be 'enough' help to go around, I don't believe so, if the US funds these projects as in the past. Which means continuing to depend on a few fantastically idealistic people to put their lives on hold for a year to two and go to work in Africa for nothing.
But if the billions spent in Africa were to go to people working on aid projects to turn it into a regular job with a regular wage, a lot would be accomplished for very little money. Ten thousand aid workers in a country at $50,000 US salary (it should probably be deposited to personal US accounts as that much cash in the local economy would be destructive) could provide a tremendous amount of aid for only $5,000,000 plus the cost of some materials.
I don't believe it is possible to pacify areas where the people are mobilized to fight each other country on country. (Look at the Balkans. Peace, understanding and harmony have not broken out all over, only the shooting has stopped.) My understanding is that peace happens only when all sides are convinced they cannot win. If one still thinks it can win, or could or should have won, that side will be an active or potential aggressor, and the other side(s) will HAVE to defend themselves sooner or later. (Germany after WW I)
To make conflict unwinnable, the US could STOP sending money, buying diamonds/oil/bauxite/etc and selling arms. UN embargoes might be given a chance to work.
A beneficent warlord. It really needs to be seen how it will work out. I remember when the Taliban took over Afghanistan many at first were relieved at the restoration of any kind of law. I find the problem of collapsed societies where the central government has imploded to be the most intractable. I haven't seen anything that provides a recipe for success. Embargos of course, they can't shoot w/out bullets, but what else?
When it comes to anti-retrovirals, letting independent countries come to their own business deals does NOT constitute aid.
And of course, aid to women and children, medical aid packages including condoms, and no strings attached debt cancellation.
I'm sure I missed something I meant to respond to.
I was idly thinking the other day about cultures, and which ones continue longest - with evolution of course - and which die out completely. All of the 'GREAT' cultures - the Romans, the ancient Egyptians etc are all gone. We don't worship Zeus or Ra, or deal with the Caesars or Pharos. And I wondered if it was because those cultures depended on military might to run. Once their military was defeated, the cultures faded from existence. And I wondered if we modern people might take a lesson from that. That that of our culture we want to transmit can't be imposed at the point of the sword for very long. And that we could historically deduce that by looking at the death of military cultures over time. Could the historians among you comment?
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are so many areas in Africa where attempts at local, direct help are bound to fail in a mileu of Janjaweed-style destruction. You can fix bridges and roads, set up self-help projects (fish farms, goats, fertilizer), provide clinics or traveling doctors, but if the roads are blocked by warlord checkpoints, the bridges are bombed (again), the government drops its support price for maize, or refuses to distribute medicine from the docks....
One of the West African countries (I think it was Gambia) banned imported iodized salt and fought the UN for years because they were in some sort of political snit with their major source, dooming a couple of generations to cretinism. Lovely.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And you’re still not making any sense, because 1989 had nothing to do with the pacification of Germany by US and UK. West Germany was a prospering liberal democracy long before anyone was ever contemplating 1989.
Originally posted by citizen:
Not exactly but i'm not making myself clear I think. Germany was occupied by the conquering powers from 1945 until at least the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. In fact there is STILL a major foreign military presence in germany. Europe as a whole was actually a fairly stable enviroment in 1989 at the beginning of the withdrawl.
Quote:Africa is a continent composed of many varied countries. And military intervention is almost always seen as an aggressive act by the country being intervened. You have a talent for stating the obvious.
Originally posted by citizen:
The same cannot be said of Africa. To enact military regime change it would have to be performed on MANY nations in the region, not one. The region is not even as stable as Europe after the second world war. Any military intevention in the region would be seen as an aggresive act, not one of defence.
Quote:It certainly is not a threat to us. That is true.
Originally posted by perfessergee:
This is probably going to shock Finn, but I agree with him that enforced regime change works. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's actually the norm in human history - it's been happening over and over since the dawn of recorded history, and probably a long time before that. I'm not saying that I like it or that it's right - usually it's just been the stronger nation conquering the weaker, until somebody stronger yet comes along. This latter point is why IMO it's not a great idea to go around invading other nations; you are implicitly agreeing that it's OK in principle for another nation to invade you, should they become the stronger one. Civilized nations don't invade others unless they have to, as the Allies did with Germany and Japan. We don't have to invade Africa; it's simply not a threat to us in any governmental or military sense.
