Did Clinton simply try to keep the Libs' San Francisco crowd happy?
Didn't Clinton really care about the vast numbers of people who were dying ?
2007-10-28 06:49:10 · 17 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
AIDS was a more glamorous topic, that's all. He really didn't care, it was all for appearances.
2007-10-28 06:52:40 · answer #1 · answered by Eraserhead 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Tricky question, difficult answer. I've lived in East Africa for many years as a missionary kid and this is what we faced daily. Why do the industrial countries send laptop computers to poor kids when they don't even have food for the day? What will they do with a computer if they are dead tomorrow?
More people, especially children, die from Malaria than any other disease, and it's treatable with very cheap and simple medicine. The sad truth? AIDS is more "exciting" and serious and more important; the drugs are crazy expensive. So the drug companies send AIDS medication so they can make more money (write it off for taxes as donations) and what do the recipients do? They sell the medication so that they can get food for the day. Are there millions in this world with AIDS? Yes, I've seen villages after villages with entire generations swept away by this disease and it's not pretty. Solution? Education about prevention! There are still African cultures that believe the only way they can get rid of their HIV/ AIDS is to have intercourse with a virgin. That's what they need to be educated about. They need people who really care, not someone who just drop off medication so that they can feel they did a good deed for humanity.
2007-10-28 14:01:17 · answer #2 · answered by Michelle Q 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is a grain of truth in what you say, however, this is not just a "Clinton" problem...AIDS gets the attention, Aids gets the money....some studies have found that much of the disease in Africa could be prevented through better sanitation, clean water, etc. Also they found that many deaths in Africa are attributed to AIDS when in truth they were caused by malnutrition and other disease because they get more money if they attribute deaths to AIDS. Saying Clinton didn't care about these deaths is stretching it.
2007-10-28 13:59:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
probably because 24 million is much larger number than 15 million.
report from the United Nations says that AIDS will kill half of all 15 year olds in Zimbabwe, Botswana, and South Africa by 2012 if something is not done soon. The report goes on to say that about 24 million people in Sub-Sahara Africa are living with HIV.
http://aids.about.com/cs/aidsfactsheets/a/africa.htm
also when you compare the infection reservoirs, and how they are spread, AIDs appears to be the easiest on to prevent, through education. Which problems do you tackle first? the easy ones and get them out of the way, or the hard ones which will probably cause you to have to put off the easy ones for another time?
2007-10-28 13:54:19 · answer #4 · answered by Boss H 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Why do some people concentrate on the problems, such as health, in foreign countries before the problem at home is addressed? The money Clinton spent should have been done here. It is proven that Governments acquire wealth for themselves then rely on foreign aid to support health programs. This needs to stop.
2007-10-28 13:57:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Bungle Blow perhaps it's because the enormity of the AIDS crisis as compared to malaria
By December 2000, 21.8 million persons worldwide had died of AIDS, including more Americans (438,795) than died in World Wars I and II. Soon AIDS deaths are likely to exceed the estimated 25 million deaths caused by the Black Death in the 14th century.
By the way according to the CDC it's only 2.5 mil illustrating two points
1. you pull facts out of your backside
2. AIDS is a greater and more immediate crisis
2007-10-28 13:53:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Yeah, sure he did....When somebody asked him. That's right, when you're RIGHT and you take a dig at their god, Clinton, then it's just "cheap and disgusting." But if you want to criticize Bush, go right ahead. I guess they really hate that Bush has sent more money to combat both Malaria and AIDS in Africa then any recent President----and it's succeeding!
See....it's only 2.5 million Africans! C'mon! That's nothing! (Gosh, these people are amazing!) Oh, and Malaria can be FATAL!
2007-10-28 13:55:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Questions that use the deaths of millions of people to make a cheap political dig are pretty disgusting. You're not presenting all of the facts. Whats worse is you're not even trying to give any details.
2007-10-28 13:54:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
The world's problems are just too vast for one person or one country to solve in a short period of time. You have to make choices.
2007-10-28 13:52:27 · answer #9 · answered by Dan H 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
He did it to ally himself with a voter segment. He did not really care at all what happened to any African. While he was Governor of my state, Arkansas, he was caught multiple times using the "n*****" word when referring to blacks. He is a politician combined with being a lawyer...need anyone say more?
2007-10-28 13:59:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Malaria is treatable and isn't always fatal either. Priority is given to incurable diseases by all governments.
2007-10-28 13:53:54 · answer #11 · answered by jenesuispasunnombre 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