Recent news regarding areas on the African continent being continually hit by floods,drought,starvation,plagued with disease.

These hard hit places recieve billions to overcome a severe situation, along with food assistance, yet looking at the population of these countries, over the years, they have not stopped continuing to multiply in their thousands, each and every year is worse off than before and getting worse, despite all the help they ask for.

My question: Is the money they recieve, actually being used for relief like we are being led to belive? Somehow, something does not add-up.

Were you thinking SPANKY that there might be a few people along the line skimming a bit off for themselves. The bible tells us that out of the heart comes much of the wickedness of this world. I too would love to know where the money goes. I suspect that it dribbles out here and there amongst the rich countries on the road to the poor countries; and when it gets to the poor countries skimming really begins. Gangs, rebels, warlords, corrupt government officials... all have their fingers in the cake. It may, in some ways, have something to do with worship. If we look at the third world countries, the worship in many is towards evil spirit powers and in that God does not Bless. I have never seen a real investigation into where the money goes.

I have become dispondent about child sponsorship in these third world places. Corrupt governments, well, they can't even look after their own people. Accountability to whom. I once sponsored a young person in Africa but eventually handed them to someone else, having become discouraged re: a lot of my dollars were going on administration. Where there is no guarantee the dollars/goods are reaching the people, I will not contribute in this way. Is better to do something like for Lions International where by they collect in old prescription glasses by the absolute tons, 're-script' them to be as close to vision needs of poor overseas people as they possibly can and do it for free. For free.

Gibo
I am afriad it more than a bit and 99% of organisations operate in this manner.
They call it administration fees and then they let the time allocated to the particular programe to run out with a huge surplus that they invest in real estate and other areas claiming they are doing the responsible thing keeping the particular organisation strong for a rainy day.
A rainy day alright- for whom.

In our area of work it is the same. Every feedlot that the government assists in setting up via the foreign aid programe is yet another diversion of jobs and value adding from the Australian economy and community.
It is assistance that might have been alteratively channeled towards the setting up of infrastructr hee to futher assist the country to value add creating a future for our next generation especially in regional areas.
Cakers
Thats a really good programe and one we would support. We are in QLD.
Any idea the best point of contact to join? Thanks for the information it must have taken ages to research it,
Not many real deal NFP organisations around I am sad to say.

Spanky,
years ago I gave up giving to international charities because they were not doing anything about the basic problem. i.e. over population.

The more we feed them the more they breed and the problems worsen.

Sooner or later the population problem must be addressed. I understand even now one dies each 20 seconds from famine related issues.

"The more we feed them the more they breed and the problems worsen." (Quote: Banjo)

What 'we' need to do is feed 'them' even less then we can get it down to every 10 seconds.

Then....;what 'we' do is not feed 'them' at all.

Problem solved!!

It's a problem the world goverments need to address urgently.

Funding organisations are being set-up randomly, the majority of the needy is yet again in Africa, North and Central Africa are permanently on the role, yet countries for the likes of South Africa are new to the needy scheme, due to the government themselves!

South African government are the culprits who promised too much at a time when the country is going through change and not being in a position to meet the needs of it's country after promising the world, they actually planned for future help from outside, yet still they spend money and prep for a world event in 2010 before looking at it's peoples situation first. Millions starving, homeless, street children and I'm not just talking black people here like the media are making the world believe. It's becoming outrageous! I wish someone with a bit of clout, would put their foot down and re-direct Africa as a whole, look at the African continent and look at who is leading the various countries on that continent, that are suffering, hell..look at Zimbabwe, surely some high-up international power has the right to stop any particular self rightious president in his tracks?

Ginx,
As usual you are being utterly ridiculous.

The population of these countries needs to be tackled by birth control measures. That is the problem governments and the world aid agencies need to address.

But you could be right in one respect. If population controls are not undertaken soon then one death every 10 seconds may well become a reality.

Difficult as it may be for you to not act stupid, why not try for once to show just a little sense. The subject is people starving.

As much as it hurts to say it, I agree with Ginx. Famines in Africa usually have more to do with gov'ts than it does with population.

The 'WORLD IS COMING TO AN END' because of 'TOO MANY PEOPLE' issue is a new religion for the half eductated greenie.

Most African nations are run by warlords and strongmen and providing aid relief in those countries is very difficult. So called 'Administration Costs' are a constant feature of doing business in those countries and no aid would get through at all in some places without this greasing of the wheels.

By and large Aid agencies are staffed by competent, caring individuals who's primary motive is to help the poor and disadvantaged. If you begrudge paying for their wages, maybe you should get off your ASS and try and disrtibute the Aid yourself.

Aid agencies provide some of the few paying jobs to locals in these countries as well. This is another way of injecting money into the local economy to keep things rolling.

I personally would be in favour of 'bringing' democracy to some of these countries by force. But the soft-left would prefer them to be oppressed and starving, than do anything which might possibly be considered politically incorrect.

Paul.L: "I personally would be in favour of 'bringing' democracy to some of these countries by force."

But Paul, can you name somewhere where that's actually worked?

I'll take stupid over such a callous remark any day BlankJo.

Paully, you can stop the hurting. I think you misunderstood me.
Your little gem on democracy reminds me of the saying: "Be nice to America or we'll bring democracy to your country".

I don't know what the answer is SPANKY. But can I assure you that this hard Lefty is very clearly objecting to these folk being left 'oppressed and starving'.

Spanky,
This subject has been debated on OLO threads on a few occasions and i think the conclusions have been similar.

If you look at the countries that require all he food aid, you will find they are over populated. That was the case last time I saw the figures. Certainly, measures to improve their food production and reduce corruption in the food distribution chain would help.

But if the basic problem is from over population, that must be tackled if long term benefits are desired. Birth control is necessary and should begin in the countries that are the least sustainable food wise.

I have never advocated reducing food aid, but the world cannot feed itself adequately now and this will only get worse with growing population.

Paul.L

Germany and Japan are completely different to say Iraq or Zimbabwe.

Both the former already had a sense of nation over clan/tribe/grouping, in fact nationalism was one of the driving forces behind their various war ambitions. I would also like to point out, that Germany had a democracy (weak as it was) and that the Nazi's actually made it to power on the back of a legitimate vote.

Iraq on the other hand was a convenient carve up based on the needs of the european nations rather than ethnic, religious or language groupings, which is why we are seeing the low level civil war we see today.

Zimbabwe is in a similar situation.

So before you advocate "democracy at the point of the sword" you might want to consider the on the ground situation.

>.Most African nations are run by warlords and strongmen and providing aid relief in those countries is very difficult. So called 'Administration Costs' are a constant feature of doing business in those countries and no aid would get through at all in some places without this greasing of the wheels.<<

The warlords and strongmen are kept in power by vested interests. Nothing in Africa has changed since Conrad wrote "Heart of Darkness". Aid is directed to puppet dictators & to mecenaries. The rape of Africa continues courtesy of Big Business. To blame the people of Africa is convenient but a travesty of justice.

Better to find out from whence comes your coffee, diamonds, chocolate, wood, petrol and the vital minerals needed for mobile phones, etc.
For putting hair on your chest read, or listen to interviews with, Keith Harmon Snow. Here is a link to a recent interview.
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=20604

Or read >>www.allthingspass.com

"Or we could sit back for another twenty years while the soft left think of a politically correct way to help Africans suffering famine and oppression. Of course there won't be nearly as many starving people to feed by then." Paul, yes there will. There might not be many MORE to feed, but there wont be any less. Why? Because they will keep breeding at a rate that ensures that they are unable to feed themselves during hard times. War only exacerbates existing problems by uprooting large sections of population, often forcing them into refugee camps where they become fully dependant, rather than being on the land where they can at least maintain a subsistence level of living most years. One clear answer is birth control. Its not the only one, but will go a long way towards stemming overpopulation. Christianity is to blame here, mainly the catholics (which represents a large part of african religion), for banning use of condoms and other contraception (which is why aids is so rampant in Africa as well). Preach abstinence and fidelity all you like, but lets have a little worldly wisdom about human weaknesses at the same time.

Aid programs that target clean water, health care and improving farming practices all make a good contribution and often involve little money to be skimmed by the powers that be.

Forceful intervention can sound tempting, but the history of western (read mainly US) interference in domestic problems is not a good one. Quick results are often not lasting ones, with old despots often replaced by new ones. Hard to swallow for us "satisfaction now" westerners!

I know a few people who've lived in Africa - honest, hardworking people, but they all made the point that things are very different in Africa. After a while, people tend to lose their civic mindedness in favour of cold, hard selfishness. It becomes an issue of survival.

Basically, when you are faced with a country where everybody else is looking after themselves, you have no choice but to do the same thing to survive.

It's all well and good for us to sit here criticising poor nations for rampant corruption and squandering the money given to them, but the fact of the matter is, if you are surrounded by people who would rob and kill for what we would consider to be trivial amounts, you're left with no choice but to amass what you can.

Of course dictators should be punished and of course, this corruption and brutality shouldn't be allowed to flourish - I'm not arguing on behalf of these people, I'm just trying to bring a little perspective to the debate.

“Famines in Africa usually have more to do with gov'ts than with population.”, what a true statement.

This is clearly evident in Zimbabwe where Mugabe’s attempts at some form of socialism/communism have been disastrous. Add in his blatant racist policies and you have a collapsing economy, leading to famine.
The key racist policy is the forced confiscation of white-owned farms, which are then handed over to blacks who let them run down to uselessness. It’s now at the stage where many blacks are (privately for fear of reprisals) stating that they were better off under white rule. The people go hungry while Mugabe squanders millions on armaments.

South Africa, with its communist dominated ANC, is heading in the same direction. Both countries have escalating crime; murder, rape, robbery.

We can thank European support for the terrorists Mugabe and Mandella for the mess in Southern Africa. All those unwashed lefties that chanted “Free Mandella” should be made to go live with him. See how they would like that. They would soon whinge for a return to the old systems.

”Whats your solution for someone like Mugabe?”, when he is worried about a coming election result, he issues threats that, if beaten, he will return to the bush war. Also, opposition politicians are assaulted and intimidated. The only solution is to get rid of him.

James Purser, Zimbabwe is not similar to Iraq. As Rhodesia, it was a prosperous country, “the bread-basket of Africa”, until PC leftists pressurised and Mugabe’s terrorists weakened the white Rhodesians.

All true white people of conscience should consider aid, but to the dispossessed white farmers and businessmen.

Anyway, on the subject of aid, shouldn’t we look after our own drought-stricken farmers first?

