What should Europe do about the problems in Africa - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By Conspectator
#1228778
Europe obviously does have strategic interest: if for no other reason then because unlike the US it is within easy reach by sea and by land. And besause after they destroy their natural habitats and - as some expect - "(700 millions now, above a billion in the future)more more and more people will go in the cities creating huge megapolis ravaged by poverty,disease and civil war", many will not stay in that unpleasant place but will try to break into European countries. If there is a massive tide of migration in millions, Europe will be simply overrun.
Kind of weird of "us" in the west to always say others much be carefull with their enviroment, afther we in europe cut down almost all our forrests
Weird or not, although we maight have destroyed a fair shair of natural habitats in the past - but it is a matter of fact today we (the developed countries) are the only pleople who are at all seriously concerned with saving the habitats, humanity's common treasure, for future generations of humans of all races - including the descendants of today's developing word's populations of course. It has nothing to do with who did what in the past: it is about who can do what today and in the future.
User avatar
By CardiffCelt
#1228812
Africa seems almost incapable of self-governance, unless you want to revive the empire and sort things out for them, theres sod all can be done.
User avatar
By droodle
#1229041
The continent of Africa is of no strategic value to the United States. We have some interests in the Arab states of North Africa(particularly Egypt, Morocco, and Algeria), and in backing Ethiopia's attempt to combat militant Islam in the Horn, but other than that, the whole continent can go up in flames.


Have you no conscience?

Really, that's a serious question. Would you not agree that people have an innate right to live, and that people have an obligation to make the life of fellow human beings as good as possible?
By ZeusIrae
#1229077
You have to stay realistic,our power is limited and hell is paved with good intentions.

Africa needs good governments and we can't bring that too them.And I don't see how they could get it by themselves.Corruption and more corruption seems to be the future.

When I say that there's nothing that can be done, it doesn't mean that I don't care.

But I honestly don't see what we could do.
By Shade2
#1229101
Why Europe should be warried? Because the population growth in Africa will put enormous pressure on the available resources of food and water, and our aid simply will not do

Africa is different continent then Europe. Anyway if they try to harm our resources we can use force to secure them.
Europe obviously does have strategic interest: if for no other reason then because unlike the US it is within easy reach by sea and by land.

Its cheaper and easier just to block the wave o migrants then fix Africa and accomodate the migrants.


. If there is a massive tide of migration in millions, Europe will be simply overrun.

A good monitoring system and military action can stop that. No need to panic.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1229635
Have you no conscience?


Nations don't run on conscience; not in the least bit.

Would you not agree that people have an innate right to live, and that people have an obligation to make the life of fellow human beings as good as possible?


I would most definately disagree. Whether "we're all human beings" or not is irrelevant. This is reality, not an anti-war concert. I don't want my tax dollars wasted on foreigners unless it serves the strategic foreign policy of the United States government.
User avatar
By droodle
#1229653
Zeus

You have to stay realistic,our power is limited and hell is paved with good intentions.

Africa needs good governments and we can't bring that too them.And I don't see how they could get it by themselves.Corruption and more corruption seems to be the future.

When I say that there's nothing that can be done, it doesn't mean that I don't care.

But I honestly don't see what we could do.


Our power is limited, but hell does not exist and the best way to make progress is start by having good intentions.

Africa needs more than good intentions. It needs possibilities, education, and equal power relations. And Europe can do something about this, for example by loweringtrade barriers.
User avatar
By droodle
#1229660
Nations don't run on conscience; not in the least bit.


I would most definately disagree. Whether "we're all human beings" or not is irrelevant. This is reality, not an anti-war concert. I don't want my tax dollars wasted on foreigners unless it serves the strategic foreign policy of the United States government.



You are not a nation, are you? Even so, nations do act on moral reasons. Otherwise, explain the differing expenses in foreign aid percentages.

Anarchy is what states make of it. If states prefer a selfdefence system, other states may do the same, or band together, or form ties on moral common ground.

Why do you prefer your ties to your government to your ties to your fellow human beings? Why is the strategic position of the US more important than their educational system?
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1229676
You are not a nation, are you?