Quote:How many people have died of AIDS in the world? Answer: none.
Originally posted by perfessergee:
Well, if having been there, having witnesssed the AIDS epidemic personally and up close, and having some idea of what I'm talking about makes me conceited, then I guess I have to plead guilty.
I don’t doubt that disease is rampant in Africa. Is there some reason to be surprised that disease is rampant in overpopulated, unsanitary third world countries? The issue is whether it is salient to throw money at a potentially invented or hyped diseases when we could use that money to treat diseases that we know exist and how to prevent. I don’t have to go to a South African cemetery to know that people are dieing of disease in Africa, and more importantly going to a South African cemetery will prove nothing about how those people died. Whatever you think we know about AIDS, the truth it seems is that we probably know much less. And that is something we need to consider before we start throwing around money that might be better used elsewhere.
Quote:What about the Germans who replaced the Romans as the central power in Europe and cont
Originally posted by rue:
I was idly thinking the other day about cultures, and which ones continue longest - with evolution of course - and which die out completely. All of the 'GREAT' cultures - the Romans, the ancient Egyptians etc are all gone. We don't worship Zeus or Ra, or deal with the Caesars or Pharos. And I wondered if it was because those cultures depended on military might to run. Once their military was defeated, the cultures faded from existence. And I wondered if we modern people might take a lesson from that. That that of our culture we want to transmit can't be imposed at the point of the sword for very long. And that we could historically deduce that by looking at the death of military cultures over time. Could the historians among you comment?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You provide NO support for your argument other than an attempt to mimic an authoritative tone. So, provide a basis, if you can.
How many people have died of AIDS in the world? Answer: none.
I don’t doubt that disease is rampant in Africa. Is there some reason to be surprised that disease is rampant in overpopulated, unsanitary third world countries? The issue is whether it is salient to throw money at a potentially invented or hyped diseases when we could use that money to treat diseases that we know exist and how to prevent. I don’t have to go to a South African cemetery to know that people are dieing of disease in Africa, and more importantly going to a South African cemetery will prove nothing about how those people died. Whatever you think we know about AIDS, the truth it seems is that we probably know much less. And that is something we need to consider before we start throwing around money that might be better used elsewhere.
Quote:The Germans 'culture' was never based on a monolithic integrated military. That was the essential condition I posited. And, see Muslims.
What about the Germans who replaced the Romans as the central power in Europe and continue to comprise the majority of Western European culture? Were they fuzzy peaceful people? What about the Muslims? They spent the first 500 years warring against themselves or the West, and continue to comprise the majorioty of North African and Middle Eastern culture? The Chinese weren’t exactly all friendly either. The truth is that there aren’t any cultures that weren’t warlike at some point. What about the Greeks who invented Western warfare? Some have even argued that the Western Culture is as influential as it is because of a superior ability to wage war
The Muslims - how long did the Romans last? Or the Egyptians? Much longer than the Muslims to date. And despite their apparent stability, the cultures disappeared thoroughly. In contrast the Jews - who were Roman and Egyptian contemporaries - have maintained their culture to this day (albeit evolved). One survived, the others did not. With the Muslims, all of their historic contemporaries are extant to this day. The situation may not be sufficiently played out as there is no clear emergent from the same millieu. And clearly other cultures took longer to come to a conclusion.
I don't know much about Chinese history. Was the military basic to their culture? When I think of China, I think of Confuscian scholars vying for a place in the court, a hegemony of ideas, rather than a military one.
The Greeks - the ideas of Athens, a commercial powerhouse that based its culture in democracy (limited as it was) had selected ideas survive, but did not survive as an intact culture. The Spartans, who based their culture on military prowess, left little to the future and are even more thoroughly erased. So in some regards this is more a confirmation of my observation.
But I'm looking for cultures BASED on a seamless integration of superior military power into their religious, political, and social structures (like the the Aztecs, Maya, Inca, Romans, Egyptians etc) who have outlasted their contemporaries.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Exploring around the logical edges of this proposal... non-militarized cultures that failed, non-militarized cultures that survived, militarized cultures that failed, militarized cultures that survived...
