G8 wants tax on airline tickets to help world poor

One Way Ticket wrote:
that the Iraq 'Food for Oil' UN program was corrupt in its management
and also generally worthless in doing what the program said would be
accomplished.

Please read the real UN reports instead of listening to US media sucha s
CNN or FOX before passing such judgements.

OFF only started in 1998. From 1991 to 1997, Hussein refused offers for
such a programme. And when it started, the price of oil was low enough
that Iraq's already crippled infrastructure was not able to produce
enough to pay for all food and medevice to feel all Iraqis. But the
money that was generated through the UN all went to agreed upon goods/services.

The UN so called corruption were just a few isolated cases of
individuals buying oil from the UN at Iraqi prices and then selling it
on the open market.

The other corruption was due to the USA and Britain knowingly turning a
blind eye to Hussein illegally exporting oil outside of OFF and keeping
all the money. This was totally outside of OFF and happened for far
longer than just OFF.

In terms or africa, the problem is that the money from foreign
governments is going to partially help their local companies. So the USA
donates money to africa so africans can buy cheap US food/wheat.

If USA/Europe stopped selling agricultural products to Africa and
instead donated money for irrigation and help in producing higher yield
in crops, then that would improve the situation.

Of course, with a war criminal heading world bank, you can expect US
corporate interests to continue to be well represented in all subsidies
that the USA gives to african nations.

Funding needs to be better channeled. With the realization that you
are not going to reach those requiring assistance when the funds are
all distributed to the top of the food chain.

It isn't finding that needs to be better channeled. It is a quetstion of
funding not going against long term success of Africa. It goes towars
short term benefits of western nations.

In article 1118707724.5b4a801a4dd93abc0f36ce136429050e@teran ews,
"RAK" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
If you dont mind my query what does G8 stand for?

It's the Group of 8 leading industrialised countries.
" The G8 Summit brings together the leaders of Germany, Canada, the United
States, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and Russia. In addition,
the European Union participates and is represented by the president of the
European Council and the President of the European Commission. "
So it's really 8 plus some more of Europe. G8+?

It was at least the G-5 (U.S., U.K., Japan, France, Germany) until some
20+ years ago. I think Canada got into it to make G-6 in the mid 80s.
Not sure when Italy joined. Russia was offered assocate membership for
a while so it was G7+1 or moniker like that before full membership to
make it G8.

Go Fig wrote:
wrote:
I agree with that, and also California and the Midwest should have
high-speed rail systems. The problem is that our Republican government
doesn't care about global warming or oil conservation, and won't fund
intercity rail or practical mass transit within cities,

That is because the Federal Government is Constitutionally prohibited
from making such expenses.

A fact that will come as no surprise to anyone who remembers the
incarceration and eventual execution of everyone involved with planning and
implementing the interstate highway system.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

In article , Miguel Cruz
wrote:

Go Fig wrote:
wrote:
I agree with that, and also California and the Midwest should have
high-speed rail systems. The problem is that our Republican government
doesn't care about global warming or oil conservation, and won't fund
intercity rail or practical mass transit within cities,

That is because the Federal Government is Constitutionally prohibited
from making such expenses.

A fact that will come as no surprise to anyone who remembers the
incarceration and eventual execution of everyone involved with planning and
implementing the interstate highway system.

How foolish or ignorant:

National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, was
Constitutionally justified.

jay
Mon Jun 13, 2005



miguel

On 13 Jun 2005 09:54:47 -0700, wrote:



Part of the problem is that air travel is far more heavily subsidized
than trains. If flight and train prices reflected the real costs to
government and the environment, then trains would be much more
competitive pricewise, if not actually cheaper than the planes over
short distances.

What do you mean air travel is subsidized?

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:30:21 -0500, (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:

Go Fig wrote:
wrote:
I agree with that, and also California and the Midwest should have
high-speed rail systems. The problem is that our Republican government
doesn't care about global warming or oil conservation, and won't fund
intercity rail or practical mass transit within cities,

That is because the Federal Government is Constitutionally prohibited
from making such expenses.

A fact that will come as no surprise to anyone who remembers the
incarceration and eventual execution of everyone involved with planning and
implementing the interstate highway system.

miguel

The interstate was a military project.

George Max wrote:

The interstate was a military project.


Yep...it was ostensibly designed to quickly evacuate folks from major
metropolitan areas and to speed military traffic cross - country...

I do hope Miguel remembers this whenever he is in DC visiting and the
"alarm" sounds - he will of course immediately be magickally whisked from
Adams - Morgan or wherever to safety via the Beltway ;-)

Speaking of nutty 50's US civil defense projects, anyone remember the plan
to have "mobile" nuclear missile launchers mounted on camoflouged rail
freight cars, the rail cars would of course be able to be shuttled into
tunnels or hardend bunkers so as to protect them from pesky Soviet
bombers...

IIRC the plan was to have these missile cars randomly dispersed among all
the rail cars in the nation, that way the Soviets would not be able to
"track"* them so as to knock them out during an attack...

When I was a kid I had a Lionel or whatever rail set that had one of these
top sekret missile launcher train cars...

[*via SPIES!]

--
Best
Greg

Lennart Petersen wrote:

As I've seen almost the same scene in many African countries: "hard
working
women providing responsibility for house and children while the men are
drinking beer sparing the power for the hard work of making children "
I've
got the idea that women only should for one or another decade be allowed
to
vote and have power. Men excluded until they've learnt better.
Could see an intersting report today on TV, was from Bangla-Desh and about
a
small scale organization providing "micro-loan" for women only. They
had
made real good progress with their loans used for small business,
increased
farming production and other good things.


This micro - loan programme is pretty effective, it puts the money in the
hands of those who need it. In the case of these women, a loan of only a
hundred or so dollars/euros can enable them to buy a sewing machine, some
cloth, cooking/agricultural equipment, or whatever so they can immediately
start working from their home in able to improve their lot...

The results are immediate...and these women are able to break the ancient
cycle of dependency...


97% was paid back on time which probably compares well with big business.


Or even better...

--
Best
Greg

Go Fig wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Go Fig wrote:
wrote:
I agree with that, and also California and the Midwest should have
high-speed rail systems. The problem is that our Republican government
doesn't care about global warming or oil conservation, and won't fund
intercity rail or practical mass transit within cities,

That is because the Federal Government is Constitutionally prohibited
from making such expenses.

A fact that will come as no surprise to anyone who remembers the
incarceration and eventual execution of everyone involved with planning and
implementing the interstate highway system.

How foolish or ignorant:

National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, was
Constitutionally justified.

The same silly justification could be applied to rail. Just dust off some
of those ICBM trains, put some old school justices back on the Supreme
Court, and you're in business.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan

In article , Miguel Cruz
wrote:

Go Fig wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Go Fig wrote:
wrote:
I agree with that, and also California and the Midwest should have
high-speed rail systems. The problem is that our Republican government
doesn't care about global warming or oil conservation, and won't fund
intercity rail or practical mass transit within cities,

That is because the Federal Government is Constitutionally prohibited
from making such expenses.

A fact that will come as no surprise to anyone who remembers the
incarceration and eventual execution of everyone involved with planning and
implementing the interstate highway system.

How foolish or ignorant:

National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, was
Constitutionally justified.

The same silly justification could be applied to rail.

The rail lines and right-of-ways are already in place, but nobody wants
to use them.

jay
Mon Jun 13, 2005



Just dust off some
of those ICBM trains, put some old school justices back on the Supreme
Court, and you're in business.

miguel