Should African Nations loes any further aid from other nations? [|Sith|5|DarthWarman88 .vs. Ariovistus Maximus]

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Good luck my friend. I let you have the first word on this.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Ah, very good. Thank you DarthWarman, I shall begin.

Should we continue sending aid, monetary and otherwise, to Africa?

First, I am actually inclined to agree with Warman on this topic, in that I have my doubts as to the effectiveness of African aid. Furthermore, I am generally against the notion that we should feel obligation to Africa to do this. I think political correctness on that subject is a growing problem.

Also, I would like to point out that extremes on either side are both absurd and counter-productive.

However, I can see some points for it as well. Finally, even playing a bit of devil's advocate will, I think, make for a very interesting and productive debate.

Now, all that said, let's begin.

To my knowledge, Sub-Saharan Africa receives about an annual $15 billion in aid from Europe and the United States.

That is, in general terms, almost $20 per person.

Now, as to reasons that this is constructive, and should continue.

1. It is an investment. We live today in a global economy; by bringing Africa up to speed in this way, we can vastly increase it's potential in the long run.

Africa is already a contributor; it is rich in raw materials, such as gold, copper, and even uranium. Even from an entirely cold and calculating point of view, support of Africa is a wise move.

Look at South Africa. Less than 2 centuries ago, it too must have seemed backward and unpromising. Yet now, South Africa is a world player, and continues to grow. Would it not be wise, even if it takes 2 centuries, to work in the rest of Africa?

2. Suppose that, economically speaking, it would be profitable to withdraw from Africa.

This, then, may be a central theme of the debate:

Can we accomplish good things by the wrong methods, and does the end justify the means?

That is, can the goal (our own prosperity) be furthered by ethically/morally wrong methods (abandoning the people of Africa)? In the end, will we really be helping ourselves? Even SUPPOSING that we were to somehow further our immediate interests by keeping that money, is it worth the cost?

3. What is success, (assuming that withdrawal of funding would be a significant economic bonus) if to reach it we must abandon our humanity? Where, then, is compassion and kindness?

4. That is all assuming that the Western world is putting itself in dangerous economical straits by providing aid. If that is not shown, is there any reason to suspend foreign aid?

In closing, I honestly am not very much acquainted with this topic, and am researching it even now. So, I trust that what misconceptions are found will be given some clemency on that basis.

At any rate, I now yield the wall to Warman, my honorable opponent.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Thank you .



While it may be an "investment" in theory, one must realize the risks in investing their. Piracy, civil unrest in many of their nations, and blatant disrespect for the help from the western nations.


Yes, however, they would need much more money along with peace in their nations. There is no sense in building things there if they burn it down anyhow. The African nations need so many things that it would take many centuries before they can turn around. Besides, many of their nations do not want our help or not willing. Look at Somalia in 1993? Is this the way to say thank you?

Warning, the below picture is graphic. I hold no responsibility for this since You have been warned about it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Ariovistus Maximus]

While it may be an "investment" in theory, one must realize the risks in investing their. Piracy, civil unrest in many of their nations, and blatant disrespect for the help from the western nations.

In a way, I agree. The influence of the West, in some ways, is practically equivalent to time-travelling arms dealers supplying automatic weapons to the Crusaders. They are, in all honesty, socially unstable (HOW many civil wars are there?), and especially in terms of military influence, the West has done some damage there.

However, as we continue to work there, we also become better at managing our funds, and making sure they are applied properly. Keep in mind that the "powers that be" in Africa have funds of their own. That's where they get the weapons.

In short, foreign aid is not buying African warlords weapons. We're not just air-dropping gold bullion into Mogadishu.

Therefore, if anything MORE aid would be needed, to balance out that equation. So, piracy is not a product of foreign aid.

Civil unrest is one of the reasons FOR foreign aid. In the first place, this assistance will help to end strife and create order. Secondly, it is even more important to supply medical care etc. to the civilian population in times of civil unrest.