I was idly thinking the other day about cultures, and which ones continue longest - with evolution of course - and which die out completely. All of the 'GREAT' cultures - the Romans, the ancient Egyptians etc are all gone. We don't worship Zeus or Ra, or deal with the Caesars or Pharos. And I wondered if it was because those cultures depended on military might to run. Once their military was defeated, the cultures faded from existence. And I wondered if we modern people might take a lesson from that. That that of our culture we want to transmit can't be imposed at the point of the sword for very long. And that we could historically deduce that by looking at the death of military cultures over time.
Cultures that did not depend on the military also did not survive. It's difficult to find major cultures that were not militarized, but I'm thinking specifically of the the cluster of five large cities in the Tigris-Euphrates area that existed for 500 years and showed no evidence of walls or other fortifications, no armories, and (BTW) no temples or large "government" buildings. What about non-militarized cultures that have survived to this day? China is an example of a large culture that has been in continuous existance for thousands of years. It doesn't depend on its military and has not been expansionist (up until now). Other non-military cultures have been allowed to continue in very isolated, marginal areas: the Bushmen of the Kalahari, the Fore of New Guinea etc. Not sure if that counts. However, some cultural fragments of militarized societies (the Sumerian 7-day week) have survived intact for thousands of years. Since I can find examples in all categories, I'm not sure the hypothesis holds.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Africa is a continent composed of many varied countries. And military intervention is almost always seen as an aggressive act by the country being intervened. You have a talent for stating the obvious.
The overthrow of the Nazi party was a defencive act on the part of the Allies. The psychology of attacking and then being defeated is different for an occupied population than that of being defeated, with presedent in history.
You made the point that the situations of Germany and Africa were the same, I was giving examples as to why this wasn't so. Please refrain from insulting people unnecessarily, insult their argument by all means but not them.
Quote:
And you’re still not making any sense, because 1989 had nothing to do with the pacification of Germany by US and UK. West Germany was a prospering liberal democracy long before anyone was ever contemplating 1989.
Germany was still a fractured country occupied by foriegn millitaries. Look where the successful pacification took place. West Germany the area controlled by NATO, people who shared the culture and ideals of the West German people.
Quote:
The four occupying powers officially withdrew on March 15, 1991. The US, however, maintained military bases, such as Ramstein Air Base, Baumholder, Grafenwöhr. The UK also maintains a smaller military presence in the country (see BFG).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany
On the otherhand East Germany was not a liberal free democracy. This didn't happen until after the fall of the Berlin wall.
Quote:
From 1961 to 1989, when the borders were opened, hundreds died trying to escape from East Germany, including many who tried to cross the Berlin Wall.
Quote:
In the first and last free elections of East Germany in March 1990, the SED lost the majority, which was guaranteed in the previous elections, in the Volkskammer (the parliament of East Germany). At the August 23 the Volkskammer decided that the territory of East Germany will accede to ambit of the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany on October 3, 1990. On that date, East Germany ceased to exist.
This is not true of Africa. No country in Africa, stable or not, is completely surrounded by stable neighbours, and this is another factor that will make military action unsuccessful for various reasons.
If an occupying force shares the ideals and basic culture of the people they're occupying its much easier to build a dialog and friendly relationship between them.
This was true of West Germany, but not of East. Perhaps military action in Africa would work, if it came from other African countries that shared ideals and culture with the occupied country.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:East Germany was a separate country. The US and the UK never attempt to pacify that country. Your argument would seem to be based on a deception.
Originally posted by citizen:
Germany was still a fractured country occupied by foriegn millitaries. Look where the successful pacification took place. West Germany the area controlled by NATO, people who shared the culture and ideals of the West German people.
Quote:Let’s be honest. We both know you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the conclusiveness of the evidence. It’s probably pointless to even go into it, but for people who are interested, I’ll simply suggest reading something by Dr. Duesberg. Other then that, it is probably a discussion that is outside the scope of this thread.
Originally posted by rue:
You provide NO support for your argument other than an attempt to mimic an authoritative tone. So, provide a basis, if you can.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdpnas89.htm
As for disease being rampant in Africa, I would think that should be obvious.
