Live 8

[Mozz]

Am I the only one who thinks this is a complete jopke?

:Everyone yells "Yes":

 

[MondoTR]

What is it?

 

[Barb]

A concert to be held in Britain. I believe Pink Floyd are reuniting for this concert.

 

[Jeff]

Actually, It's being held in 10 cities all over the world, including Philly here in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_8

Sounds like one of those lame "everone hold hands and give to the world" kind of things. Not interested in the least bit.

 

[Barb]

The name is reminscent of "Live Aid," a 1985 concert event coordinated by Bob Geldof to raise funds for Africa. The song "We Are the World" was written for it.

 

[Kasumi]

Why do you think it's a joke?

 

[GrnMarvl14]

The name is reminscent of "Live Aid," a 1985 concert event coordinated by Bob Geldof to raise funds for Africa. The song "We Are the World" was written for it.

It's orchestrated by the same people. This isn't to raise money though, it's to get the G8 summit leaders' attention towards the issue of Africa.

And I KIND OF think it's a joke. I mean, the basic idea isn't bad, but with this many major stars, I think they could combine pocket cash and get Africa out of debt and into the 22nd century. It's ridiculous how FEW of these big stars actually donate any REAL money to charity. It's like getting pissy when someone downloads a song while you charge $300 for a stupid 2 hour show, where the singer may show up drunk off his ass. The thought's right, but the way it's carried out is retarded. There's no better word.

 

[Argy]

While the idea is pretty cool, I don't doubt that the majority of people attending are simply there for a free concert.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I would guarantee that 98% of the people are there for the music and could care less about the cause. And that's a number I'll hold firm to.

 

[Mozz]

Also, erasing debt will do nothing to help them financially.

Let's send them more money.. Wait, you mean the warlords took it and wired it to their Swiss bank accounts? Then we need to send more!

 

[The Big Al]

Exactly, I don't believe this but I have to agree with Mozz. Africa is covered in kleptocracies(sp?), that's governments that steal from their people. You think they'll just suddenly share the wealth if they have no debt? Wrong. If anything this'll reward this horrible people for how they treat their people.

The only way to seriously remove poverty from the face of this earth is to remove about half of the governments as well.

 

[Archaic]

If there was ever any regimes in need of change in this world, it's the majority of the African ones. You'd think *someone* would have invaded Zimbabwe by now. The worst we've done thusfar is threaten to not have cricket tours. Isn't that doing them a favour?

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I always considered one of the Congos to be worse. I can never keep them in order, though. They may both be horrible for all I know. But I've heard of MASSIVE human rights violations, environmental issues, and the slaughter of endangered species. There's something there for EVERYONE to protest against. But EVERYONE ignores it, with the exception of a VERY small armed UN contingent, who essentially do nothing but run away from the problem because they wouldn't stand half a chance anyway. I don't care how bad anyone thought Iraq was pre-invasion...the Congo I'm thinking of is far worse. I just wish I could keep the two separate in my mind. Both have Congo in their name. Both are in Central Africa. They're right next to each other. I dunno...it's all confusing.

 

[Fig]

Also, erasing debt will do nothing to help them financially.

Let's send them more money.. Wait, you mean the warlords took it and wired it to their Swiss bank accounts? Then we need to send more!

Nah. Let's give even MORE help to the government without warlords instead. Since, you know, these actually exists (and were, one must admit, granted a pretty big start on help not that long ago).

 

[Barb]

One of the Congos? What about Sudan?

 

[Mozz]

Nah. Let's give even MORE help to the government without warlords instead. Since, you know, these actually exists (and were, one must admit, granted a pretty big start on help not that long ago).

Let's not and say we did

 

[GrnMarvl14]

One of the Congos? What about Sudan?

Eh, they're about even, Sudan just gets more coverage since it's in the Middle East. Honestly, when was the last time ANY African country that didn't fall into the Middle Eastern area get any REAL coverage outside of Libya? And I dunno...isn't Libya in the "Middle East" area of Africa?

Nah. Let's give even MORE help to the government without warlords instead. Since, you know, these actually exists (and were, one must admit, granted a pretty big start on help not that long ago).

I think that's what Bush is suggesting we do. But how does that help the areas that are worse off? At this point, if they COULD rise up against their oppressors, I'm positive they would. Change happens slow in Africa. I mean, how long did apartheid last before it was FINALLY ended? And since slavery ended, most of the world could care less about Africa.

 

[Fig]

Change don't happen if you give more money to the oppressors.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Sure it does. Eventually they'll believe they have TOO MUCH money, and begin to give it out. It's the basic overflowing bathtub idea. But America's about throwing money and weapons at the problem until it turns on us and tries to kill us. Or we THINK it's trying to kill us. See, by giving money NOW, we're ensuring that we'll attack it LATER. Look at Iraq. Afghanistan. Nicaragua. Germany. The Southern half of the US. And about 20 million random others.

 

[The Big Al]

These people will never have too much money. In fact, if we removed the debt off of some countries, the others would go to war to steal their money. Stability comes before prosperity. For one thing, if a country is stable, companies are more likely to invest in that country.