And, finally, disrespect. Unpleasant as it may seem to have our help thrown in our face, I think that such things are hardly so dire as you put it.

The key, here, is why we supply them. Do we do it for respect? Do we do it as a conscience salve? Do we do it to make them feel indebted to us?

No; that is entirely the wrong motive. This is for their betterment, whether it engratiates us to them or not.

It defeats the purpose of humanitarian aid if you only do it to make someone obligated to you.

Yes, however, they would need much more money along with peace in their nations.

Precisely. That is the goal.

You cannot forsake the battle simply because the day has not yet been won.

Just because it may not be perfect doesn't mean there's no reason to try.

There is no sense in building things there if they burn it down anyhow.

Not if that was the case universally. However, not only will our aid do substantial and permanent assistance (you can hardly claim that all, or even most, buildings built in your example are burned down), but it will also gradually tend to reduce the civil unrest to which you refer.

The African nations need so many things that it would take many centuries before they can turn around.

Exactly. But if every generation says, "Oh, it'll take CENTURIES! GAAH!"

Well, then nothing will ever happen. You have, actually, just acknowledged that humanitarian aid will eventually make the difference. You can only say that it takes a long time.

Besides, many of their nations do not want our help or not willing.

Then give it to the other 750 million who are willing.

Look at Somalia in 1993? Is this the way to say thank you?

Again, is our whole motive just to get a "thank-you?" That's rather vain, and it defeats the purpose.

By that logic, we never should have resisted Germany in WWII, because the nations of the world no longer bless us for it.

The fact is, regardless of people's gratitude (and it's rather stereotypical to assume that people are not grateful), it DID make the difference.

We may not realize that we are where we are because of those brave Allied soldiers 60 years ago, but they still made the difference.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

However, as we continue to work there, we also become better at managing our funds, and making sure they are applied properly. Keep in mind that the "powers that be" in Africa have funds of their own. That's where they get the weapons.

In short, foreign aid is not buying African warlords weapons. We're not just air-dropping gold bullion into Mogadishu.

Yes, but how are you going to stop them from using the money to buy weapons? Last time we sent troops there (US) we pulled out because we lost 19 troops and didn't have the balls to stay there.


Sure, you not air-dropping gold bullion in..... But you dropping food and other goods in there..... right into the hands of the militias.

The key, here, is why we supply them. Do we do it for respect? Do we do it as a conscience salve? Do we do it to make them feel indebted to us?

No; that is entirely the wrong motive. This is for their betterment, whether it engratiates us to them or not.

It defeats the purpose of humanitarian aid if you only do it to make someone obligated to you.

And when they kill the people trying to help them, then why even do it? They are obligated.... to show us simple respect and respect to their own kind.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Yes, but how are you going to stop them from using the money to buy weapons? Last time we sent troops there (US) we pulled out because we lost 19 troops and didn't have the balls to stay there.

Like I said, they would be buying that stuff regardless of aid. That's probably why foreign aid is needed; they spend so much money on... military endeavors.

Sure, you not air-dropping gold bullion in..... But you dropping food and other goods in there..... right into the hands of the militias.

I don't think they ever make a practice of arbitrarily dumping goods into any old place. They have personnel to deal with these things and oversee them.

And, rough as some African politicians may be, the last thing they need is heavy international pressure from abusing humanitarian funds or the administrators of those funds.

And when they kill the people trying to help them, then why even do it? They are obligated.... to show us simple respect and respect to their own kind.

Well, I'm going to call you on this statement, and request references and documentation on just how many persons from WHO, USAID, and the host of European organizations have been killed/injured for their efforts.

Now, compared to whatever risk you may show, I can show you vast improvements.

For instance, from the European Commission, not only can we see that African aid is about healing diseases and rebuilding homes (REACTIVE), but also PROACTIVE, in terms of advancing society, technology, and infrastructure.