"All true white people of conscience should consider aid, but to the dispossessed white farmers and businessmen.

Anyway, on the subject of aid, shouldn’t we look after our own drought-stricken farmers first?"

What the hell does skin colour have to do with conscience?

The dispossessed white farmers and businessmen have been accepted into Australia, the UK and other nations and the UK and Australia have both been leading the charge against Mugabe's regime, not just for the whites (who always represented a minority in Zimbabwe), but for all the people who are suffering.

As to your charge of terrorism against Mendalla, it just goes to show, one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Clark Kent, I agree with your last statement, but not really with the others. Certainly regimes can have a large impact on the wellbeing of the people. I guess my comments re population are more aimed at north-east Africa (think Ethiopia and Sudan), than southern Africa. Rhodesia may have been prosperous, but mainly for its white farmers and businessmen. Blacks were seen as slave labour to prop-up the profits of the white business machine at any cost and were rarely allowed to profit from business of any kind. And no, I'm not a lefty, quite the opposite actually. I just think that change on the scale that is required is not something that we should be seeking to achieve in a generation. Afterall, our western society and its attitudes towards democracy and fairness have developed over many centuries, so why should we expect other nations to develop any faster. Note also that not all african nations are write-offs. Take Botswana for example: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/destinations/africa/botswana/
, proving that handing over to black governments isnt necessarily a recipe for disaster.

I know someone who has a very close association with a "refugee camp" for unaccompanied children in Zambia. It is run by a friend of hers and, over the years, they have built up a system to get assistance directly to this wonderful nun. It has taken an enormous amount of work and they still need to pay some bribes but they are, fortunately, minimal.
They once had their lorry hijacked by the army from Zaire - nun then told a distant cousin who was an officer in that army that she expected the lorry back in the camp by morning with everything on it or she would personally ask the Pope to excommunicate him. Lorry was back in camp and the only thing they lost was 3 tins of powdered milk.
Why am I telling you all this? Because aid can get through to those who need it but you need to know the people personally and you need to put a great deal of time and effort in to working on a way of getting it there. Cath says that she would not donate to organisations like World Vision because so much of the money is wasted. She knows that her efforts see her nun friend get about 90-95% of the money she raises. (Cath has other contacts in other places too and works on the same principle....aid organisations could learn a lot from people like her but they are too busy thinking how wonderful they are.) I no longer donate to organisations like World Vision...especially given the money they waste on advertising.

TRTL,
Zimbabwe is a country half the size of South Africa, I personally had the pleasure of working there, s'funny, "pleasure" doesn't seem to have the same meaning after having actually seen what has transpired there, since 1994.

South Africa will go exactly the same way as Zimbabwe, it will just take a little longer due to it having more land area and more provences to govern.
When Mandela was released in 1994, it was a go-ahead for promise's to be dealt-out, for the people that worshipped him while he was on the inside, it was also the go-ahead for every uneducated, tin shack dwelling half-wit, to run for government, to take a government position and shout the odds from a leather covered throne. Degrees are handed-out randomly for gain and this was a proven fact. Elections are a farce, corrupt, as with Zimbabwe and what do you end-up with?, a country ridden with starvation, violence, total nation fall-out and although they were warned of the coming strife, the government sat back and fed off those who elected them into power.

It took America close on 300 years to get to where it is at present with racism, governmental control etc..(well..nearly there) and South Africa thinks they can achieve this in 20 years?

James Purser, I didn’t intend you to take it that I equated conscience with colour. But, seriously, would you expect black people to donate aid to the dispossessed whites? What is your position on the Aussie farmers and the drought?

While many dispossessed have found refuge, many more white farmers are still in Zimbabwe, struggling to cope with the viscious assaults from “black veterans” who want to steal their land. These people can’t just leave as there are severe restrictions to what they could take with them, leaving most of their possessions behind.

As for your defence of Mandella, have you heard of “the necklace”?

Country Gal, to be precise, the black governments that are ruining everything are the socialist/communist or communist backed ones. As you wrote, “handing over to black governments isnt necessarily a recipe for disaster “ and not all fit into that category. Only the reds.

The best contraception invented is education, if 5% of what the USA wastes on the military was spent on education in the Third World we wouldn't have a problem, don't say why should they?, because they get rich by selling arms to these countries thats why, and that is another moral question, why is the west selling arms to countries that can't feed, clothe, house and educate their people

Clark

Yes I've heard of the Necklace, however I think you've got the wrong Mandela. It was Winnie Mandela that made the infamous "Matches and Necklaces" comment.

As to my position on the plight facing our farming community? Country Gal and I have discussed this at length. I support our farmers and will support any long term plan to assist them either get back on their feet, or diversify into other areas.

James, Winnie was Nelson Mandela’s wife until he split with her when it became necessary to create a façade of respectability to ascend to the world stage. Before that, they were both in the thick of it. His ANC was and is heavily influenced by the SACP, under funding from the FSU and China. Also, the ANC and ZANU(PF) are hand in hand.
Glad you support our own farmers.

Alanpoi, whether or not we like their politics, we must support our farmers. Do you want to see primary industry die out here so that we have to import all of our food? Can we afford that?

Also, Alanpoi, “why is the west selling arms to countries that can't feed, clothe, house and educate their people” goes along with the same old “blame the west strategy” while ignoring (conveniently) the other culprits.

Since the 1950’s, the Soviet Union and Red China were pumping funds and armaments into southern and central Africa. The new open Russia – the FSU still has a finger in the pie. Mugabe still openly deals with them. Mandela and now Mbeki are a bit more covert about it – but they still take their orders from the SACP.

Most of Africa’s problems have been caused by the Reds.

"These people can’t just leave as there are severe restrictions to what they could take with them, leaving most of their possessions behind."

Clark, yes they can leave. yes this means that they have to start again, but in many cases its a choice between starting again or being dead. I have many friends, colleagues and clients that were Zimbabwean (or Rhodesian, some having left that long ago), and have been involved to some degree with assisted migration for some of these people (although have not played a large role in this). I know first hand how they struggle to fit into a new country with a new history and adapt to a new culture. I might add that not all of these are white either, or farmers. Those that arent white but have migrated to Australia anyway have been just as quick to become citizens of this country and settle in regional parts of Australia (unlike many other immigrants). Sad that these people are forced to leave everything behind and start afresh, but they bring a good talent pool to this country and have a great sense of community spirit that they bring with them - I havent come across one that isnt an asset to this country.

Country Gal,
You made a comment about Botswana not having the same problems as Zimbabwe and South Africa, the reason being, Britain still plays a part in Botswana's government, thats why.

The Southern parts of Botswana, along it's borders, are becoming the same as Zimbabwe, this property "staking" lark, is like a cancer, just because some "bushman" some 150 years ago, took a p*ss behind a rock, bonked like a rabbit, raised a family and laid claim to that piece of land. Today, not having any relation to that particular bushman, the people say they want their land back.

If the whites leave South Africa, it's another Zimbabwe in the making, in fact, as usual..it's too damn late!

Overpopulation will cause war, famine etc to return, no matter how much you spend. The trick is to strike a balance between spending on emergency relief and on long term goals like building a sustainable society. Part of the problem is some conservative (often religious) groups oppose spending government funds on birth control and family planning. This contributes to the degradation of women to medieval roles. We need to fund education for both boys and girls, universal suffrage, women's rights and family planning. Where there are too many obstacles to this, we need to cut our losses and focus on those regions where we can make a lasting contribution and where the meagre funds available aren't swallowed in a bottomless pit of misery.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/population-sustainability.html

Spanky, unfortunately its the settlers forebears taking land by force and retaining most of the profits from it that has caused so much problem. Similar issues in Australia, although the balance of power is different here as the indigenous population is in the vast minority rather than the vast majority, and hence arent in the same position to force change. Change is not necessarily a bad thing, but such radical change cant happen in even as short a time as a century, let alone a decade, without causing more massive upheaval, denial of rights and wars (either just or unjust, probably depending on what side of the fence you are sitting on). That's why its so complex - how to pass some wealth or at least pass opportunity to amass wealth to the poor minions, whilst retaining a stable economic base, and not allowing those new to power to have a heady rush from it. I dont have any easy answers.

Clark Kent
"“Famines in Africa usually have more to do with gov'ts than with population.”, what a true statement."

No Clarky its not a true statement, theres no use in selecting a few countries to summarize such a poor statement based on Africa as a whole. This focus on governments and corruption is exaggerated, governance ratings for countries such as Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, and Senegal are rated as 'good' based on World Bank Governance Indicators. What you fail to establish is that the level of governance is typical for countries at the same level of income, the more people earn generally precipitates better governance, better governance does not equate to higher incomes.

TRTL
"Basically, when you are faced with a country where everybody else is looking after themselves, you have no choice but to do the same thing to survive."

No your generalising, basing assumptions on hearsay. Tanzania, where ive lived for several years, has an absolutely iron clad emphasis on family, community, culture, and looking after one another. The practice here in Australia of shipping old folk off the nursing homes to die, for example, is considered an abhorrent idea over there! god what a hypocritical statement, we live in the land of the individual, individualism is emphasised to death in the West no wonder we lack many of the common virtues that are considered the norm over there! and for what? a shampoo that makes you 'feel' like an individual.. piss off

sorry for my last rant i got a big hot under the collar, its just wrong to generalise the issue, if it were that simple the problem would have been solved a long time ago. This is a continent, consisted of a myriad of cultures, customs geographical landscapes, tribes etc, not simply political borders, the effects of poverty vary greatly among these different contexts.
In extreme cases yes the 'individual' is brought out in these people but thats a simple human mechanism brought about by poverty, it doesn't reflect Africa as a whole.

Peachy..yer' darn tootin' it's not the same all over the continent, because the majority of the bloody continent is in ruin!...and why we ask? weeeellll...we know why don't we?

That "simple" mechanism has many names: "government" "greed" "communism" "bad religious leadership that hide behind government" Religious leaders being able to have a say in political matters, that do not concern them.

Typical topics of interest: "persicution with no resolution", need I say more?
The so-called leaders are rotten from the ground up and there is literally no-one on Gods given earth, that will stand up to a government hell bent on driving whats left of the African continent into the same abyss that Zimbabwe has fallen into, all on the fickle promises of a lying S.O.B. who earns a living on his people's demise.

The African Continent will become the seething, desease ridden hell hole it's cut out to be.

An overpopulated country is highly susceptible to mismanagement. With a stable population, bad government may lead to fewer TV's and microwave ovens, but the people aren't going to go hungry. Overpopulation is the ultimate cause, government only the proximate.

