We don’t need their charity/US plans to scrap R67bn in Africa debt

Status
Not open for further replies.

neio

Banned
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
4,889
I dont think its was charity... more a case of "we wont ever get the money back so might as well scrap it".
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
Why dont we need their charity?

SA may well do without it, but most of the rest of Africa desperately needs it. 10 billion dollars that doesnt have to go to the States is 10 billion dollars that can be spent on much needed upliftment and infrastructure.

The world needs to become a place were the rich help the poor because its the right thing to do.
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,353
Er - yeah - Africa does actually need whatever debt relief it can get.
 

ajak

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
4,228
You know if you owe somebody a large amount of money and you cant pay it back, they will take what you own and sell it to get their money, So, why not do the same with countries that cant pay their debt, invade/take possession of the country/sell it to someone ells/problem solved. I’m sure you can get Zim for a good price.:D :D
 

ajak

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
4,228
Nick333 said:
Why dont we need their charity?

SA may well do without it, but most of the rest of Africa desperately needs it. 10 billion dollars that doesnt have to go to the States is 10 billion dollars that can be spent on much needed upliftment and infrastructure.

The world needs to become a place were the rich help the poor because its the right thing to do.
If you borrow and you know you cant pay it back,thats like stealing
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,353
What debt relief means for Africa - a little dated (June '05) but you get the idea. Servicing existing debt is a huge drain on the limited resources of many countries.
This weekend's $40 billion debt cancellation agreeded to by rich-nation finance ministers will, for instance, enable Zambia to hire 7,000 new teachers. Likewise, Tanzania will no longer spend 12 percent of its annual budget on servicing its debts. Instead, it could build new hospitals and roads.
lol - imagine Zim for sale on ebay - any bidders?
 

dominic

Legal Expert: Telecoms
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
7,290
ajak said:
You know if you owe somebody a large amount of money and you cant pay it back, they will take what you own and sell it to get their money, So, why not do the same with countries that cant pay their debt, invade/take possession of the country/sell it to someone ells/problem solved.
the difference being that the west did it the other way around...first they invaded/took possession and sold off resources

not to say that african countries would not be in debt anyway but the west and its institutions certainly contributed to creating the debt trap

and the trend continues with natural resources and intellectual property.....
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
ajak said:
If you borrow and you know you cant pay it back,thats like stealing
Thats definitely not the point here, because if the lender says you dont have to pay it back it becomes a gift.

But its a fallacy that third world countries dont pay these debts back, they have to or their line of credit gets cut. The problem is that its an endless cycle( anyone whose maxed their credit card will tell you the same), instead of investing in growth they have to pay their creditors and then have to lend more to cover running costs.

Back on topic though:your statement is that we don't need their charity my question is why?
 

ajak

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
4,228
So what you are telling me is that if you live next door to me, and you come and borrow money from me on the pretext that you want to buy food for your family, but later I see that you used the money to buy yourself booze, then you come and want to borrow some more, I must forgive the first debt and give you more money. If that is how you think you are seriously deluded. The only way is not to lend you money, in this case African countries.
 

ajak

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
4,228
Nick333 said:
Thats definitely not the point here, because if the lender says you dont have to pay it back it becomes a gift.

But its a fallacy that third world countries dont pay these debts back, they have to or their line of credit gets cut. The problem is that its an endless cycle( anyone whose maxed their credit card will tell you the same), instead of investing in growth they have to pay their creditors and then have to lend more to cover running costs.

Back on topic though:your statement is that we don't need their charity my question is why?
WHY,YOU ASK WHY,for one,have you seen the anti USA post`s on this forum,the hate that ppl have for Bush and his country,my g0d man if you hate ppl,hate them with conviction,dont do it half hearted,hate their money aswell.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
ajak said:
So what you are telling me is that if you live next door to me, and you come and borrow money from me on the pretext that you want to buy food for your family, but later I see that you used the money to buy yourself booze, then you come and want to borrow some more, I must forgive the first debt and give you more money. If that is how you think you are seriously deluded. The only way is not to lend you money, in this case African countries.
Have you read this thread yet ajak : http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=45045 ?

