That means that about 14,600,000 Children under five die per year.

I read another article that said 6,000,000 children died each year from hunger..It doesn't matter, even if it was lower then that I'd still care.

Now, my problem is...Why do we still spend all this money on developing bombs and stuff. I read somewhere (don't know if this is true or not) That the USA has enough bombs to destroy the world 10 times.. Now, why do we need that much? Even if we only have enough bombs to destroy the world once, isn't that enough?! Haveing all these weapons make us more powerful then other people...so? Destroy the world once, you won't need the rest of those weapons.

I wan't to know why so much is spent on war, and destruction, and so little is spent on the Starving, the diseased, the dieing, and homeless, and the poor. We waste so much food and so much energy and so much everything.

There must be some huge thing I am missing...I mean not just the US, but other countries could chip in too.

------------------
Contrafribularities

Mutually Assured Destruction?

------------------
"She turned me into a newt!"
Pause
"Well I got better..."

M.A.D. ):<

------------------
There is no signature

That explains the weapons..but not the hunger issue. Sure we spend money on the hungry...but not enough. We are to busy sueing Mc.Donalds for makeing us fat and because we can't get the nasty taste of Mc.Donalds out of our system..and the Hungry people can't even remember what food taste like.

------------------
Contrafribularities

because the human race is full of buttholes

------------------
wang is within all

I couldn't have said it better.

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)
-------@%

The Matrix: Unplugged

I'm a C4D b****!

The US government isn't spending time or money developing these massive weapons anymore. We have enough of those. They are spending time and money training more troops, developing more sophisticated weapons such as bunker busters, developing robots and computer controlled weaponry. They are spending money upgrading and replacing old equipment, training troops in the newest tactices, and all sorts of various things we don't know about it.

I'm sure they are wasting a lot of money, too.

But that's beside the point. Your point is that we shouldn't spend money on the military while there are children starving. I think that point is short sighted. If we stop all military spending, we won't be around in 50 years to help anyone.

What we should do is examine <i>every</i> aspect of our government and completely destroy unneeded programs and lazy government workers. We should cut the government down to a lean entity that has very few responsibilities.

The money we save should go directly back to the people. Then we can have a vote on whether we want to raise taxes for the good of others.

I totally agree, but lets not forget abortion, OVER 40,000,000 children have died because of this procedure... that just makes me nauseated.

------------------
flirbnic has a signature

I am not saying cut all military funds, I am saying spend less on it, and on all the other crap we waste cash on, and help some people. Ever looked around a grocery store?There is so much stuff in there, that will just go to waste...

(Edit: Didn't see that before. )

------------------
Contrafribularities

[This message has been edited by Rod-Nog (edited February 13, 2004).]

No, that's a bad idea. The rest of the world doesn't want the US to stick its nose in other peoples' business. We should not do anything for anyone else outside of the US.

------------------
WOOSH.
-----@%

Don't mean to dampen the spirt, but if all those kids lived, just as many poeple would die because the world population got too large.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

What you have to realize is that the existance of these bombs prevents other nations from developing bombs of their own and actually using them. I can't verify this fact, but according to a show I saw on the history channel, deaths due to war throughout history climb exponentially until the end of WW2, at which point the rate drops drastically and stays low. Many historians attribute this sudden drop to the development of the atomic bomb.

Regardless, I'd much rather see the technology and ability to develop such weapons in the hands of the United States than in some third world nation that is just itching to start a fight.

------------------
And everything under the sun is in tune, but the sun is eclipsed by the moon...

DSettahr's Homepage

[This message has been edited by DSettahr (edited February 14, 2004).]

Hahahahaha, you're a college student and you're not even in college yet! You'll be well prepared for the Amnesty International meetings at whatever ultra-leftist school accepts you.

Seriously, what do I say to the OP? It's angst. You don't have a clear problem with American policy and you sure as hell don't have a viable alternative. That's classic college student activism.

[This message has been edited by Sine Nomen (edited February 14, 2004).]

I love you Sine.

now my random points:

1. Buttholes <---hehehehehehe
2. Embryos != Children
3. College Student Activism <---hehehehehehe


------------------
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
OSC Returns!!
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On

Starving people in third world countries should stop breeding when they know their children will starve and have altogether horrible lives (what with AIDS and a plethora of other diseases) as well.

------------------
Or then not. --FastGamerr/Nikumubeki

Why are children starving?

White people, and their colonization. Solution? Kill whitey.

------------------
I have become Death, destroyer of newbs.
Statavad-Gita 8:14

Analyze till you die and you will conclude that as long as there is capitalism there will be starving dieing children. Without rich and poor, fat and starving, there is no such thing as capitalism.
In other words, in order for capitalism to work, there has to be starving children. Otherwise you'd have a socialist society (maybe even the boogie man's communist society ). And you know it won't be anytime soon that America will give up any money to feed the children.
And before you tell me that the US spends more in aid than any other country (I don't care), let me tell you this. TD Canada Trust in Canada had net profits of over a billion dollars last year. If this is the case, how much did Bank of America make (a **** of alot more that's for sure). Do you think they'd even think for a split second what the net profits for one year could do for starving children in Asia? No. They won't. Some CEO needs his $12,000,000 bonus for screwing the customer out of another $1/mo service fees. None of those people care about starving children in Asia. NONE OF THEM!!
Multiply that by Microsoft, Texaco, Starbucks, McDonalds and 500 other fortune 500 companies, and you will realize that only the all mighty dollar matters. Not children that starved to death somewhere where we can't see them.

