Posted on 07/17/2006 9:32:55 PM PDT by lainie
When many countries from around the world start fighting on a large scale, then there could be a world war.
Nordics tend to be a light brown, central Africans a dark brown.
Those who have frequently been to many countries in the continent would probably know more if there is an actually aids epidemic.
By many accounts, the BBC is more liberal than CNN (though both are liberal, one just more than the other).
They are but sometimes I preferred the more understated manner of the British. For example, I don't think Anderson Cooper and his theatrics would fit the BBC image. (I lost whatever respect I might have had for him while watching him freak out over a barge sitting in the Mississippi during his Hurricane Katrina coverage in my hometown of Baton Rouge.)
I liked the interviewers on the BBC also - sometimes the anchors on CNN ask the most asinine questions. So it was a choice between liberal bias and slightly more liberal bias with a bit more intelligence.
US sends out billions in foreign aid money.
Most of us are tax payers.
I'd say most of us have given more than our fair share. What's the rest of the world doing about the problem?
Maybe the supplier of the Tainted Blood should step up to the plate here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/889385/posts
Tainted blood deals raise international furor
Africa should try helping itself. It is like a welfare continent. And as long as the rest of the world feeds it they will not do for themselves.
I thought Bill Gates had bought all of the world's AIDS victims. Perhaps I misread the story.
She's got her timing wrong. They're supposed to broadcast it between Thanksgiving and Christmas in order to maximize donations.
Speaking of Christmas, a derivative of Scrooge's comment comes to mind. Let them die, and decrease the surplus population.
While this is true, "the world" will not allow for the only solution that would solve the problem. Since we can not apply the only solution that will solve this, what is there to do?
Africa has an over abundance of resources, there is no logical reason why it can not support those that live there. The illogical reason is that the leadership of many countries are nothing more then corrupt bullies.
The solution would be for the west to re-enter Africa, eliminate "the bullies" and restore order. But "the world" will not allow that. What "the world" wants is to tax you and me to send more money to the bullies, which as we have seen solves nothing.
So again, what is it you expect from us?
Sympathy, you got it. I feel bad for those that are suffering.
Now what? Money? NO! Money is not the solution.
So what is it you would like to see us do?
I am not asking you to do anything. Maybe with more awareness there will be more solutions. Articles like this are meant to create awareness and they serve a good purpose. It isn't always about taking your money. Personally, I can't do anything but pray for these poor children.
Thank you. It is threads like this that make me believe I don't belong at FR at all. I find it hard to believe that so many can read the story, without feeling anything at all for these children. I don't know which is more sad, kids with no parents or people with no feelings.
I correspond regularly with a sister in Uganda. She is in a medical mission and will be celebrating her 50th year of service in Uganda. She tells me that 1 of every 5 people there has HIV or AIDS. I believe her. I don't know where you got that information. I would tend to not believe it.
Maybe so, but it doesn't make the children responsible for the situation they are in. They are suffering, through no fault of their own. I often wonder how different my life would have been, if I had been born to a poor family in Africa instead of in the US. I was very lucky to be born here, but I certainly didn't do anything to deserve it. The bottom line is that I was lucky and these children weren't.
Fair enough.
You could support one of several missions that are feeding, clothing, sheltering, and administering medical help to the orphans.
You didn't refute my point. If they expand the definition of AIDS then of course she gets a lot of cases.
I don't know what you mean by expand the definition. The people she treats are the ones who are sick. They don't have the resources to give the drugs to all that just test positive. I would like to know what expansion you are talking about and your source of the information. You might be right, but it doesn't match what I read and hear about the African situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.