No, but my personal morality is irrelevant to the equation.

Even so, nations do act on moral reasons. Otherwise, explain the differing expenses in foreign aid percentages


Yes, I would argue that the Bush administration has done a fair bit of pandering to the African lobby.

Why do you prefer your ties to your government to your ties to your fellow human beings?


I prefer my ties to country than my ties to foreigners. I have no responsibility to the Africans. This is a more common position than you realize.

Why is the strategic position of the US more important than their educational system?


Because their education system doesn't matter to me. Let them fend for themselves, and let the U.S. government look out for Americans only.
User avatar
By droodle
#1229758
No, but my personal morality is irrelevant to the equation.


why
Yes, I would argue that the Bush administration has done a fair bit of pandering to the African lobby.


and America did not get invaded by any other country. So there is room for idealistic politics.

I prefer my ties to country than my ties to foreigners. I have no responsibility to the Africans. This is a more common position than you realize.


i asked why, not for a repetition of your argument.

Because their education system doesn't matter to me. Let them fend for themselves, and let the U.S. government look out for Americans only.


should the US government not divert money from their military to their education, i meant.
By Conspectator
#1229814
Would you not agree that people have an innate right to live, and that people have an obligation to make the life of fellow human beings as good as possible?
To this - as it stands - the answer is "well, yeah...": with a qualification that every national government's primary obligation is to look after the best interests of not just all and any people anywhere, but of its own national constituency to which it owes its democratic accountability.(!)

But this is a bit of a misleading approach in this case.
Speaking of a population growth we are speaking of people who do not exist at all - have not been born or even conceived yet. I'm not sure we can even discuss moral obligations towards such non-existing individuals. Should we really feel responsible for the wellbeing of people who just might potentially get born?... Well, if they never do get born, then neither their wellbeing will ever become our concern or anyone's concern for that matter.

I agree that all living "people have an innate right to live", but to go on that evey unconceived person should equally have an "innate right" to be conceived, born, and live - that sounds rather absurd. To focus on preventing the population growth is the answer. I do have some problem with feeling for non-existing people you see :)
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1229848
why


Because nations tend to function as amoral entities.

and America did not get invaded by any other country. So there is room for idealistic politics


Who said America got invaded by anyone?

i asked why, not for a repetition of your argument.


I'm telling you why. I care not for the development of other countries. All they are is competition that should be made economically subservient.

should the US government not divert money from their military to their education, i meant.


The U.S. should not spend a dime on African education programs.
By proudtobeamerican
#1229873
The U.S. should not spend a dime on African education programs.


I've been reading this and agree with you on some of your theory, however I believe it is in every humans heart to share the wealth to those who are less fortunate. For us to take resources from Africa, yet not do anything in return is just not right at all. The African is suffering not because there isn't money, but because of greedy governments and corrupt companies that control the countries in the area.

It is our divine right to help every living person, no matter what their religion, race, or sex is. Everyone deserves the right to a fair education. Europe owes it to them for all we have done traumatically to the African population.

So, yes, they do deserve money for education, food, and other things from us. However, this should go directly to that and not to governments that tend to find other ways to spend the money.

It is always important to support life, no matter who they are.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1229884
I've been reading this and agree with you on some of your theory, however I believe it is in every humans heart to share the wealth to those who are less fortunate. For us to take resources from Africa, yet not do anything in return is just not right at all. The African is suffering not because there isn't money, but because of greedy governments and corrupt companies that control the countries in the area.

It is our divine right to help every living person, no matter what their religion, race, or sex is. Everyone deserves the right to a fair education. Europe owes it to them for all we have done traumatically to the African population.

So, yes, they do deserve money for education, food, and other things from us. However, this should go directly to that and not to governments that tend to find other ways to spend the money.

It is always important to support life, no matter who they are.


