Should the U.S. do more to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa?

Yes.
No.
Resources for this issue
    Reviews of this issue

    This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

    Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

    This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

    12/5/2008 11:30:57 AM

    Set as news: False

    12/1/2008 12:54:35 PM

    Set as news: True

    2/14/2006 10:49:51 PM

    issue revision:

    No challenges since a viable form was proposed - hence, issue is being activated.
    Should the U.S. do more to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa?
    Yes.
    No.

    1/26/2006 3:14:16 PM

    issue revision:

    revising issue to incorporate donovan's comments
    Should the U.S. pledge additional aid to Africa to help prevent the spread of the HIV virus?
    Yes.
    No.

    1/26/2006 2:52:36 PM

    i'm fine with Donovan's approach and I am ready to approve the issue that he proposed.  any objections?

    1/26/2006 1:36:49 PM

    How about this approach?

    Should the U.S. do more to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa?

    Shorter - and one can't give a meaningful position without focusing on what is being done.

    The discussion about "aid" v. other approaches seems more "tactics" - something for the people who answer this question with a "yes".

    1/26/2006 8:06:21 AM

    i would like to address some of the comments on this issue.  first, thanks for your input - it is very helpful and vital to the process.  second, i posed the issue in terms of what the US can do to help in Africa because i am interested in the debate over whether the US should take a greater role in Africa.  I do not believe that everyone will respond yes to this issue.  i believe some feel that we should take a unilateral approach to foreign policy and that aid to impoverished nations should NOT be a priority.  perhaps i am wrong and this issue is a no brainer. 

    i have tried incorporate others' comments here and in some cases when i adopted someone else's point of view others talked it down.  see my proposed issue revision in the comment thread. 

    again, thanks to everyone for your guidance and input.

    1/26/2006 7:59:28 AM

    issue revision:

    revising "decrease the spread" to "prevent the"
    Should the U.S. pledge additional aid to Africa to help decrease the spread of the HIV virus?
    Yes.
    No.

    1/19/2006 12:42:17 PM

    I'm fine with the question as worded and leaving it as yes/no, and then letting people explain/expand on their choice in their blogs.

    1/5/2006 6:38:36 PM

    I'm not so sure I like the proposed revision. For this to be relevant to the ongoing public debate, I think it should focus on the question of aid, because that's really the question of the day. I think we could flesh it out by either adding some options like "Yes, with fewer restrictions on how the money is spent," or, "No, aid is ineffective, we should do something else."

    Hopefully, someone who is actually knowledgeable and articulate would propose better options. Or, perhaps the more attractive choice is to leave it as yes/no and let people say why in their blogs. Which is the point, innit?

    1/1/2006 7:28:10 PM

    sorry that last comment wasn't too clear. What I mean is that this question could cause lots of debate and is an important and relevant one.

    1/1/2006 7:24:55 PM

    I like this revision because there may be other issues that people think should be focused on more than helping Africa decrease the spread of HIV

    12/27/2005 3:56:05 PM

    issue revision:

    What can be done by the U.S. to help decrease the spread of HIV in Africa?
    Should the U.S. pledge additional aid to Africa to help decrease the spread of the HIV virus?
    Yes.
    No.

    12/21/2005 9:53:15 AM

    My initial reaction was that this seems to be a viable issue. However, after thinking about it for a bit, I think it seems divorced from the reality of what it takes for aid to actually reach Africa and then be put to use in an effective manner to combat the spread of HIV.

    So it seems the obvious answer to this is "Yes, of course more aid is needed to stop the spread of HIV in Africa." But the real question to me is, "What can be done by the U.S. to help decrease the spread of HIV in Africa?"

    Not that I have suggestions for a list of solutions, but debating whether the U.S should or should not offer more aid seems to be missing the point.

    12/14/2005 8:16:47 PM

    While we're nitpicking, I might say "prevent" rather than "decrease" the spread... maybe even "prevent the further spread."

    12/14/2005 2:43:27 PM

    This is an answerable question about which, I would imagine, many public figures have expressed an opinion. I guess this might be nitpicking, but to be absolutely clear perhaps the question could be re-worded as, "Should the US provide additional aid to Africa to help decrease the spread of the HIV virus there?", just so it's evident that we're talking about curbing the spread of HIV in Africa.

    12/14/2005 6:20:24 AM

    if memory serves... didn't the US pledge a bunch of money and not deliver it? Charitable giving of this type is rather annoying....

    my point is that there are separate questions... I would change this one to say,

    has the US pledged sufficient aid to Africa for HIV/AIDS?

    or

    Should the U.S. pledge additional aid to Africa to help decrease the spread o fthe HIV virus?

    I #3937##proposed another issue# to deal with failure to honor commitments.