Scientific projects, which are a primary example of the notion of investment in Africa:
http://ec.europa.eu/development/icen...science_en.pdf

Social-economic initiatives, which likewise are a flourishing investment:
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-s...ives/agci.html

Civil stability, which will help increase the effectiveness of other measures:
http://ec.europa.eu/development/icen...ecurity_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/development/icen..._rights_en.pdf

Anti-corruption efforts, which will eventually mean that we no longer are stuck in a cycle of REBUILDING what was, but are actually making PROGRESS towards the future.
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-s...orruption.html

And, of course, basic humanitarian aid:
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-s...ives/ieha.html

So, I think that, although the social issues that you mention are definitely a hinderance, they certainly do not overshadow the overall success of these efforts. Furthermore, these hinderances themselves are being dealt with, which means that our levels of success will continue to rise.

Therefore, I would think that your main contention would be directed towards where the money comes from, not its overall effectiveness.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

You there fierce enemy ?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Sorry; rather busy with school and all that.

Should you believe it is ok for the UN not to intervene in genocide cases with force? I guess telling Mass Murderers to step down from power and fly to the Hague to be imprisoned works better,eh?

No, but that is a point on which to improve, not a reason to give up. If anything, you are giving reasons for extended aid.

And, as has been noted elsewhere, this whole line of "debate" is somewhat random and not well defined. I suppose you refer to government aid though.

If most people are dead, I highly doubt the aid will do much good. You have to protect them so they can get the aid.

You are aware that there are millions and millions of people on the continent? Methinks you're blowing it out of proportion.

You have to teach them not to kill foreigners that come to help them. Can't just build an school and that's it. It's nice, but if the kids get murdered few weeks later by the militia, then blame us foreigners for it, it won't do much good, will it?

That is an effort which must go against thousands of years of history and culture; not going to change overnight.

Even with all the aid and "protection" that was given?

Again, we are discussing aid, not protection, and I don't see how you can ignore the vast records of various charitable organizations because of other tragic events.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Sorry; rather busy with school and all that.

No problem

You are aware that there are millions and millions of people on the continent? Methinks you're blowing it out of proportion.

800,000 deaths in Rwanda is not blowing it out ofproportion. The Somalians, with millions of citizens, not fighting back against the militia so the UN can come in safety and help them.... Sure.

That is an effort which must go against thousands of years of history and culture; not going to change overnight.

And....?

Again, we are discussing aid, not protection, and I don't see how you can ignore the vast records of various charitable organizations because of other tragic events.

I'm not. But if Africa is still doing horrible, expect for places like South Africa, well, then, where is the true results?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

800,000 deaths in Rwanda is not blowing it out ofproportion. The Somalians, with millions of citizens, not fighting back against the militia so the UN can come in safety and help them.... Sure.

Ah, but it is when you ignore the other 799,200,000.

And....?

...you need to give it more time.

I'm not. But if Africa is still doing horrible, expect for places like South Africa, well, then, where is the true results?

The results are in the USAID reports I gave you. However, what is a cup of white paint in a gallon of black?

Well, think of African aid as a teaspoon of white paint per year.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Well, think of African aid as a teaspoon of white paint per year.

And Africa is still in turmoil today. Some progress, sure..... But only if the nations WANT it. If they don't want it, all the aid in the world will not help them.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

So... they don't want food, water, and shelter?

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Not all of them feel like that, but if they keep fighting each other......

[Ariovistus Maximus]

But some do.

When you are at the point where your resources are simply overflowing and everyone who wants help gets it, then that might be a case.

So anyways where does that leave us? This topic is a bit to macro-oriented to really cover anything in detail...

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

That Africa isn't really getting better. South Africa might be, since they are already mostly civilized, but the other nations still living like they are in the 1800's.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

We both argeed to a draw on this. The Imperial Swissland Military held, but could not break my opponent. Good job my friend!


Moderator, you may close the curtain and clean up the bodies .

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well, our topic was a bit too macro-oriented; left too much space. Nonetheless it was interesting, decent practice what?

Good show mate, and perhaps I shall meet you on the field of battle in the future!

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

[Каие]

If you are not one of the named debaters, don't post in this thread.