English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Quite a lot of money involved . Would it not have been better used saving lives rather than standards of living for so few ?

2007-09-21 09:20:42 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Current Events

16 answers

Would have been cheaper and probably a better investment in the long term.

I suppose, it could have bought Africa outright.

2007-09-21 09:23:53 · answer #1 · answered by Zed 6 · 1 2

I think if you give money to that bunch of greedy politicians it would be like pouring it into a enormous black hole then you would see killing on a grand scale each one would end up with brand new army's and if it is a large enough sum it would probably be with a few nukes thrown in for good measure a thing about African politics is they have a thing about being a leader once they are in that position most of them will do anything to stay that way if you look at the security forces and the government ministers of just about all of those country's are living the high life by contrast look at the average Joe soap hunger and misery is the order of the day Now if you were to lay down a simple law IE: that the country concerned would sign a defence agreement with a major power that all army and security would be looked after by that major power and that African country would no longer require an army (the police should remain the domain of African governments) send in the U/N to show and teach farmers and young people the basics of survival farming etc lay down strict verifiable rules on moneys handed out and given what most people need out of life and that is dignity and pride in their achievements it would probably work the money saved alone on not having an army or need to bye arms and pay army people could take care of most of the finances anyhow

2007-09-21 10:19:46 · answer #2 · answered by the bee man 4 · 1 0

the two communities are the two stable thinking the factors that they have for the try series. the only difference is that England has bowlers who can bat properly like Swann,extensive and Anderson on an identical time as with SA,only Steyn can placed up some resistance whilst it incorporates decrease order batting that could become mandatory faster or later in the series.England additionally holds the sting as they comprehend the situations extra effective than SA.i might assume an extremely tight contest between the two communities. Smith is a style of batsman can turn it around every time in the series with heavy scores and him being a factor of the gang as skipper makes a great style of difference.style is short-term yet type is everlasting.Strauss is likewise similar to smith he performs whilst it concerns the main,look what he did to India final summer time.

2016-11-06 01:43:15 · answer #3 · answered by caton 4 · 0 0

Sorry but most help going to Africa is lost into the hands of corrupt politicians or incompetent officials.I hate this too but history shows that this is fact.

Africa's problems are not "our fault" as some say, they are the fault of African corruption and incompetence.

wilfred b , above is right, Rhodesia produced 20 times the food needed and exported all over Africa, now Zimbabwe can't feed itself

2007-09-21 09:38:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

The BoE is responsible for the nation's wealth and for crises such as the Northern Rock crisis. It is not up to the BoE to make charitable donations to foreign nations, giving aid is a matter for the government, and the UK gives a bigger proportion of its GDP in foreign aid than most (approx. 0.5% GDP)

Giving money away is never a good idea. There is a crisis in Zimbabwe, 80% unemployment and hyper-inflation of around 6000%, but why should we pay for the poor policies of Robert Mugabe, or any other criminal regime? If African countries need money and debt relief we should give it to them, on condition that they replace corrupt governments with competent ones.

2007-09-21 09:30:38 · answer #5 · answered by Phil McCracken 5 · 5 0

If the Bank of England was called the Bank of Africa you would probably be right.

2007-09-21 09:27:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

I think they should hand over to the Bank of Scotland. They have a much better business record. No wonder. I cant find a single Bank of England branch in which to open an account.

2007-09-21 09:55:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

NO!!! We give more than enough to Africa already. That's why the other African nations standby and do nothing. They no we will always pick up the bill. Its like having a friend who always runs to the toilet when its his turn to by the drinks.

2007-09-21 11:05:06 · answer #8 · answered by Jack 3 · 3 0

Saving Africa is on a completely different order of magnitude.

2007-09-21 09:27:45 · answer #9 · answered by James Mack 6 · 5 1

If Africa's corrupt govts. and dictators clubbed together and stopped spending money on weapons then poverty and hunger would be a thing of the past.

2007-09-21 09:50:34 · answer #10 · answered by mini metro 6 · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers