Kanya? What's that?

Where Kanye lives, obviously :P

Bush only supoprted QAfrica as his quid pro quo for buying Blair into the Iraq war... any supoprt he gave was entirely incidental and was cannot be taken seriously.

Remember, Obama's first act as President was to dismantle Bush's terror and torture network while Bush's was to cut funding to African sex education clinics.

That's not even close to being true. If there's anything Bush can be given credit for without conditions it's his African policies.

I think Obama will have more credibility to pressure African governments to actually serve their people than anyone else in history. It's just a matter of if he himself puts enough importance to it. I hope so.

It's totally true... Do all Yanks forget what a waste of space deadbeat President Bush was until he turned a blind eye to the 9/11 intell?

GWB was given an award for his contributions to Africa.

He signed more executive orders granting aid to nations in Africa than any US president in history.

Aid of all kinds, I should note. Not just monetary.

Hey Bunny, if you are so concerned about your "victims" of Guantanamo, maybe you can start an organization that will place them in the homes of sympathizers. I hear they're really nice people once you get over the fact that they would martyr themselves to kill any man, woman or child they consider a infidel.

Well Even blood-thirsty murderers have rights moron. Didn't they teach that at school?

An award? Gwyneth Paltrow was given an OSCAR for Shakespeare in Love... doesn't mean she deserved it!

Actually, they lose those rights when they betray society, in my eyes.

Bunny: That doesn't change the fact he got more done in Africa than any world leader before him.

Well, even blood thirsty murderers have rights, moron.

See, I went to school.

Name one referenced thing he did for Africa: complete with reference.

PS: Everyone else please note that these red neck red state nutjobs cannot claim he did anything positive for America, what with Katrina, the new Depression, 2 wars etc etc etc etc

The real question is should they treated as POWs, or criminals. They claim to be fighting a war, does that mean we treat them accordingly. Each have a different set of rights.

Bush raised awareness regarding Africa's needs, I'll give him that. But his help with strings attached effectively gutted the proven Ugandan formula of "ABC" (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) - by removing the "C". Bush refused to offer assistance to birth control programs that actually, you know, offered birth control. This restriction enticed many programs in sub-Saharan Africa to give up distribution of birth control in order to get the American funding. Result: Less effective programs. He also heavily donated to religious organizations that also taught abstinence only.

Sadly, getting more done in Africa than any world leader before him (if true) is a pretty low bar. Africa suffers from pretty universal neglect. Contrary though to the claims of significant assistance to Africa I understand that exclusive of AIDS-related assistance, that development assistance to Africa has actually declined approximately 10% since 2004. Debt relief appears to be a partial victory... though considering how much of a burden the debt is to these poor countries (debt service often accounting for significant portions of their budgets) - yet on the other hand how small these numbers are for us, compared to say the Iraq War, it is a shame that we haven't embraced what Bono and other activists call for - the complete retirement of all debt to African countries.

...I mean debt owed by African countries, of course.

Rather than tearing up a man who isn't even President anymore, why not focus on what Obama will do.

He could bring in a sort of "post-post colonial" momentum to Africa.

You don't seem like a very nice person, Bunny. Tarablus is already challenged for the tool title on the cite.

come on invictus, diplomat18whatever is hands down the biggest tool on this site. i cant wait for his post on this topic. im with dexter on this, he did some good and due to Christian fundamentalist ideals did some bad when it comes to africa.

warsprite , off course they should be treated as POWs. but that is a bit off topic on this thread, maybe another thread? but we shouldnt have too many of these kind of threads going at once.

OBAMA! You people honestly think arguing about Bush is more interesting than what the first black American President will do regarding Africa?

This seems to be diverging into two threads...

warsprite: No you don;t give them the credibility. They are mass murderers, not combatants... they don;t have the discipline or the courage to be soldiers.

Dexter... I agree.

OBAMA! BLACK AMERICAN PRESIDENT! AFRICA!

JANEY MACK CAN WE STOP THE FLAMES AND EXECESSIVE CAPITALS AND DISCUSS THIS LIKE CIVILISED MEN?

I'm with warsprite regarding the prisoners - either they are POWs or they are criminals (war criminals or otherwise). I assume that some of them shouldn't be released - that is fine - what is the harm in holding them as POWs? The main argument against holding them as POWs appears to be that we won't get to torture them "legally". Oh darn.

I myself hope Obama just forget Latin America. We prefer you wouldn't help us. Often when a US president tries to "do more" for a part of the globe big political and/or social-economic problems follow. African elites (as well as Latin American elites) obviously won't see this way. They want the money, and they want to remain the middlemen for US big companies with vested interests there... True help would be complete debt relief and IMF not trying anymore to "fix" these countries' economies.

People forget that the IMF is not there for the loaner countries... it is there for the multi-nationals and banks that profit off of the loaner countries.

Some links to respectable news media concerning his aid and support to Africa.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL17797120080217?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4638323.stm

The only 'strings attached' were that African governments strive to be less fundamentally corrupt. There was no other requirements.

I haven't seen anything hyper-religious about the US' aid policies to Africa. Yes, there were donations made to religious organizations, but also secular ones, and abstinence is what you need.

If you hand out condoms, you're basically saying it's perfectly fine to do what you want without reprocussions (psychologists agree). This is the wrong message being sent to young people.

Not just in Africa, but in the States, too.

Canaris,
most studies on the topic (re: abstinence-only programs) do not support your assertion. Comprehensive sex education has been shown to be effective, not only in decreasing pregnancy and disease transmission rates but also in delaying the initiation of sexual activity. Abstinence-only programs have not been shown to be effective.

In regards to psychologists... According to Wikipedia, abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.

Besides, if being educated and prepared for safer sex practices was actually harmful, by the same token educating people on how to use a gun safely would increase the rates of violent crime and gun-related accidents (of course the opposite is true).

I didn't say anything about abstinence-only education.

I only said that handing out condoms like candy at Halloween sends the wrong messages.

I agree completely that sex education is extremely important in helping everyone make better choices. People need to be informed, because what you don't know can and often will hurt you.

Ah - well that I agree with... handing anything out (guns, cars, condoms) without instruction is a foolish move.

@ sean Just responding to posts by canaris and bunny. The legal status has been a point of contention. @Tarablus Just pointing out a valid question. If they are criminals than they are not guilty till proven guilty. If POWs they still need to tried before a court for any war crimes.