Youre evading the question. Sticking to your rather flimsy extended metaphor though ( even though comparing poor african countries to an irresponsible alchaholic doesnt gell) does the drunk from next door not need your charity because hes abused it in the past? He may not deserve it but that doesnt mean he doesnt need it.

A statement like " I dont need your charity" is a statment of pride, it indicates that the speaker would rather get by without it. Africa regardless of corruption can not develope in the face of global competition without foriegn aid.

Your original statement was that Africa doesnt need charity, your consecutive arguments imply that it doesnt deserve it. It cant be both so which is it. Or did you just not think before you posted?
 

ajak

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
4,228
Nick333 said:
Have you read this thread yet ajak : http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=45045 ?

Youre evading the question. Sticking to your rather flimsy extended metaphor though ( even though comparing poor african countries to an irresponsible alchaholic doesnt gell) does the drunk from next door not need your charity because hes abused it in the past? He may not deserve it but that doesnt mean he doesnt need it.

A statement like " I dont need your charity" is a statment of pride, it indicates that the speaker would rather get by without it. Africa regardless of corruption can not develope in the face of global competition without foriegn aid.

Your original statement was that Africa doesnt need charity, your consecutive arguments imply that it doesnt deserve it. It cant be both so which is it. Or did you just not think before you posted?
BOTH,
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
ajak said:
WHY,YOU ASK WHY,for one,have you seen the anti USA post`s on this forum,the hate that ppl have for Bush and his country,my g0d man if you hate ppl,hate them with conviction,dont do it half hearted,hate their money aswell.
A starving man accepting charity from the devil is a man who will be around tomorrow. A starving man who refuses said demonic charity is a proud fool, and a soon to be dead one at that.
 

werner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,393
i joined this forum around the time when the live aid concert was taking place (the recent one) and ol' bob geldof was being called all names under the sun because you guys basically were 100% in agreement that "africa doesnt need pity or charity"

now, i am one confused "white african" (i tick the box for "other" when asked for my race, coz i dont see white-african in the list...)

so, bob geldof and his money raising (or was that money making) exercise is a no-no...but 67 billion is alraaaight ekse.
when we decide to stop sitting on the fence could we get on with making africa a better place? pls. tnks.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
ajak said:
Thanks for sharing the depth of your oppinion, I take it from the brevity' lack of opacity, explanation or counter argument that this discussion is over ?
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,399
werner said:
i joined this forum around the time when the live aid concert was taking place (the recent one) and ol' bob geldof was being called all names under the sun because you guys basically were 100% in agreement that "africa doesnt need pity or charity"

now, i am one confused "white african" (i tick the box for "other" when asked for my race, coz i dont see white-african in the list...)

so, bob geldof and his money raising (or was that money making) exercise is a no-no...but 67 billion is alraaaight ekse.
when we decide to stop sitting on the fence could we get on with making africa a better place? pls. tnks.
I assume that the same anti-geldof naysayers are the same ones now expressing pro debt relief sentiment. Or are you lumping everyone on this forum as having the same oppinion?
 

dominic

Legal Expert: Telecoms
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
7,290
here's a contrarian opinion

africa owes the west nothing - if anything the equation should be turned around and the colonialists that some seem to admire should be brought to account for the raping and pillaging of a continent in the name of religion and civilisation....the simple act of drawng arbitrary boundaries so as to control populations and more efficiently share the spoils is of itself responsible for more death, suffering and hardship than africa could ever inflict on itself
 

werner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,393
i dont care about the people's names, but in a majority rule situation, the previous thread was pro "tell the west to go stuff their charity" and this thread seems to be the opposite.

i.e. "this forum" as a majority seems to have accepted this 67bil as a good thing, whereas previously it rejected the attempts of live8.

and it isnt a personal attack, no need to be snotty, just merely idle curiosity at how things play out.
go read the thread.

@dominic.
yes, makes some sense, but what you are referring to is going back 300-400 years. it was a way of life back then. we cant possibly hope to understand it nowdays, as it all seems "wrong" but killing and pillagin, by any colour of skin nation, was the accepted norm to a degree. retributions for the past get my vote, but 300 years ago isnt "the past", it is fscking ancient history.

anyway, i blame the romans:) and genghis khan.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top