SPANKY
"My question: Is the money they recieve, actually being used for relief like we are being led to belive? Somehow, something does not add-up."

To answer your question no the money they receive is not entirely used for relief, in 2002 $30 was allocated per sub-Saharan African from the entire world (both development and emergency aid). $5 went to consultants from the donor countries, $3 was allocated to food aid and other emergency aid, $4 went to servicing Africa's debt, and $5 went to debt relief operations, $12 remained for each African per annum (UNICEF).
To believe that more aid is simply going to increase the population is false, high fertility rates remain in countries whom are poor, theres a strong correlation between poverty and high fertility rates and this only isn't in Africa as its merely a result of household circumstances. As more children survive the need of having more children diminishes along with economic development.
"As households are able to obtain modern health services, including family planning and modern contraceptives, they are able to follow through on their changing desires about family size"
This is exactly the reason why the Western world has achieved a marked reduction of total fertility rates and a sharp slowdown in population growth.
As I stated previously corruption is intrinsically linked to the level of peoples income, civil society in 'some' corrupt African countries cannot be empowered to keep the government honest in the same way other countries can because they simply don't possess the means due to their personal circumstances i.e. poverty. A country such as Benin was in 2004 ranked 27th out of 167 countries in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders) because they have a strong entrenched civil code that has brought about a political system with very little corruption, which has allowed them to achieve 5% growth over the last 6 years.

Your profoundly ignorant SPANKY and statements such as;
"The African Continent will become the seething, desease ridden hell hole it's cut out to be."
is testament. You really underestimate the depth of the situation.

Peachy,
You are incorrect to state that poor countries have a higher fertility rate than more affluent countries. The poor countries have a higher reproduction rate, i.e. more children, but to use the term higher fertility is a misnomer. The reason women in affluent countries have less children is simply because of birth control.

How soon a woman begins to ovulate, after giving birth, depends upon her nutrition level. That is why in G-Grandmothers time there was a belief that a woman breast feeding would not become pregnant. Better nutrition put paid to that theory.

So in countries where nutrition is low, the more food women receive the sooner they begin to ovulate again and, unless there is birth control, become pregnant again. This applies to humans and most warm blooded animals.

Peachy,
I used to live in South Africa, all 36 years and if you haven't lived in that country, experienced what in fact is being withheld from the media, you are in no position to comment on who is ignorant, you have already stated in which country you have been residing in, on the African continent and just like most of the other countries north of South Africa, the arrival of 2010 will indeed prove my point in the demise of a once beautiful country..the seething hell hole which I speak of, will happen in South Africa over a mere few weeks, when the world cup opens in Port Elizabeth, every nation north of South African borders will be handed a little card, for them to cross borders as they feel, do you actually think the hoardes of people will return to their respective countries?...DREAM ON! (Other than that, everything is just Peachy)

SPANKY
How do you reconcile that this disease ridden hell hole you speak of has been shaped by European colonization? Most of these praetorian states you speak of are a construct of conquest and greed. No matter how bitter you may feel now about the situation in South Africa the important thing is that these people are doing it for themselves, remember it was only a decade ago that the minority white population held 87% of the land (maybe "one a beautiful country" to the whites), the same people whom brought the native population to their feet through disease (summed up by Jarred Diamond’s, Germs Guns & Steel) and segregated the blacks based on the perception of their lesser being. I think it’s prudent to assume that this disease ridden hell hole your referring to occurred a long time ago from which these people are still feeling the ramifications.

Peachy,
This is what one will hear from the older black folk, the ones that lived under the so-called suppression "I wish it was the way it used to be, at least we all had jobs and food on the table"

The way things are over there at present, has nothing to do with racism, it's the government out-doing their own people out of money and relief, sent from overseas.

Due to this, whites are left in the backgound, dwindling half-way between "should I stay or should I go" and living in fear of going outside their garden boundary wall, during the day, never mind at night!

I've said this before and here it is again, goodbye South Africa, hello Zimbabwe no.2
Hello again to more violence, to be blamed on racism and goverment getting fat, just like Mugabe. Zimbabwe were also warned by the world powers that be, by people who used to live in Zimbabwe, now all gone.

Sureptitious, continual milarky amongst government officials, they all work together, Mbeke is with Mugabe all the way and getting richer each day on his own people, but no-one listens. These buggers will take over the world one day and that is when we have "the end of the world as we know it

Spanky, what you wrote is so true.

Anyone who denies this should read 'Government by Deception' by Jan Lamprecht or visit

http://www.africancrisis.org/default2.asp.

Clark Kent wrote: "We can thank European support for the terrorists Mugabe and Mandella for the mess in Southern Africa. All those unwashed lefties that chanted Free Mandella should be made to go live with him. See how they would like that. They would soon whinge for a return to the old systems."

I agree with what other's have said about how throwing money at the problem will not work because of the corruption and the general state of chaos in African society, but I don't think a return to the old systems (apartheid) is desirable at all. My Grandfather has lived in Kenya for the past 50 or so years, and I have been back there to visit him on numerous occasions. A return to the old system is a return, in my opinion, to more corruption, greed and oppression, the only difference being that in earlier systems this was being done by the colonial government and white minorities. The indigenous populations have learnt only from this example that the whites have set them, and now those who used to benefit from colonial or arpartheid government are saying that these countries were better off under their rule? What a joke.