Argue as you may but this is the sad truth.

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

People pretty much have to die like that to let other people live, the international food supply would grow slimmer and slimmer by the year.. and eventually.. noone would live..

------------------
Member of the Minneassian Council

Microsoft is considered an ethical corporation.

------------------
I have become Death, destroyer of newbs.
Statavad-Gita 8:14

Uh...this does look like a pretty stupid thing to say now that I look at it. I mean if they just stopped breeding, entire cultures would die. I guess it's a double-edged sword, though, because even though I haven't had to live in that kind of an environment so I don't know how that would change my views, I wouldn't be willing to bring new life to a world where their life would be starvation and common misery.

------------------
Or then not. --FastGamerr/Nikumubeki

Human nature. I was having a discussion on this with me good friend. Everything we have created has been made to destroy ourselves.

------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

Money shouldn't be given to just donations, rather it should be used to create an education system. The current generation of 3rd and 5th world countries might not be able to fix their problems, but their educated children have a better chance.

------------------
I have become Death, destroyer of newbs.
Statavad-Gita 8:14

Because thestarving kids arent in the countries with money to spend. Its not the business of the U.S. government (for example) to feed starving kids in Africa.

------------------
Bobbert006:The other day my dad said, "I think the world has passed me by."
I told him he isn't missing anything.

AGONetwork

as racist as that is, it still made me laugh

------------------
*landfish 'splodes*
7 of 14

The military is in place so that the US can stay number one. We got the big bad military, which means we can impose our will and kick peoples butts, which means we can have most of the resources in the world to drive our economy, which also happens to be the most "productive", so that the average American can get a computer, go online, and ask "why dont we help the starving people?"

Maybe the heads of billion dollar corporations should donate and help feed the starving kids, but they didn't become the heads of those corporations by thinking "I wanna help the children"... they did because they wanted to make money for their own damn selves.

Also, as far as AIDS in Africa goes, they shouldn't just stop "breeding".. what they should do is stop having sex with multiple partners, and spreading the disease around. I wont pretend to know every little thing about AIDS in Africa, but if people started having ONE partner, that should cut down on the spread quite a bit.

BTW, how many people here who are saying "this is wrong, these companies and gov't should help these people" have actually done something like donate the $20 a month to sponsor a child or something like that in a 3rd world country?


------------------
"Guns don't kill people, I kill people."

[This message has been edited by KOP_Snake (edited February 14, 2004).]

I reaaaaly hope I dont get banned before my 2000th post, taht would be disastrous.

ok, first off, I agree, the whole deal with weapons is friggin stupid. Any nation that has enough weapons to destroy the entire world needs its head examined. America and Britain are so blinded with their belief that they alone stand for goodness and righteousness they dont realise the weapons they have could annihilate EVERYONE.

WHat's the strategc value and not to mention the moral reasoning behind having weapons taht can annihilate millions of innocent civilians?? There are some cases for using them, as in WWII, if they hadnt used them on Japanese cvilians, the war would have gone on and many many soldiers would have died.

But what we're all forgetting is, even though the West was seen as "the good guys", we still NUKED millions of innocent Japanese.


ANd now I get to the really sensitive part, which is where all of massassi, especially those of who obsessed with human rights, starts flaming me.

Diseased, starving, poor? Lets take central Africa for example. They suffer, I dont want anyone to suffer. But if the West suddenly decides to do good deeds all of a sudden and with all of their resources and money, wipe out Aids, starvation, and make a more stable economy and help them develop somewhat, what do you think will happen?

Population explosion.

35 years later, the population in Africa is 3 times what it is now, but the food runs out, and now 3 times more people start to suffer and die.
Ever taken a look at the food production/population graph? We're heading for a sharp decline, and theres nothing we can do about it.

But i dont want to rant and rave like Hitler incarnate, and tell you all taht we should leave all the suffering people of africa to die. I just think we should consider the future, and how humans exist on this planet...

TO quote a rather potent message:
6 billion is miracle enough



oh., ps, I'm drunk, but flame me regardless. Make me see the light, convince me I'm wrong.

[This message has been edited by clan ruthervain (edited February 15, 2004).]

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

The italics were annoying... I thought you were quoting someone or something.

As for the "too many weapons", those weapons themselves can be destroyed. Its good to have a backup plan. And when you're talking about national security, its good to have backup plan upon backup plan, etc.

We have all those weapons in order to say "if you want to nuke us, you will be nuked." We have them because other countries have them too.. and they have them because we have them. And yes, they are quite intimidating things to have.

------------------
"Guns don't kill people, I kill people."

If you re-read my post, you will notice that my main focus wasn't AIDS.

------------------
Or then not. --FastGamerr/Nikumubeki