Even though the US helps many Third Word countries in times of famine and other disasters, she really doesn't want these people, especialy those in Africa, to gain much in the way of education or a higher sandard of living.The US never talks about educating these people, and Aids deaths just means less people to provide for. So despite humanitarian efforts, the US (and other more progressive countries) have good reason NOT to be concerned.
After all, just imagine the price of oil if even a third of the Third World countries in Africa were living on the same level as, let's say, middle class Americans.
2006-10-20 18:16:08 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I don't mean to be rude but I'm afraid only about half of the answerers have any idea of what the question is about. The question has nothing to do with
"Why is it the Us's responsibility to correct the educational problems and economic problems of Africa"
or
"that america and many countrys are partly responsible for africas decline."
or
" I think Africa is its own problem, North Korea is North Koreas"
or
"... lYou obviously do not know what you are talking about"
Very succinctly, the question was what is called a "hypothetical" or asking you to imagine something. It was not posed for a political debate. Sometimes if answerers don't understand a question they should not attempt to answer it. Here half of you knew the answer straightaway.....The other half were lost. But thanks anyway.....
2006-10-20 18:55:55 · update #1
You pose a good question. Since China has increased the # of autos the demand for oil has certainly increased. Maybe it would be better for those countries to use ethanol like Brazil, who will become free from imports by 2010.
2006-10-20 18:20:41 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. Smith 61 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok, so what are you getting at. I am lost. But I do feel that america and many countrys are partly responsible for africas decline. I think Africa is its own problem, North Korea is North Koreas.... We got the $$$ we can help. We can help if we got the credit for the $$$$$, its all about the $$$$$.... U see. But as a american, I love my country down to every citizen n I cant complain.
2006-10-20 18:37:38 · answer #2 · answered by C T 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The USA is forever talking about educating them, the problem is that their government do not want us to provide them that kind of help. They want our money so they can steal it instead of giving it to the poor. Sure they provide a little food here and there, just enough to appease. Their leaders know to well that if their people were educated they would be booted out so fast their heads would spin.
As when it comes to AIDS, Bush has provided so much money to help Africa
http://www.africaaction.org/docs03/bush0307.htm
2006-10-20 18:58:36 · answer #3 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is it the Us's responsibility to correct the educational problems and economic problems of Africa. Maybe if they stopped killing each other in ethnic warfare, and didn't have dictators in most countries they could improve their living conditions. Why is it if we get involved in a conflict with another country, the whole world says we need to mind our own business, and stay out of other countries affairs, but they want to give billions of dollars to them, and fix all their problems?.
2006-10-20 18:25:59 · answer #4 · answered by mark g 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, we did have a substantial decline in standard of living during the Bush administration. Our standard of living is declining as I type this response. Another neocon in office would have made matters even worse for the poor and middle class. And Obama is no socialist. He's actually quite pro business. Real socialists refer to him as a hedge fund Democrat because of his pro business voting record in Illinois. The folks that are currently in his administration are largely in favor of more Wall Street bailouts because they are from Wall Street. We actually need someone much farther to the left than Obama. When conservatives call Obama a socialist they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
2016-05-22 07:00:25 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The amount of global trade would increase a thousand-fold. This would be a free-enterprise capitalist's dream, but a nightmare for warlords and Stalinist dictators who need impoverished and uneducated masses.
As far as the price of fossil fuel, it would go the way of whale oil. World-wide sales of alternative energy sources could be very lucrative, especially since you'd have a much bigger market and bigger demand for it.
2006-10-20 18:26:37 · answer #6 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As the old saying goes, "Give a man a Fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to Fish, feed him for life." Unfortunately, along with the lesson, you need bait (hopefully still underfoot), nylon string and fishing hooks (you can get a branch to fish with if need be). However, now that 1/3 of the rest of the World has met US standards, VERY SADLY, the price of nylon strings and hooks are now $2,000 each. :/
That's greed for ya!
2006-10-20 18:26:46 · answer #7 · answered by AdamKadmon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An increase in global warming
2006-10-20 18:37:42 · answer #8 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would be a hole lot better off and they would no longer be a third world country.
2006-10-20 18:20:21 · answer #9 · answered by Preacher's Daughter 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You obviously do not know what you are talking about and have not researched the statements that you are affirming to be true.
2006-10-20 18:20:25 · answer #10 · answered by Friend_88 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