World Leaders: A bunch of lying douche bags?

[cbacon 0]

'Failure' to educate world's poor

 

By Andrew Walker

BBC World Service economics correspondent, Washington

 

The report says 100m children are not attending school.

 

The world's richest countries are failing to provide the funds needed for education in the developing world, the Global Campaign for Education has said.

 

The campaign group's report was published during ministerial meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington.

 

The delegates are set to discus efforts to achieve universal primary education.

 

World leaders have agreed a target of providing primary education for all children by 2015.

 

It was part of the Millennium Development Goals agreed at a United Nations summit five years ago.

 

Bottom grade

 

The Global Campaign for Education says 100 million children are still not going to school and it blames rich countries for failing to provide the funding necessary.

 

It grades 22 of them in what it calls a school report card.

 

Two countries, Norway and the Netherlands get an A grade, but the US and Austria receive the bottom F grade.

 

The assessment is based in part on countries' spending on development aid in total and on education programmes in particular.

 

The Millennium Development Goals also include an intermediate target for this year of ensuring that girls have equal access to primary and secondary education.

 

The Campaign for Global Education says it is scandalous that this target is likely to be missed.

 

The US says its aid programme does emphasise support for basic education and for ensuring improved opportunities for girls.

 

I believe it ultimately comes down to the question: do you think the first world has a duty to help support the third world?

[Vyce 0]

No.

[Guest MikeSC]

No. But, honestly, neither do you.

 

You see, the problem is that the thugs who run the shithole third-world countries STEAL the money (it's not like they receive no money). To alleviate that requires action to remove them.

 

And we've seen how much YOU appreciate the removal of a detestable slug who, at BEST, simply slaughtered his people en masse, tortured all rivals, and destabilized an entire region of the world.

 

Unless we're allowed to RUN the show, I wouldn't give those governments one red dime.

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

Unless we're allowed to RUN the show, I wouldn't give those governments one red dime.

-=Mike

Red Dime? You commie!

[megaadvice 0]

www.makepovertyhistory.org

[LessonInMachismo 0]

I like having MikeSC around...he takes my thoughts and forms them into words that make sense.

 

Sorry, let me put out this cigar, here...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The report says 100m children are not attending school.

 

I'll do my part *phones local truant officer...*

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

No. But, honestly, neither do you.

 

You see, the problem is that the thugs who run the shithole third-world countries STEAL the money (it's not like they receive no money). To alleviate that requires action to remove them.

 

And we've seen how much YOU appreciate the removal of a detestable slug who, at BEST, simply slaughtered his people en masse, tortured all rivals, and destabilized an entire region of the world.

 

Unless we're allowed to RUN the show, I wouldn't give those governments one red dime.

          -=Mike

They still wouldn't have money, since they'd be fucking billions of dollars in debt if we ran their countries "our way".

 

Hey, you're doing that in Iraq, how's that working out?

 

To be fair, though, your point is somewhat valid, probably 60 percent, but not entirely true.

 

 

www.makepovertyhistory.org

 

God yes.

[Jingus 0]

Well, America's way of running things led to us becoming the most wealthy and powerful nation on earth. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that it works better than the systems of government that produced Elbonia or any other country that has remained one big mud farm.

 

As to whether the first world has a duty to support the third: funny, back over a century ago they used to refer to that as the White Man's Burden.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It was part of the Millennium Development Goals agreed at a United Nations summit five years ago.

 

I always feel bad about this stuff, but then I do a Google Image Seach for "UN council" and look at all the nice suits and lavish surroundings that could fund so many poor childrens' educations. And then I don't feel so bad.

[cbacon 0]

a detestable slug who, at BEST, simply slaughtered his people en masse, tortured all rivals, and destabilized an entire region of the world.

 

EditL With help from America

 

If you remove the word "his" in that sentence that would be a pretty apt description of Bush. Or Reagan.

[Guest MikeSC]

No. But, honestly, neither do you.

 

You see, the problem is that the thugs who run the shithole third-world countries STEAL the money (it's not like they receive no money). To alleviate that requires action to remove them.

 

And we've seen how much YOU appreciate the removal of a detestable slug who, at BEST, simply slaughtered his people en masse, tortured all rivals, and destabilized an entire region of the world.

 

Unless we're allowed to RUN the show, I wouldn't give those governments one red dime.

          -=Mike

They still wouldn't have money, since they'd be fucking billions of dollars in debt if we ran their countries "our way".

And us forgiving debt left and right hasn't exactly been beneficial. The problem isn't the poverty --- the problem is the LEADERSHIP.

Hey, you're doing that in Iraq, how's that working out?

Hmm, a functional democracy is being developed.

 

Unbelievably well.

If you remove the word "his" in that sentence that would be a pretty apt description of Bush. Or Reagan.

Except, unlike any of your shit heroes, those two men liberated untold millions and millions of people.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Why are you EVEN bothering to argue with him, Mike.

[Guest MikeSC]

Why are you EVEN bothering to argue with him, Mike.

Because I'm hoping to spawn a freak-out in him that makes him leave and never return.

 

Or, at the very least, that will make him whine more than usual.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Of course we help the third world out, we offer them these lovely loans that are impossible for them to pay back, which leave them no choice other then to give in to our global corporate demands. What ELSE should we be doing? *ducks*

[MrRant 0]

No. But, honestly, neither do you.

 

You see, the problem is that the thugs who run the shithole third-world countries STEAL the money (it's not like they receive no money). To alleviate that requires action to remove them.

 

And we've seen how much YOU appreciate the removal of a detestable slug who, at BEST, simply slaughtered his people en masse, tortured all rivals, and destabilized an entire region of the world.

 

Unless we're allowed to RUN the show, I wouldn't give those governments one red dime.

          -=Mike

They still wouldn't have money, since they'd be fucking billions of dollars in debt if we ran their countries "our way".

And us forgiving debt left and right hasn't exactly been beneficial. The problem isn't the poverty --- the problem is the LEADERSHIP.

Hey, you're doing that in Iraq, how's that working out?

Hmm, a functional democracy is being developed.

 

Unbelievably well.

If you remove the word "his" in that sentence that would be a pretty apt description of Bush. Or Reagan.

Except, unlike any of your shit heroes, those two men liberated untold millions and millions of people.

-=Mike

Untold? I'm pretty sure we know how many people are in the country give or take.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Why are you EVEN bothering to argue with him, Mike.

I've never really paid attention to him, but I'm starting to understand why some people regard C-Bacon as one of the worst posters here...

[cbacon 0]

Except, unlike any of your shit heroes, those two men liberated untold millions and millions of people.

 

Your funny.

 

I'm sure the people in various parts of South America just LOVED having their country shattered, wives and daughters raped, family members murdered and tourtured, and hospitals and houses destroyed when Reagen was in power. But if revionist history dictates that he was a great liberater, so be it.

 

Ditto the people of Iraq who had bombs fly over their houses when they were being 'liberated'.

[Justice 0]

I'm sure the people in various parts of South America just LOVED having their country shattered, wives and daughters raped, family members murdered and tourtured, and hospitals and houses destroyed when Reagen was in power. But if revionist history dictates that he was a great liberater, so be it.

Indeed. The Sandinistas were pretty ruthless. Of course, we'll always have you here to appologize for them and completely blow out of proportion any of Reagan's mistakes.

 

God, how many times does it have to be said: We've made mistakes. We've actually recognized them, though. And to ignore the wrongs of governments like the Sandinistas, to try and understate anything and everything they've done wrong completely is just as an injustice to the truth as saying "Reagan did no wrong".

 

Frankly, you had something good going until you had to make the "OMG BUSH=SADDAM" remarks that totally fall off-base.

Edited April 25, 2005 by Justice

[cbacon 0]

I haven't seen you say that trying to remove the Sandinista regime was a mistake. How many people died at the hands of the Sandinistas, and how many died at the hands of the Contras?

 

As for apologies, about all I can think that they did wrong was treat the Native Americans terribly (though much better than any other government in the area).

 

If Reagan was such a liberator, why is it that opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were higher in Central and South America than just about anywhere in the world? It couldn't have anything to do with their intimate knowledge of what it's like when the U.S. interferes, could it?

 

Hmm, a functional democracy is being developed.

 

Unbelievably well.

 

In the Middle East, Afghanistan is a mess and Iraq isn't much better. And, for that matter, the elections in Iraq happened despite attempts on the part of the American government to prevent them, and then further attempts to rig them once they were set in motion. It also dosent change the fact that the U.S. still runs bombing missions in Iraq constantly.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm pretty concerned about the White House's compliance in the attempted coup of the democratically elected president of Venezuela in 2002. I think we're still fucking around in South America too much.

[Justice 0]

I haven't seen you say that trying to remove the Sandinista regime was a mistake. How many people died at the hands of the Sandinistas, and how many died at the hands of the Contras?

 

As for apologies, about all I can think that they did wrong was treat the Native Americans terribly (though much better than any other government in the area).

Removing the Sandinistas was the right move. Using the Contras was the wrong one. If we had a problem in the region (Which, considering the Sandinistas, was fairly justified), we should have been honest about it and done it ourselves. Sure, people like you would have bitched about "OMG SETTING UP A US FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT" but at least we could have done it right from the get-go.

 

So you don't recognize the killings of farmers who didn't want to collectivize, the massive amount of 'political' prisoners who were taken and tortured, villages where dissidents dug their own graves before they were shot in them? Hey, at least you recognize the forced relocation and razing of the Pacific Indians in a half-hearted, roundabout way. You're almost there!

 

And I'm sure you'll list off everything that the Sandinistas had on their platform, but that sort of gets lost in all the forced volunteerism under threat of death or imprisonment, doesn't it?

 

If Reagan was such a liberator, why is it that opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were higher in Central and South America than just about anywhere in the world? It couldn't have anything to do with their intimate knowledge of what it's like when the U.S. interferes, could it?

 

*Shrugs*

 

Because Bush isn't Reagan would seem the simplest answer. That, and the circumstances of the wars would seem to vary greatly. Did you know that there was less support for the 7 Days War in South America than the Kashmir conflict? Well, perhaps they differ because they are completely different conflicts...

 

In the Middle East, Afghanistan is a mess and Iraq isn't much better. And, for that matter, the elections in Iraq happened despite attempts on the part of the American government to prevent them, and then further attempts to rig them once they were set in motion. It also dosent change the fact that the U.S. still runs bombing missions in Iraq constantly.

 

This is perhaps the most hilariously misguided statement of the day. Are these the same elections that you've called illegitimate for a while now? Wouldn't it have been a good thing if we had tried to stabilize the entire area so 'true' elections could be held? Or is this another one of your many hypocritical statements that tend to surface?

 

And yes, we are still bombing them back to the stone age. It's so very evident today. It couldn't possibly be a bitter and deluded insurgency, could it? Perhaps I'm the one missing the carpet bombings of Fallujah.

Edited April 25, 2005 by Justice

[Guest MikeSC]

Except, unlike any of your shit heroes, those two men liberated untold millions and millions of people.

 

Your funny.

 

I'm sure the people in various parts of South America just LOVED having their country shattered, wives and daughters raped, family members murdered and tourtured, and hospitals and houses destroyed when Reagen was in power. But if revionist history dictates that he was a great liberater, so be it.

 

Ditto the people of Iraq who had bombs fly over their houses when they were being 'liberated'.

You mean like the Communists in Nicaragua did? I'm sure THEY LOVED people like you sentencing them to hell under the Communists.

 

I love that you somehow miss that the Communists are, without fail, worse than the governments they replaced.

 

And all Reagan did was, you know, free half of Europe. And Bush is only, you know, bringing democracy to the Middle East.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I like having MikeSC around...he takes my thoughts and forms them into words that make sense.

Sometimes someone posts a set-up line so good, its difficult to decide which insulting reply to post...or perhaps to not even post one at all and just let the comment sit like a pie on the proverbial window-sill where everyone can smell and enjoy it.

[Guest MikeSC]

I like having MikeSC around...he takes my thoughts and forms them into words that make sense.

Sometimes someone posts a set-up line so good, its difficult to decide which insulting reply to post...or perhaps to not even post one at all and just let the comment sit like a pie on the proverbial window-sill where everyone can smell and enjoy it.

That comment is resembling the Nuremberg laws.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

And all Reagan did was, you know, free half of Europe. And Bush is only, you know, bringing democracy to the Middle East.

Rather than criticize Mike's opinions, I simply ask that he explain, step-by-step, how he believes that Reagan and Bush accomplished this.

 

I feel that by doing so, we can move beyond generalizations and establish how the facts of the Reagan and Bush presidencies conform with Mike's interpretation of their results.

[Guest MikeSC]

And all Reagan did was, you know, free half of Europe. And Bush is only, you know, bringing democracy to the Middle East.

Rather than criticize Mike's opinions, I simply ask that he explain, step-by-step, how he believes that Reagan and Bush accomplished this.

 

I feel that by doing so, we can move beyond generalizations and establish how the facts of the Reagan and Bush presidencies conform with Mike's interpretation of their results.

Why not, you know, read a history book?

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

And all Reagan did was, you know, free half of Europe. And Bush is only, you know, bringing democracy to the Middle East.

Rather than criticize Mike's opinions, I simply ask that he explain, step-by-step, how he believes that Reagan and Bush accomplished this.

 

I feel that by doing so, we can move beyond generalizations and establish how the facts of the Reagan and Bush presidencies conform with Mike's interpretation of their results.

Why not, you know, read a history book?

-=Mike

Speaking as someone who actually does read history books, allow me to inform you many historians disagree on how much Reagan's policies impacted the decline of the Soviet Union. Some even give credit to other people.

 

It is difficult to confirm your claims without establishing some basic facts.

 

It isn't logical to assume every history book will validate your opinion.

[Guest MikeSC]

Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are infamously poor judges of character.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Were they the only two, you might be correct.

 

However, the Reagan era is hottly debated amongst historians, and there really is no overwelming consensus of opinion on what role Reagan played. That is not to invalidate your belief, excpet (as you yet) you have not shared what your belief is.

 

 

I'm willing to look past the fact that I hate you and recognize you are an intelligent person who may have an insightful point of view on the topic. I'm simply asking you to expand on what you believe about Reagan's Cold War policies, in an attempt to more clearly define why you think he deserve the credit you give him.