While a return to apartheid is undesirable, neither is a starving population. The black Zimbabweans are now saying that they were much better off under Ian Smith than Mugabe. South Africa is adopting similar policies to those that destroyed Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's once strong economy and food production. It's only a matter of time until black South Africans are calling out for a return of the old rule.
The future Marxist Southern African bloc will not be able to feed its people.

But isn't, as others have stated, the starvation due to overpopulation rather than the form of government?

LOL! Spanky your kidding right?
ok wait let me clarify the way in which these people lived, so there was racial classification as to where these people could go, there was an allocation of resources so as to disenfranchise the blacks from their land per se, you were classified as to who you can have sex with and who you could marry according to race through a belief in Eugenics, you where classified by your race as to what school and what university you could go to, where you shopped and where you went to the cinemas was classified by your race, the Bantustan's in which these people lived were crowded hell holes, non violent passive forms of resistance in protest of the so called 'passes' by South Africans in Sharpeville resulted in 69 of them being shot in the back, in the Soweto uprising 500 more were again mostly shot in the back for apposing the implementation of Afrikaans as a first language for school children... of course it was once 'a beautiful country' in your eyes wasn't it?

The 'native' people to the land are doing it for themselves that is the main thing, if it is to result in overpopulation then so be it, if it is to result in another revolution by the working class then so be it, if it is to result in violence then so be it, these people are doing it for themselves free from 'white racist' rule. It was 'Jim Crow' segregation on a grand scale, and you sir are an idiot to believe that these people were better off living under white rule as opposed to whatever form of self determination that currently exists.

DFunkt, 'But isn't, as others have stated, the starvation due to overpopulation rather than the form of government?'

Not in the case of Zimbabwe. When Mugabe took over, his reforms destroyed the economy. The worst changes were the seizing of white-owned farms and giving them to blacks with no farming experience. Production plumeted until the former 'bread-basket of Africa' went into severe food shortages. The farms were allowed to run to ruin and unemployment topped 60%, yet Mugabe was able to spend $72 million on Chinese armaments (as he feared losing upcoming elections).
Foreign investment also dropped as businesses were targetted in a similar manner to the farms.
In 2001, he ordered price cuts on what was left of the food suuply, causing remaining producers to close up as they were receiving less than cost price.

Now South Africa has chosen to go down the same road.

Botswana, with a more democratic government, seems to be surviving well enough. So, what was that about the cause not being the form of goverment?

Peachy,
Like I said, you only believe what you see or hear in the media.

They only show you the pictures of black children being shot in the back, they only show you the worst senarios involving black people,

Try viewing South African TV and tell me just how many white programmes or white people for that matter, you see on the television.

we all know this for the rest of the world to feel sorry for them and they live up to it and welcome this with open arms...and the suckers fall for it.

They only show you the pictures of black children being shot in the back, they only show you the worst scenarios involving black people,

Try viewing South African TV and tell me just how many white programmes or white people for that matter, you see on the television.

we all know this for the rest of the world to feel sorry for them and they live up to it and welcome this with open arms...and the suckers fall for it.
Posted by SPANKY, Saturday, 13 October 2007 7:43:26 PM

Can I just clarify SPANKY?

Are you saying that under apartheid the SA.Government was open in its alleged??abuses of the black? They did not attempt to cover-up such abuse?

Ginx, I think you missed Spanky's point. I saw it as how the media manipulated the facts and only showed atrocities against blacks. Any anti-white atrocities are never shown. The news doesn't cover the murders of white farmers in Zimbabwe, does it?

Bringing up the SA apartheid era doesn't help as that is long gone, but surely you don't think that the new regime is a good replacement.

Jack the lad,
Are you by any chance posting from S.A.?
You seem to know a little of what life is actually all about over there.

People often ask me what it was like living in S.A., I just tell them to first go for a holiday for two weeks...in Cape Town, then get out and do not even go anywhere near the likes of Pretoria, Johannesburg, or Port Elizabeth, they will only be looking for trouble in these places.

The major hotels send overseas visitors on meandering walks through dangerous areas without even warning them, if they are lucky to get back to the hotel alive with only their cameras stolen!

It has really gotten out of hand, but people just keep going on holidays over there, to dangerous areas, not heeding the warnings and not keeping away from troublesome areas.

How many times we have met people who have been to S.A. some having lived there for many years, some on holiday, some telling us they have lost close relatives due to the lawlessness of the country...it's sick!

How kind of you to answer for SPANKY.

No. I did not miss his point. At all.

But; and you are hearing this from me directly; you are choosing to miss my point as evidenced by the following:

"Bringing up the SA apartheid era doesn't help as that is long gone,..."
Posted by Jack the Lad, Sunday, 14 October 2007 1:13:47 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that this 'era' has no bearing?
Are you seriously missing my point that white abuses being hidden by the media (JUST AS BAD), did NOT occur routinely in SA.; a Country I too am familiar with; when this abuse was perpetrated BY the White controlled Government?

If the country is a 'hellhole', it became such because of a system of racial abuse as set by the White.

Or are you both REALLY suggesting that abuse is only valid when perpetrated UPON the White race? Surely not??

Ginx,
You ARE getting it all wrong and after you having made the statement in your last thread, I can see this is going in one ear and out the other, so typical, so very, very typical to your kind.

