|
RealityLicks -> RE: Rice, death and the dollar (4/25/2008 9:32:41 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote:
ORIGINAL: RealityLicks It is often argued by credible sources that Bush has been better on development issues than his predecessor. Can you show show evidence of this? I don`t think you`re correct. As well,you can`t really include the money and effort spent in Iraq. If anything,Bush and the neo-cons set them back and destroyed that nations systems and infrastructure,the exact opposite of development. Who are these credible sources?What metrics are you using to measure your claim that Bush did more than Clinton? There seems to be a bit of confusion over that comment and it is worth clearing up. Bush has simply had a different backdrop to act before - climate change, hiv/aids, water management are all much more critical now than they were 8 years ago. Even popular pressure from stuff like LiveAid is more focussed than it was back then. In such an environment, it's inevitable that the G8 as a whole have had to take more action. Hence pepfar, hence several state visits. I am aware of the heinous strings attached to much "aid" and have said as much on many threads on this board. You mean you weren't reading my posts? I'm shocked and surprised! quote:
Bush’s announcement received a warm welcome from representatives of developing nations that hope to obtain start-up investments, which renewable energy projects in the developing world often lack. “Biofuel and geothermal attract overseas companies because the capital is beyond the capacity of most people in my country,” said Nigel Carty, sustainable development minister for St. Kitts-Nevis, a Caribbean nation burdened with high debt. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5641 For the record: I detest what Bush does in Africa and could fill many pages with his shortcomings. But in my opinion it is better than nothing. Incidentally, I think Clinton might admit he didn't do too much while in office and that that is why he's trying to make good through his foundation.
|
|
|
|