That's a hell of a lot of money. I'm curious to know if anyone here will say something like "this is a good thing Bush is doing." Also, if you are in favor of redistributing Americans' money to sick Africans, I'm also curious what your position is on supposed "overpopulation."

Just to make things more interesting, did you know how all these people who are diagnosed with AIDs got diagnosed? It was not with a blood test. The WHO came up with a list of symptoms - coughing, feeling weak, cold symptoms - stuff like that. In other words, if you're sick, have the shits, have a cold or flu, you get diagnosed as having AIDS. It would cost too much to actually test all those people.

Here are some results presented in medical journals when they went and actually spot checked "AIDS patients."

227 patients with AIDS: 59% test HIV-negative. Lancet
122 patients with AIDS: 69% test HIV-negative, American Rev. Resp. Diseases.
913 patients with Aids: 71% test HIV-negative. Journal of AIDS

There are also stories about people using the drugs used to treat AIDS, mixing them with marijuana to get high.

What a mess.

Don't get me started on Bush!

Yeah, that might be a good idea (about time that he does something with that), but what about things over here? As if there aren't millions already suffering from AIDS here!!

Why in the hell is there always this big concern from him to try to help other countries when he's neglecting things in his own back yard?!!

He also wants to make sure that the damn war in Iraq is funded long after January '09 when he leaves office!! How about that?

Would you please try to limit yourself to one position per post?

Is it "about time he does something..." or is his "big concern...to help other countries" misplaced? Is this aid to Africe too little too late or too much too soon?

Perhaps you misread him. What I got is that Daquan doesn't have a problem with AIDS aid but thinks domestic aid should take priority. Seems like a single position to me.

Right you are!!

Seems like almost everything he does for anyone, it's always to try to help people in other countries.

He should be trying to get help for things and people in THIS country first!!

And BTW, what is he doing about the high gas prices? Oh. Nothing!!

Yes, with him it is always too little, too late and too much because he spends too little time doing things that are needed for THIS country, he's too late trying to do it, because thousands of people have already died so needlessly and inexcusably, and he spends too much time thinking about what he could do for other countries!!

Case in point; 09-11, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita - to which he called himself being prepared for that one after he and FEMA were slammed for their extreme slowness with Hurricane Katrina. Bottom line is, the guy just doesn't care about his own country.

And here's the REAL kicker; He KNEW about 09-11 weeks before it happened and Katrina days before the monster storm hit the Gulf Coast!

You know people do make mistakes... as far as I'm aware nobody knew katrina was going to fuck up new orleans so much.

But I do agree we should be worrying about this country more, like fixing the economy. As far as aids goes he should give that money to the scientific establishment to help find a cure, not waste it on condoms and the like which most people don't use anyway. There's some bleeding edge research right now that has high promise to be able to treat aids effectively. PENN Medicine News: Zinc Finger Proteins Put Personalized HIV Therapy Within Reach


Not that I'm condemning Bush. But on a related note it seems that this is deep down a selfish act; he doesn't want to be remembered as a completely horrible president so maybe the history books might point out he "tried" close to the end of his office.

1. Eight long aggonizing years, please. He's made TOO MANY mistakes!

2. When a natural disaster is about to strike, you warn the people ahead of time and tell them all to pack up, move to a safer place and get the hell out of the path of the storm.

When a little boy comes on the air and said that "he and others needed some help down there, that things are just terrible!!!", that broke my heart. I was so upset and cried over that!! Not the child's fault, but that's what it probably took to get Bush to realise that tghings were so rough down there after the storm!

3. Yes, he SHOULD ask for the money, but like you said, give it to science for the purpose of finding a definite cure for AIDS.

4. As far as I'm concerned, he already IS a horrible president, has been since 09-11.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see much of anything he's done since he's been in office! very little if anything!!

Mainly funding that goddamn war in Iraq!! He makes me want to puke!!

I didn't misread him at all. He's being intellectually dishonest. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

"that might be a good idea (about time that he does something with that"

This means he's waited to long to take action. He's showing disapproval that the problem in Africa has been neglected too much

"Why in the hell is there always this big concern from him to try to help other countries when he's neglecting things in his own back yard?!!"