The bubble has popped ginx, so whatever or whoever corrupted your little world, from wherever the heck you hail from, I suggest you crawl back into that cryogenic tank you climbed out of and wake up in the real world. Too many people like you always take these threads up wrong and again, typical to pile it all on racism if there's no other way out...

Now if you don't mind, stop causing sh!t in other peoples threads, @rsehole.

SPANKY, SPANKY, SPANKY!!; has somebody spankied SPANKY too hard?

......or is that tacky little diatribe because of the insomnia?

(It is now becoming very clear that OLO has a fair whack of dual/multiple identity posters.)

I wasn't addressing you??, but 'you' have taken MEGA offence.

GOOD! The point is well made. You did not like it. I do not care

Hello folks. I’ve been away for a few days in the real world and am now back on-line.

Firstly, Ginx, no need to jump to the defensive because I agree with someone else’s view and was trying to help you understand.
You seem to think that by bringing up the tired, old tirades against apartheid, you can justify your view that the ‘new’ South Africa is better than the ‘old’.
Do you honestly think that abuses against Whites are not rampant in South Africa? How do you view Mandela? Saint or murdering, White-hating terrorist? Then there’s Zimbabwe. Have you any idea of what happened there? What do you think of Mugabe?
South Africa is the next Zimbabwe.

‘If the country is a 'hellhole', it became such because of a system of racial abuse as set by the White’. What was that all about? For someone who professes ‘SA. a Country I too am familiar with’, you have shown little knowledge but a leftist propagandist’s misinformed view. The South African system of apartheid was not racial abuse as Blacks had jobs, housing and were in more danger from the Mandelas and their gangs than from Whites, who gave them employment.
If you think that South Africa now is better than the ‘hellhole’, why don’t you go live there and enlighten the people with your answers to all their problems. See how long you last. Here’s what you can look forward to - http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=16838&

Spanky, I’m not from SA but had an uncle who lived there most of his life and a brother who spent a bit of time there. I also have a friend who escaped with his family after being sickened by rising Black crime and violence (one of his sons was a victim of racial violence by Blacks). I wonder how Ginx feels about this racism, or does Black abuse of Whites not count?
It’s a disgrace that the media is not telling it as it is when covering South Africa and Zimbabwe

Now there's a coincidence....,I was away too. I'mmmmmm back!

You didn't think I would let your sermon go unchallenged, did you?

"Firstly, Ginx, no need to jump to the defensive because I agree with someone else’s view and was trying to help you understand.
You seem to think that by bringing up the tired, old tirades against apartheid, you can justify your view that the ‘new’ South Africa is better than the ‘old’." (Quote: JtL.)

I do not need your view to 'help me understand'. However; whilst on the subject of understanding, YOU show a marked capacity for ignoring cause (because it suits your agenda to do so), and concentrating on effect (because it suits.....).
Take another look at my last post; if you actually read it (?), you will note the comment:"JUST AS BAD". I did put it in big letters so you could manage to do that....

As for hero's/villain's. I am too damn cynical to define anyone as either.....the issue is never black and white is it?.....

"I wonder how Ginx feels about this racism, or does Black abuse of Whites not count?" (Quote:JtL.)

You cheeky sod! I know a bloody site more about racism than you do, so DON'T take the moral high ground!

Over to you Jack m'boy....lock and load.

Ginx...Locked and loaded...are you by any chance...errr bl@ck?

Someone who professes to know a lot about a country they have never lived in, seems to rant a heckofalot about somewhere you know nothing about.

Insomnia again SPANKS?; it doesn't improve your attitude.

Are you too repelled to spell B-L-A-C-K fully? Why is that I wonder?

I dislike the one-sided attitude so I have to be black? You've got it bad haven't you?

"Someone who professes to know a lot about a country they have never lived in, seems to rant a heckofalot about somewhere you know nothing about." (Quote:SPANK)

So your attitude has developed by looking into a crystal ball; that explains it! Very reliable.

A hint: mothball the ball! It's feeding you nonsense....

Hello Ginx, why don’t you want help to understand? You’re not doing so well so far, so I thought that you would welcome a little help. Likewise, I don’t understand your cause and effect analogy. You may like to explain.

I checked your last post but, actually, it was the one before that had ‘just as bad’ in nice big letters. Not only did you lose track of your own posts but you, again, are being vague. So that you understand me, what is ‘JUST AS BAD’ as what?

You profess to know more about racism than I do. Are you studying it at school? Another comment worthy of an explanation. It appears that you are against racism but for ‘reverse-racism’.

So – are you black or what?

Ginx..or whoever is writing on your behalf..

Lets not turn this into a racist thing..although it's very typical of a person you profess to be, to blame everything on racism, especially if it involves not getting your own way.

If you have never lived in South Africa, not experienced both the black, white and coloured situation over there, not seen the division between the blacks themselves, meaning..blacks getting rich off there own people's demise and squaller, you have no reason to comment or proceed from that little bubble you live in. In fact, look at the typical way you took on the defensive as soon as racism, supression is mentioned, this is sooooo typical and they use it for gain.

In any event, this article is about grief stricken countries, but as usual, it takes a person..nay, a low life as yourself, to rock the boat and make this into something it isn't, for the sake of recognition.

You are not recognised, you have been hereby daubed the "unhappy and suppressed threader".
Your locked and loaded, has now turned into sizzled and spent.

What a pair!! (I think..), I'm enjoying this!

