You are of course right, it is not our duty (at least it is not mine) to take sides. The arguments should be examined to see their merits. In fact, I think there are no sides to take.

At the end of the day, I think this ‘war’ is going to be about people who defend ‘larger’ ideological positions, rather than between individuals whose points of view are so different from the other’s as to be unable to have fair discussions, and even points over which they agree. That is perhaps going to be the saddest part of the debate.

My comment about Mr Sachs hitting below the belt was based on the amount of respect I have for him, and the expectation that he would deal thoroughly with the subtance of Ms Moyo’s argument – or at least articulate his side of the argument very well. Once you start an article in a way that sounds as if you are attacking your interlocutor’s person the points you move on to make might get lost. At least that was not what I expected of him.

Thanks for your comments.

Loomnie.

You are of course right, it is not our duty (at least it is not mine) to take sides. The arguments should be examined to see their merits. In fact, I think there are no sides to take.

At the end of the day, I think this ‘war’ is going to be about people who defend ‘larger’ ideological positions, rather than between individuals whose points of view are so different from the other’s as to be unable to have fair discussions, and even points over which they agree. That is perhaps going to be the saddest part of the debate.

My comment about Mr Sachs hitting below the belt was based on the amount of respect I have for him, and the expectation that he would deal thoroughly with the subtance of Ms Moyo’s argument – or at least articulate his side of the argument very well. Once you start an article in a way that sounds as if you are attacking your interlocutor’s person the points you move on to make might get lost. At least that was not what I expected of him.

Thanks for your comments.

Loomnie.

I am not sure that is entirely below the belt, the debate was not going to be entirely intellectual and some of the discourse would use street analogies.

Dr. Sachs has defined aid in terms of assistance here, the good thing is both people here used the assistance positively to further their careers, the issue with aid to Africa is whilst it treacles down to very few under-privileged, the major proportion of the aid/assistance is not used effectively.

The converse of the story is if aid had been used effectively in Africa the debates we are having now would be moot.

It would have been like Dambisa having the aid to do her foreign degrees and not ending up with the degrees but continuing to draw a bursary.

Dr. Sachs has made some really salient points, it is for the respondents to spin the positive out of what could be chinks in their armour.

If anyone thought this Big Aid, Dead Aid, Live Aid debate was going to be easy, well, all sides had better start shooting before priming their weapons because it is a dog fight/ a rat race, it was never a garden party.

I’ll hear everyone out, seek the objective, ditch the subjective and learn the better of each person’s motive – we should be pragmatic outlookers pitching in balance – it is not out battle to take sides.

Regards,

Akin

I am not sure that is entirely below the belt, the debate was not going to be entirely intellectual and some of the discourse would use street analogies.

Dr. Sachs has defined aid in terms of assistance here, the good thing is both people here used the assistance positively to further their careers, the issue with aid to Africa is whilst it treacles down to very few under-privileged, the major proportion of the aid/assistance is not used effectively.

The converse of the story is if aid had been used effectively in Africa the debates we are having now would be moot.

It would have been like Dambisa having the aid to do her foreign degrees and not ending up with the degrees but continuing to draw a bursary.

Dr. Sachs has made some really salient points, it is for the respondents to spin the positive out of what could be chinks in their armour.

If anyone thought this Big Aid, Dead Aid, Live Aid debate was going to be easy, well, all sides had better start shooting before priming their weapons because it is a dog fight/ a rat race, it was never a garden party.

I’ll hear everyone out, seek the objective, ditch the subjective and learn the better of each person’s motive – we should be pragmatic outlookers pitching in balance – it is not out battle to take sides.

Regards,

Akin