Is the west committed to defeating the global AIDS Pandemic?

I need to no for a debate im researching for.

Good question.
I am going to try and give you some facts then you can decide for yourself.

1. The west has been spending a lot of money on the AIDS pendemic mostly in the third world countries. This is not because they want to but its because they feel obligated to do it. The main concern is they dont want their people to get sick in big numbers. So fight the disease from the source.
2. AIDS is not just the disease in Africa or Russia or the South Americas. Its a disease for the poor. I know a lot of people are going to say thats unfair and immoral to say that but its the truth only we dont want to accept it. The examples are all around us.
3. The US has so far spent more than 500 billion US dollars on the Iraqi war. That money would have been able to treat all the 40 million people with HIV for approximately 10 years. Better still it would have done a great job for the research of the cure or atleast the Vaccines for HIV.
3. The African and third world leaders are a mojor player in the global fight against HIV. Corruption and Opportunism needs to collapse in all governments before they can tackle the issue of global health.
4. Misdirected rsources. a lot of the mney and resources given for aid are used for other functions and most of the aid is the wrong aid. Kids in souuthern sudan and Nothern Uganda are dying solely because of hunger and war. Giving them mosquito nets and bore holes wont stop the war or cure the starvation.



I could go on and on about the issues that need to be addressed but i will stop here.
you can get more info at www.unaids.org/publications
the global AIDS report www.data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/200...
You need adobe PDF reader.

Why should they be? They have everything to gain from it continuing.

I would say not, most of the "west" bases it's thinking on economics, and it isn't economically advantageous at this point to be all gung ho about curing Aids anywhere but in the "west". So looking at the Global Picture, nah, no commitment there.

not if they cant make money out of it

I wouldn't think so. The continuing AIDS epidemic especially in Africa and other third world countries is too good for business that spendiong money on eradication would be counter productive and any way they can't afford it if the major drugs firms were able or interested in working on it. To promote the status quo keeps Western kitchens full of expensive vegetables and fruits which have additional transport costs leaving no finance for AIDS reduction programmes. So effort tends to be more concentrated on Western patients rather than on the rest of the world.

... Not really. It's population control for Africa and other poorer countries that can't keep their populations under control.

How committed could we be when we offer "abstinence" as the only way.