Question: would this improve the perception of america

[yeat182]

I caught part of an interview O'reilly was doing with Bono the other night at the RNC. they were talking alot about Bono's work with AIDS victims in africa and Bono said something i found interesting. He said that we have the drugs that can seriously help the people in africa, and while we've given alot of money to help fight AIDS, it isn't really enough. He said we would be better served to dontate the drugs to help these people, and not simply for the bleeding heart reasons that most people claim. He said that this one act would be the greatest boost the world perception of America (which currently isn't great), and that it could almost single handedly win over the rest of the world. O'reilly asked if he wanted the drug companies to donate the drugs, and Bono said that it was highly unlikely that would ever happen, but said the government should purchase the drugs and then donate them where they are needed. O'reilly asked if Bono thought american taxpayers would want their tax dollars going towards something like this, and again Bono brought up how much it would show the world what america is truly about, he cited not only how america liberated Europe in WWII but rebuilt it more or less single handedly. so my question is this, would you, as a taxpayer, support the purchase of these drugs by the government and the subsequent donation to foreign countries?

i am all for it, not only are you saving lives, but you show the rest of the world what america is really like. its a win-win as far as i can see. if the money is a problem, cut some over-funded federal projects that don't work. (ie. welfare)

[venus/bacchus]

I'm all for both cutting funding to federal projects (or cutting the programs all together) and helping the world where needed. This covers my two main points of interest.

[Justin_stacy]

it wouldn't help, nothing would, because the part of the world that hates us, hates us because they resent the power we have. And throwing money at Africa wouldn't change that. Proof for my conclusion can be seen all over the world, we (the usa) provide and pay for the security of Korea, Japan, Europe and Canada (too a point) and all these countries still dislike us....so if providing them with something, free, doesn't change their perseption of us, why would providing africa with something, change it?

[BrandNew20]

yeat, I'm all for redefining welfare so that it costs taxpayers less money, but there are legitimate people who do need the welfare money.

[BrandNew20]

As far as this issue goes for improving america, I can't see how it would hurt. And obviously in a situation as unstable politically as parts of Africa are, fighting aids and supplying food to the region would help prevent brutal dictators from taking over in the first place. I would support this plan as long as the cost wasn't outrageous.

[cal1082]

The idea is not bad if you're going to spend the money on other useless programs here in the US, but kind of worthless when you consider it wouldn't stop the spread of HIV in Africa. It would only prolong the life of those who have HIV, but for how long?

Also I dont think it would help the US perception one bit. I guess it was earlier this year when the Bush administration signed on for like a 16 billion dollar aid package to Africa. Did that help? No.....so I dont see how you could conclude this would.

[_astheruinfalls]

I'd be for it.

[Love As Arson]

I'd be in favor of it, but I disagree about cutting welfare in order to fund it.
Also, I think the world hates us because the way we use our power adversely affects them.

[open mind]

I caught part of an interview O'reilly was doing with Bono the other night at the RNC. they were talking alot about Bono's work with AIDS victims in africa and Bono said something i found interesting. He said that we have the drugs that can seriously help the people in africa, and while we've given alot of money to help fight AIDS, it isn't really enough. He said we would be better served to dontate the drugs to help these people, and not simply for the bleeding heart reasons that most people claim. He said that this one act would be the greatest boost the world perception of America (which currently isn't great), and that it could almost single handedly win over the rest of the world. O'reilly asked if he wanted the drug companies to donate the drugs, and Bono said that it was highly unlikely that would ever happen, but said the government should purchase the drugs and then donate them where they are needed. O'reilly asked if Bono thought american taxpayers would want their tax dollars going towards something like this, and again Bono brought up how much it would show the world what america is truly about, he cited not only how america liberated Europe in WWII but rebuilt it more or less single handedly. so my question is this, would you, as a taxpayer, support the purchase of these drugs by the government and the subsequent donation to foreign countries?

i am all for it, not only are you saving lives, but you show the rest of the world what america is really like. its a win-win as far as i can see. if the money is a problem, cut some over-funded federal projects that don't work. (ie. welfare)
have our government do for africa what it doesn't do for us and do it by screwing over our own people who need help?not for it.

[Love As Arson]

have our government do for africa what it doesn't do for us and do it by screwing over our own people who need help?not for it.
Their country is ravaged by AIDS. Thousands get AIDS everyday. We, on the other hand, are successfully fighting AIDS. It would make sense that we help them because they need it more than our people do.

[richter915]

ya seriously Africa and Eastern Europe are the two "hotspots" for AIDS right now and I think the best thing the US can do is provide not only medication, but more importantly educational tools to help them learn the downside of AIDS and sex. People in America don't have sex until late in their teens, and it's usually to someone they are friends with and they take the necessary precautions (condoms)...in Africa...the average woman loses her virginity at 15 to a man about ten years older. There are far greater cases of rape and they lack things such as condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS from man to woman, woman to man, and mother to child.

Also, Bush has cut the number of condoms the US donates to Africa since he came into office. He also cut the amount of cash the US donates to the Global Fund. It went from a few million to like...five hundred grand...I think.

I don't recall Bush putting $16 million into AIDS in Africa.

I would definitely love my tax dollars going to AIDS research and aid.

[yeat182]

I don't recall Bush putting $16 million into AIDS in Africa.




he did

[richter915]

he did
I never said he didn't.

[cal1082]

Also if I'm not mistaken that was the largest amount of money to go towards the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

[richter915]

Also if I'm not mistaken that was the largest amount of money to go towards the AIDS epidemic in Africa.
seriously...I am uber shocked I heard nothing about this...All I remember was Bush cutting the amount of condoms sent and when there was that big AIDS meeting in Southeast Asia...the US cut it's donation there...where can I read more about his contributions?

[cal1082]

seriously...I am uber shocked I heard nothing about this...All I remember was Bush cutting the amount of condoms sent and when there was that big AIDS meeting in Southeast Asia...the US cut it's donation there...where can I read more about his contributions?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/14/health/main563215.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/16/politics/main554161.shtml

[richter915]

thanks.

I found this article here about bush and his war on condoms if anyone is interested...

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040712&s=ireland

[open mind]

Their country is ravaged by AIDS. Thousands get AIDS everyday. We, on the other hand, are successfully fighting AIDS. It would make sense that we help them because they need it more than our people do.
i've known people who couldn't afford aids meds, the numbers of aids cases aren't really going down in america, i'm pretty sure they've been pretty consistent, so if we have people who can't afford meds and we aren't really making much progress in getting rid of the disease, how are we succsesfully fighting aids in this country?
they need it more then our people do? are you saying our people don't die from aids? or are you saying that african lives are more important then ours?

[open mind]

ya seriously Africa and Eastern Europe are the two "hotspots" for AIDS right now and I think the best thing the US can do is provide not only medication, but more importantly educational tools to help them learn the downside of AIDS and sex. People in America don't have sex until late in their teens, and it's usually to someone they are friends with and they take the necessary precautions (condoms)...in Africa...the average woman loses her virginity at 15 to a man about ten years older. There are far greater cases of rape and they lack things such as condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS from man to woman, woman to man, and mother to child.

Also, Bush has cut the number of condoms the US donates to Africa since he came into office. He also cut the amount of cash the US donates to the Global Fund. It went from a few million to like...five hundred grand...I think.

I don't recall Bush putting $16 million into AIDS in Africa.
I would definitely love my tax dollars going to AIDS research and aid.
education is definatly needed, some people over there still believe the cure for aids is having sex with a virgin.

[richter915]

Aids will never been eradicated.

"safe sex isn't"
it won't be eradicated completely but I mean...we can at least educate people to stop the spread of it.