Quote:Well first of all, I’m not sure that you have very successfully defined the condition that you have posited, and I’m also not certain that you are familiar with the extent to which the Germans prized and utilized warfare, in their culture. When they faced the Romans, they may not have been as advanced a military power, but they certainly were as culturally predisposed.
Originally posted by rue:
The Germans 'culture' was never based on a monolithic integrated military. That was the essential condition I posited.
As for the Muslims, you didn’t specify a certain length of existence, not that I think that should even matter. The Roman culture lasted about a thousand years; by contrast the Muslim culture is already well over a thousand years old. Both the Muslim and the Germen cultures were warlike and expansionistic and both continue to exist today as a dominate culture. I’m not really sure what is meant by a “monolithic integrated military.”
And I’m also not exactly sure why the ancient Egyptians should meet your list, if the Greeks don’t. The Greeks were certainly as much a military culture as the ancient Egyptians. The Greek culture as a whole, including Athens, was a military culture, where warfare and the concept of the military “hero” was a religion. They warred constantly among themselves, and were capable of defending against foreign invasions much stronger. When they did go on the offensive they took their phalanges as far south as conquering Egypt and as far East as conquering parts of India in a matter of years. That is a military feat that is astonishing even today. And while the Greek nation was eventually conquered by the Romans, their culture and language persists to this day. In fact their culture was so strong that it eventually surpassed the culture of the conquering Romans and created an East Roman culture that was distinctly Greek.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'll save you all the bother. Dr. Duesberg posits that HIV is a "benign passenger" infection that occurs coincidentally with death from OTHER causes. In the USA, he posits that AZT and antiretroviral use causes AIDS. In Africa, it is the more-or-less standard set of diseases. He bases this statement on the "fact" that AIDS epidemic cannot be detected through unique symptomology or increased death rates that follow a bell-shaped (over time) curve typical of epidemics. But while he has an impressive pedigree, his logic and statistics are faulty.
Let’s be honest. We both know you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the conclusiveness of the evidence. It’s probably pointless to even go into it, but for people who are interested, I’ll simply suggest reading something by Dr. Duesberg.
(1) The bell shaped curve is apparent only with infections that produce symptoms quickly and are normally contagious. But in the array of infectious agents, there are some that are highly contagious -and some not and some that produce symptoms quickly -and some not. Other "slow" epidemics like kuru (with an incubation period of up to 50 years) follow the HIV pattern.
(2) Duesberg cites reported African "AIDS" death rate, not understanding that it is a cultural taboo to put "AIDS" on a death certificate. He bases much of his argument on the faulty apparent dsicrepancy in AIDS death-rates
(3) He does not address the course of HIV/AIDS in other nations. While he might be able to posit one "true" cause in the USA and another "true" cause in Africa, extending that argument to India, China, former Soviet countries and Southeast Asia... many of which require a different "true" cause than the two he originally postulated... strains coincidence and credulity.
(4) HIV/AIDS has several characteristic diseases that are rare (not unheard-of, but rare) outside of HIV infection, and you can see these with HIV/ AIDS on all continents. One of them is Kaposi's sarcoma and another is pneumocystis carinii.
Since this discussion is tangential to the main focus of the thread, I won't post any more on this topic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks SignyM.
It IS outside of the scope. I went and looked at the link, but didn't check out anything else.
The paper itself was from 1989, and AIDS research (including the ability to test for antibodies and viral load, the molecular biology of how the virus operates, that appx 10% of Caucasians lack the molecular attachment site for HIV and are biochemically protected while others have no such protection etc) has progressed phenomenally.
I do hope that those not familiar with biology and medicine are not mislead by the link.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
East Germany was a separate country. The US and the UK never attempt to pacify that country. Your argument would seem to be based on a deception.
East Germany was the part of Germany invaded and later controlled by the soviet union, West Germany was the part invaded and controlled by the western allies. Before the invasion of Germany by the allies Germany WAS one country, therefore the country can't be said to have been successfully 'rebuilt' until both East and West Germany was intergrated back into a single country again. I fail to see where the deception is in my argument to be honest.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME