Cont ...

Oh dear oh dear, comprehension again Yabby has got you into another fix.

That ABC program you refer to as a successful Ugandan strategy actually is 'a popular acronym standing for “Abstinence, Be Faithful, use Condoms.”' and is the US or George's Strategy. Nothing to do with the Ugandans at all, Yabby.

Secondly , after reading the whole article it appears only that some Ugandan teachers are critical of the abstinence only program because references to 'condoms, safer sex and the risks of HIV in marriage' have been deleted in primary schools and there is are unsupported claims about misinformation in draft materials re condoms and pre-marital sex in secondary programs.

But even your reference clearly states that the impetus for the abstinence only program is coming from the Ugandan Government sources and George is merely providing cash in support of that move.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/03/29/uganda-abstinence-only-programs-hijack-aids-success-story

And that Yabby is a far cry from your claims.

Thanks for providing that reference. I think if you'd read more than the first part you'd have seen the following:

'The U.S. government has already budgeted approximately U.S. $8 million this year on abstinence-only programs in Uganda as part of President George W. Bush’s global AIDS plan. The National Youth Forum, headed by Ugandan First Lady Janet Museveni, a vocal proponent of abstinence-only, has received U.S. funding under the plan. The First Lady has lashed out against groups that teach young people about condoms and called for a national “virgin census” to support her abstinence agenda.'

Thirdly the total spending proposed for PERFAR during the period 2003-2008 ... US$39 Billion. Of which US$8mill is supporting abstinence programs in Uganda. Hardly a serious attempt at destruction.

Sigh! Why do I bother?

Ducking, weaving, twisting and turning suit you Yabby. Light comic relief indeed.

Hi Bushbred. Comprehensive enough? I really didn't have to try very hard.

keith, here is wikipedia on abstinence-only and pepfar:

"... the plan committed the U.S. to provide $15 billion over five years towards AIDS relief in 15 countries in Africa and the Caribbean, and in Vietnam. About 20 percent of the funding, or $3 billion over five years, was allocated for prevention. The program required that, starting in fiscal year 2006, one-third of prevention funding be earmarked specifically for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs."

are you really unaware of these earmarks?
do you really consider them insubstantial?
are you unaware of the wide and heavy criticism of these earmarks?
AND, do you really consider that such earmarks are consistent with your claim that "he as president has never tried to impose his personal belief on his fellows".

now, when you wish to address points (2)-(6) of my response to your ludicrous defense of bush's presidency, just let me know.

*But even your reference clearly states that the impetus for the abstinence only program is coming from the Ugandan Government sources and George is merely providing cash in support of that move.*

Keith, amazing that during the 90s, Uganda had great results reducing
hiv with its ABC programme.

It was only once all this money was offered for abstinence only
programmes, that condoms vanished or were made unaffordable in
Uganda and their Govt started singing from the George Bush songsheet.
Sounds familiar to you, when African Govts want money?

Not only that, George spent huge amounts on promoting abstinence only
in US schools too, rather then good sex education. That was another
dismal failure, when it was shown that those schools who followed
his dogma, also had some of the highest teen pregnancy rates.

Perhaps he could have learnt a bit from Holland, which has shown
that with good sex education and freely available contraception,
their teen pregnancy rate is something like 8 times lower.

Not only was his "abstinence only" programme a dismal failure,
under George, any family planning clinic which even discussed
abortion with clients, had their funding cut off. The net result
was that various clinics in Ethiopia and elsewhere had to close, a very sad
story indeed.

American women of course don't put up with that sort of rubbish,
but with his money, George could bully third world women with
his neanderthal beliefs and they had no recourse, unlike in America.

This is a man that you think is a fantastic prez. Think again Keith

dagget

the iraq body count, a left wing NGO, estimates 80 000 deaths as at 30th of September '08.nwhere near your 1 million figure (which u pulled out of nowhere).

saddam's victims (from killer file):
Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

if the war really was for oil, or was motivated by corporate interest, why not just lift the sanctions on iraq, or cut and run and set up a friendly dictator, and not leave US soldiers there to die? the only reason why US soldiers are there is to help rebuild iraq. there is no sane argument that the iraq war was for corporate interest.

Yabby,
There you go again.

Firstly didn’t you read all of my post?

You’ve made this silly statement ... again ...sigh.

‘Keith, amazing that during the 90s, Uganda had great results reducing
hiv with its ABC programme.’

Even though I’d pointed out

“That ABC program you refer to as a successful Ugandan strategy actually is 'a popular acronym standing for “Abstinence, Be Faithful, use Condoms.”' and is the US or George's Strategy. Nothing to do with the Ugandans at all, Yabby.”

Secondly, you’ve changed your story, instead of responding to my material, you’ve gone off on another tangent ... your usual tactic when you find your original claims indefensible, I’d add.

‘George spent huge amounts on promoting abstinence only
in US schools too, rather then good sex education. That was another
dismal failure, when it was shown that those schools who followed
his dogma, also had some of the highest teen pregnancy rates.’

This indicates you now seem to want to change the discussion to one of promotion of sexual promiscuity.

All I can say is where are the statistics that show schools that promote promiscuity, with all the biased information that promotes such, actually have lower AIDS/HIV rates?

I’d lay a wager that such stats probably exist, are more likely favourable to the abstinence school of thought and are well hidden from widespread publication.

What do you think Yabby?

I know, I know you’ll now try to move onto some other discussion totally irrelevant to the fact George Bush has been successful in promoting the fight against AIDS/HIV in Africa. (Which was my original point.)

Now Yabby I am not going to bother to do research just to show the stupidity of you position on third world abortions ... too.

It is a simple fact Bush’s policy was that US taxpayers would not fund abortions ... anywhere in the world. Obama has said he will spend Christians taxes to fund abortions in the third world

Cont
And not all US women agree with your position. While George opposes abortion and argues his case he hasn’t tried to change the US court created law on the issue. No woman in the US has her abortion funded by taxpayers. Given those facts your propositions verge on stupidity.

And yabby I’ve never said I thought George fantastic ... all I’ve ever opined is that history will show George as one of the most successful presidents and I stated why.

You’ve reduced yourself to a position of saying he isn’t terrific because if teenage girls have sex without condoms they’ll be more likely to get pregnant.

Light comic relief indeed ... eh?

Bushbasher,

I am familiar with wikipedia however I took my figures from Congressional reports. I may have misinterpreted the figures ... a genuine mistake. I was also aware of the $15 billion first proposed in 2002 or 03.

I agree money is earmarked for abstinence programs and fairly so. It is only part of an overall strategy, and complements other strategies. Now that is not promoting one view ahead of another. Logistics of funding in Africa also suggests the views of recipient organisations may be an influence.

In relation to this if one asks ‘Does abstinence prevent the spread of Aids?’ Well there really is only one answer. But if one asks ‘Does funding Abstinence programs ahead of or alongside of other programs prove effective?’ Well the answer is ...who knows? I wouldn’t be prepared to expend the energy to discover the truth or otherwise of such a proposition. It would be too time-consuming and totally irrelevant to disproving my original claim ... which was...

George Bush was successful in implementing a strategy to fight AIDS in Africa.

Regardless of whether his strategy was a success or otherwise or indeed is claimed to be undermined in some way by any controversy, that one fact is irrefutable.

And that’s my final word on what has been a totally irrelevant discussion, in context of my assertion that George will been seen by history as a very successful president.