This means he shouldn't be concerned with Africa's supposed AIDs epidemic - he should be working on domestic problems.


I really don't see a huge problem with AIDs in the U.S. I support research in the private sector, and I recognize people do contract the disease and that's a bad thing. But its also virtually 100% preventable today


Anyway, and I'm surprised that you've lost your distaste for thread hijacking (Katrina and Iraq are topics for seperate threads) btw, the question is...

Is the $50 billion for aid to treating AIDS in other countries a good decision or not? Do you support it or no? Should the money be spent on that or something else?

Oh, please.

How many threads have YOU hijacked since you been here? Stop making lame excuses for Bush.

I'm just totally pissed at this guy because he's ALWAYS putting other countries in front to get priority treatment with something before his very own. It's been that way since he's been in office and Congress needes to put its foot down and say "NO!" to this guy sometimes.

Yes, I'm aware that other countries, especially Africa, have people suffering from AIDS, but what about THIS country? Are we living in a disease-free world? Get real.

Ras, If I remember correctly, you said so yourself that that is a hell of a lot of money.

I mentioned 09-11, Hurricane Katrina and Iraq because it's true. He doesn't get up off his butt to act quickly enough when an emergency hits in this country, He would rather wait to see just how many innocent people are going to die needlessly first before he decides to try to do something, yet he wants $50b to help Africa with its AIDS epidemic? Why not divide some of it up to help here as well?

I have no problem with him spending the money. Unfortunately I am extremely doubtful of his motives being in the slightest bit noble. I think he wants to leave some kind of legacy that will be seen as something positive from the 8 years in office, so he won't be remembered through history as a president known only for his screwups.

Rasczak, as for your figures that only 60-70% of the umpteen millions actually having HIV who are reported as having it - that would still seem to be an epidemic to me in any case. And there are all kinds of medications in the world that can be abused in various ways - are you suggesting we should stop supplying them to anyone who can benefit from them, because there is a possibility that some people might abuse them in some way?

Right you are!!

I remember him greedily using images of 09-11 to help him stay in office for his second term.

The guy just doesn't win me over! Is January '09 here yet?

[quote=kevmartin;99061]I have no problem with him spending the money. Unfortunately I am extremely doubtful of his motives being in the slightest bit noble. I think he wants to leave some kind of legacy that will be seen as something positive from the 8 years in office, so he won't be remembered through history as a president known only for his screwups.

Hey Kevin
I have question his motives at times, I hope this is not the final action he completes before his term is up.

The truth is..we will always have poverty stricken people with us with 3rd world countries, and as DA said..troubled times right here in our own backyard. We help out as much as possible to other countries in need. As the president of the United States of America..I duly believe he should have matters here tied up first and foremost. Thats why he is the President of the United States,,to take care of America first.

I like to believe his judgment with the war was just that..watching out for the United States so they dont invade us again..possibly during his term. Some say..if we weren't there they would be here..I don't know..but 911 indicates that possibility..

Its not to sound as though I dont care but no..I think the money should aid America first with our own economic hardship..as said earlier..we have been helping other countries forever in a day..we cant cure everything..

Sherri

Thank you.

At least I'm not the only one who doesn't like the way he cares about other countries first before his own.

It's quite alright to show some concern for places like Africa and other countries, but for Pete's sakes, he needs to try to take
care of home up front and first, then try to help unfortunate people in other countries.

If there were a crisis such as the tsunami disaster in Indoniesia in '04, yes, THAT event gets first dibs.

But AIDS is almost everywhere, and he just can't play Superman, thinking that he can perform some kind of miracle or something.

Unfortunately it is probably true that there will always be poor people. But not just in 3rd world countries. I can see the logic of wanting to spend the money fixing problems 'at home' rather than helping someone else, but one can't help but look at the USA defence budget and wonder:
Armed Forces - m12 - The Finances of Defence - Top Level Budget Holders - Equipment Expenditure

I'd like to say I am an optimist - that I think one day the boundaries of countries that maintain the 'Us and Them' mentality of the world, will become less important, as International organisations of cooperation (like the EU, ans similar things I have heard proposed for Asia/Australia, and for Africa) flourish. But really I am not that optimistic - I see humans, collectively, as a basically selfish species (there are plenty of exceptions on an individual scale). As long as it is possible to exploit one another, the boundaries between rich and poor will continue. And that applies both within each country, between rich and poor individuals, and internationally, between rich and poor nations. And as long as exploitation continues, there will be pockets of fury amongst the exploited, which can grow to become acts of violence, both targeted and random.

I think I've made it very clear in various other threads that I don't believe the whole justification for the Iraq war for a moment. An act of terrorism, horrible though it may be, is not an invasion of the USA. An invasion is what the USA did to Iraq. And invading Iraq was in no way striking back at those that perpetrated the 9/11 event anyway - Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

There's the problem with judging people's motives. I agree, it can be a fun game, and make you feel really good - leaving room to bitch about people doing nice things, or making excuses for someone doing something unwise.

The problem is, it shows that you basically have no objectivity. If he does something you disagree with, you bitch. If he does something you think is good, you bitch because his motives are wrong.

Personally, I find it better to stick with judging actions not motives.

Its still a problem if only 20% of the reported cases are accurate. And no, I don't think I suggested anything like witholding treatment.

The thing is, intentional or not, the numbers and size of the problem have been exaggerated. The best way to properly deal with a problem is have a clear understanding of the problem. Anyone relying on WHO numbers doesn't.

If we're going to take money out of the pocket of people in Oklahoma and buy things for people in Africa with it, we should at least know how many people we need to spend the money on.

Don't you agree?

If we buy enough drugs to treat everyone the WHO says is sick, but only a 1/3 of those people can actually use those drugs while addicts are waiting in the wings to get high off them, what do you think is going to happen?

Assuming global wealth redistribution is the solution, should it be redistributed responsibly? Can you concede that at least?

Sure - that seems to be a given. However, there is a problem of practicality here I think. How would you suggest obtaining accurate numbers of how many people are HIV-infected in Africa? I think you might find some major obstacles of practicality in testing them all, not least of which would be the expense. If you test sample numbers, enough to get an estimate of how many people are infected, you can know roughly how big the problem is, and how much medication is required based on that estimate. The actual testing could then perhaps be done at the time of distribution, saving a lot of money overall - money that could go towards saving lives. As I understand it, HIV testign can be done much quicker now than say 10-20 years ago, when it took weeks to get a result.

It seems to me a case of avoiding some bureaucracy.

That's not what they are doing tho. They are calling anyone who shows up sick an AIDS patient. Then they count them. Policy is being set according to incorrect numbers.

The push should be prevention. You don't have to treat someone who never gets the disease. That's where money would save the most lives, but that requires people over there having to change. Just passing out rubbers and suggesting they wear them isn't doing the trick.

I agree - but prevention is a very hard thing to do with sexually transmitted diseases. In the west there is also resistance to using condoms to this day, and as I understand it, the resistance is even greater in poorer countries. Why that is so is a good question - perhaps because when your life is so sad due to extreme poverty, the threat of possible disease and/or death in the future becomes less important to one (just guessing on that of course). Perhaps overall economic aid can also be seen as an STD prevention technique, by improving the lives of people.

And there also still remains the question of treatment for those already infected - even if its only 60% of a gazillion people, that's still an awful lot of people. Treatment and Prevention always work best hand-in-hand.

I did some research about attitudes towards condoms in the Kisumu area, which has the highest density of people with HIV/AIDS in Kenya and (I think; it's been a while) East Africa. The prevailing attitudes towards condoms there are that they're a "white" thing because most of the people pushing condoms are white, and there's a lot of mistrust of white people over there.

Odd, that wasn't my experience when I was in Kenya. I sensed that Americans and Europeans are well-liked by the general population. Then again, how you are treated and what people think of you can be different.

Whatever the surface reasons, the underlying reason is primitive ignorance. If they think "its a white thing," that's ignorant. If they think using a condom to save their life is bad because they don't trust white people and white people produce them or hand them out, that is ignorance.

What is the cure for ignorance like this?