I respect your opinion, but I very strongly disagree. The U.S. government should be concerned with the standard of living for Americans only.
User avatar
By droodle
#1230084
I agree that all living "people have an innate right to live", but to go on that evey unconceived person should equally have an "innate right" to be conceived, born, and live - that sounds rather absurd. To focus on preventing the population growth is the answer. I do have some problem with feeling for non-existing people you see Smile


I'm not a prolifer, I just think that once people are born, thy have the riht to live and all other people have th obligation to help them live.
User avatar
By droodle
#1230087
Because nations tend to function as amoral entities.


Do they? And if so, is that a good thing? You just said the US did so by helping Africa.

Who said America got invaded by anyone?


That is th standard reason for realism; giving money to things that do not improve strategic position of countries leads to a suboptimal strategic position and thus a threat to national security and citizens.
I'm telling you why. I care not for the development of other countries. All they are is competition that should be made economically subservient.


That only holds true if one maintains that the world as far as you are concerned is made up of states. If economical classes or mankind as a whole (vs nature). I also believe that human beings are not a burden on everyone else, but can and do contribute to the welfare of all. Say, for example, that all Indians had died - apart from the nonmaterial gains in changing the way you perceive the world and experience in dealing with other cultures, it would make your phonecalls to telecenters for help rather epensive.

The U.S. should not spend a dime on African education programs.


I am not tlaking about Africa, but about american education.
By Shade2
#1230403
Europe owes it to them for all we have done traumatically to the African population.

What ?! I regard this as racist slander. Please do tell what Slovakia or Belarus "have done traumatically to the African population".
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1230730
they? And if so, is that a good thing? You just said the US did so by helping Africa


They generally do, and yes, it's a good thing if you want to gain international power. The U.S. must remain a superpower by any means neccessary.

That is th standard reason for realism; giving money to things that do not improve strategic position of countries leads to a suboptimal strategic position and thus a threat to national security and citizens.


True.

That only holds true if one maintains that the world as far as you are concerned is made up of states. If economical classes or mankind as a whole (vs nature). I also believe that human beings are not a burden on everyone else, but can and do contribute to the welfare of all. Say, for example, that all Indians had died - apart from the nonmaterial gains in changing the way you perceive the world and experience in dealing with other cultures, it would make your phonecalls to telecenters for help rather epensive.


There is no collective humanity. Nations have separate interests, they always have, and they always will. I care not for global interests, but for national ones.

I am not tlaking about Africa, but about american education.


American education should be privatized.
By Conspectator
#1231045
Please do tell what Slovakia or Belarus "have done traumatically to the African population".
Not Slovakia or Belarus, but - funny thing to mention - Poland certainly did harbour such colonialist ambitions toward the African population.

It is well recorded that in late 1920s-30s under Pilsudski Poland discussed with France the purchase or transfer of Madagascar under Polish sovereignty so that Poles could go and take full advantage of colonising it. "Osadnictwo" was apparently not content with their colonised lands in Western Ukraine and Belarus :)

So in that anticipation Poles even had popular songs about hunting "dzikiego slonia", "od bialego tatki i czarnej matki beda dziatki w kratki", etc. Ask any Pole of that generation.

Yes WWII stopped Polish colonialism in Africa in its tracks but you can't deny there was a clear Polish intention to expose the African population to the colonialist trauma (taking over from the French).
User avatar
By droodle
#1231380
They generally do, and yes, it's a good thing if you want to gain international power. The U.S. must remain a superpower by any means neccessary.


The US still is a superpower even thougjh it is helping Africa. Also, superpower status not only consists of army size but also of goodwill and moral leadership. The European attitude towards the US has not changed because the US army is slinking (not even sure if it is) but because it acts in ways that seem immoral to europeans. And thus its power declines.

There is no collective humanity. Nations have separate interests, they always have, and they always will. I care not for global interests, but for national ones.


human beings also have contrasting interests, and oftime their interests overlap with people from other countries but with the same socioeconomical status rather than with fellow countrymen of a differing socioeconomic status.

American education should be privatized.


wouldn't education be better if the government sponsored it with, say, 505 billion annually?

Your taxes pay for the UN more than any other c[…]

As you say, it costs us a ton of money, because w[…]

My favorite type of MRA is the one who just waits […]

EU-BREXIT

The NI backstop originates with the EU. This (ins[…]