"I checked your last post but, actually, it was the one before that had ‘just as bad’ in nice big letters." (Quote:Jaad)

Oooooooo! you are clever!
1)I am studying for KFC higher level diploma: "Racism and its Effect on the Mongolian Oomegoolie Bird"
2)Or what.

___________________

"You are not recognised, you have been hereby daubed the "unhappy and suppressed threader".
Your locked and loaded, has now turned into sizzled and spent." (Quote:SPANKERS)

Daubed hey? What masterful rhetoric. 'Sizzled and spent'? Ah yes!! I remember it well! (Mind you, I am chilled by the fact that you've seen me struggling to thread a needle. You would be unhappy and suppressed too! It nearly sends me blind!)

_________________________

I disagreed with you both. You are BOTH doggedly determined to persuade me to an entirely one-sided self-serving point of view.
I will not agree with that. You have both persisted in trying to force your views on me, and if I continue to disagree, then I MUST be BLACCCKKKK; I am a lowlife.

As I said; what a pair. Your posts say more about you two than me.

Ginx,
Your last thread...KFC
Please tell me this stands for Kentucky Fried Chicken...I am busy wetting myself here!

You are the one who was "locked and loaded", this is perhaps "locked" in a padded cell and "loaded" up on coke perhaps?

Get a life for crying out loud, this is the second thread you have had adverse reactions to and tried messing up with your racist remarks, by my count and you had the same reaction from another threader in that instance, man...what a pain in the @rse!

Go pick your nose somewhere else squirt!

.........................er;...you're not crash hot on the intellect are you??

I-was-j-o-k-i-n-g. Get back to me if you don't know what that means...

As to the rest kaffir-boom;...well let's just say it comes as no surprise to me that you can't grasp the simplest things.

There are no restrictions of membership on OLO; so someone from Kindy can post I suppose.

‘You are BOTH doggedly determined to persuade me to an entirely one-sided self-serving point of view’ quothe Ginx. Yet she doesn’t realise that she, herself, has a one-sided self-serving point of view.

As for ‘Your posts say more about you two than me’, what do her posts tell us? She is an anti-racist, islamophile, feminist man-hater with a habit of distorting the pen-names of those who dare to question her infantile views. She loves to hurl insults rather than rationalise her viewpoint and spits the dummy with ease. She is of lower than average intelligence as evidenced by her spelling, grammar and habit of failing to follow through after making a statement that is then questioned. She only replies to parts of posts and ignores the ‘too hard’ bits (even at that, she can be vague).

Just as well for her that ‘someone from Kindy can post’.

So, Ginx, as you seem to think that renaming those who dare to oppose your view is a way to somehow empower your little self, what would you like to be renamed as, Gin X or Gin XX? I think the second one is best.

Ginx..errr, you mentioned the "K" word.

Do you know what K@FFIR means by any chance?...or are you in actual fact another one of those who only thinks she knows?

This is getting out of hand and off track.

Spankers/Jaad.

S: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A KAFFIR-BOOM IS?? Well well.....

J: Of course you prefer 'the second one'. The first one is all too familiar isn't it?

You gutless little creep. Singular.

Nice comeback, Gin XX. Well thought out and put together. A very good indication of your intellect and temperament. Hope you didn't drool on your Che Guevara T-shirt.

Thank-you Jasper. You knew EXACTLY what I was referring to.

Apologies SPANKY. I do not agree with you at all. But I suspect you are not part of the poster you know as Jack the Lads' agenda.

Ginx...
'n kaffir boom is totally different to what you make yourself out to be, this being..die kaffir in die boom, commonly known as a blerry monkey!

By the way, you are addressing a doctor, one who you seem to refer to as less intelectual.
Judging by your retorical comeback, I actually wonder whether you are in fact not just a loose cannon...with the intelect of a twelve year old..I can say that I am not far off the mark.

Now that we have cleared this mess up and getting back to the original thread..without the rude interuptions...

I find it disturbing, the ammounts of money pumped into a country is actually not being used for the right reasons and the scary thing is, there is no-one to manage this aspect, at least, someone who is qualified to oversee the distribution of such funding, this has been going on for years and the world just keeps on plunging money into these country's that have no respect or have lost respect for human life. The country I am referring to is..you guessed it South Africa,

Could somebody please take out the person stealing the funds meant for sustaining life and not for getting rich on!

Addressing a Doctor eh? Should I be impressed?

This Doctor SHOULD have the intelligence to see that abuse of Blacks by Whites is every bit as heinous as abuse of Whites by Blacks but he chooses to see only the side that promotes his message.

I'm also not impressed by a Doctor; a professional, who can't spell AND who has failed to grasp the fact that my reference to HIM was as 'Kaffir-Boom': a coral tree;-with a VERY PRICKLY stem

Gismo XX, you’ve really lost the plot. Go back to campaigning for ‘Equal Rights For Ugly Wimmin’.
The reason that Spanky promotes the message that Blacks are abusing Whites in SA and Rhodesia is because the media, in general, only covers White abuses of Blacks. It’s called ‘restoring the balance’.

Spanky, the only solution would be to take out the whole ANC and SACP. If only the West had the guts.

Jasper,you know full well what I have been referring to all along.

You have chosen to deliberately drive a wedge;-again.

Enjoy it while you can.....

Ginx,
Is this a black or white wedge?