It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Borgen Project : US Leaders Can End Hunger (from ATSNN)

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:00 PM
The Borgen Project is a non-profit corporation working to bring public and political attention to relief issues through mass marketing. Instead of simply funding aid agencies the Borgen Project is addressing the source of the solution: the lack of public knowledge and political will to address these issues. The Borgen Project is basically an awareness campaign much like ATS.
Even multi-million dollar relief agencies are limited in what they can accomplish. The U.S. government is not. The nation has the political power and resources to eliminate some of the top global issues of our time. Rather than create another relief agency we decided to address the bigger picture, the lack of political will and the lack of public knowledge that allows these pressing issues to continue to exist during the most prosperous and technologically advanced time-period in history.

Experts once argued whether Americans would finally grasp the enormity of the military budget when spending reached $100 billion. Now $416 billion, and candidates still arguing over who will spend the most, it would appear people still haven't grasped a budget beyond comprehension.

The U.S. accounts for almost half of all military spending in the world.

According to CDI, the U.S. military budget is more than 37-times as large as the combined spending of the seven
"rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria).

In what can only be described as the most opportune time in history: The United States can end hunger worldwide and still have by far the most expensive military on earth.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Their website consists of countless statistics ranging from the arms trade, to the iraq war, to global poverty and the costs of ending it.

This is one website I beleive we should all support and pass on to others.


Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:

Edit: Removed all-caps title

[edit on 20-1-2005 by Spectre]

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 03:05 PM
Why should it be JUST Americas responsabilty? Europe, Asia both have booming econmies why should it be just our problem?

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 06:06 PM
So what? France could save the world if they gave away grapes instead making wine. Who cares? We spend our money the way we want to, not how the UN or the Borgen Project or any other group tells us to! We give plenty of food aid to starving people worldwide -- what we don't do is stop spending on our own defense and give all that money to dictators! These people need to get a life. :shk:

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:57 PM

why should it be just our problem?

that's not what they're saying, that's only one example from the website where the US could divert minimal funding from its defense budget and make a HUGE difference in underdeveloped countries. in 1970, the world's nations agreed to provide 0.7 percent of their gross national income for development assistance. the only countries who have met this minimal pledge? Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. it's not just a US problem it's just that the US has the ability to make a big difference and chooses not to.

what we don't do is stop spending on our own defense

in my opinion i would say diverting some of the defense budget to help turn the world around would do far greater for US security then any amount of defense spending.

"For 45 years of the Cold War we were in an arms race with the Soviet Union. Now it appears we're in an arms race with ourselves."
- Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr., U.S. Navy, Vice President Emeritus Center for Defense Information


[edit on 20-1-2005 by raven2012]

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 12:07 AM

• $416 billion: U.S. Defense Budget
• $165 billlion: U.S. Defense Contracts.
• $22 billion: Lockheed Martin's DoD contracts.

• $19 billion: Eliminate Starvation and Malnutrition
• $21 billion: Provide Shelter
• $30 billion: Retire Developing Nations Debt
• $10 billion: Provide Clean, Safe Water
• $21 billion: Provide Health Care and AIDS Control
• $4 billion: Remove Landmines
• $7 billion: Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
• $5 billion: Refugee Relief
• $5 billion: Eliminate Illiteracy

$4.4 BILLION: The cost of two
B-2 Bombers.

$3.2 BILLION: The annual
budget for the World Food
Program to assist 104 million
starving and malnourished
people in 81 countries.


posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 04:20 AM
While i agree that humans should not suffer, and that some charity is prudent.

Charity isnt going to make the places where its needed any more capable of supporting the humans living there...its only going to make the humans dependant on the charity more.

The planet already has too many people consuming too many resources, way too fast.
So i feel it os both illogical and against "nature" or darwinism by making it easier for humans to continue to overpopulate the globe.
This is self defeating, yet it makes us feel good to try and help.

At some point, if the system of food production even hiccups for a short time where wold production falls sharply...people will die slowly.
Why is it logical to help this problem grow?
I know this sounds harsh, but eventually nature is going to come calling, and man wont have enough basic things to keep us all alive....
Then darwinism will sort us all out.

providing aid after a disaster is one thing,
creating a class of people that are dependant, with little hope, resources, education, and other capasity to become self sufficiant seems like cruel torture and prolonged suffering if you ask me.
Id like to help,
but give me an exit strategy. Im not here to support the world, ive got my own to feed/shelter etc.

You talk of turning the world around...
according to whos design?
Even if we gave the aid, would they take it? would they use it like we wanted? Or would they restrict aid like in indonesia (for whatever reason)
or just pocket that aid like saddam (oil for food)
Ever hear, you cant save those that dont want to save themselves?

Emergency aid is noble,
welfare is welfare however you try and paint it, and it would only help people to stagnate in a no win situation.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 04:25 AM
I ahve the perfect solution, a way we can keep our military budget and end world hunger. Test all of our weapons on the starving. Nukes, daisy cutters, flame throwers whatever. We get to see how effective our weapons are and they don't need food anymore. Perfect solution

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 04:47 AM
if we did this, the population would grow making it worse, requiring even more aid to just keep up.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:42 AM

if we did this, the population would grow making it worse, requiring even more aid to just keep up

ya this is a good point and actually crossed my mind as well. i think this is a major reason why we don't see much assistance taking place.

i just found the statistics of this website pretty staggering; how such a minimal effort from developed countries could make such a profound difference. but i guess that won't be in our best interest until we can find a way to extend the efficiency of the earth's energy sources to meet everyones needs.


[edit on 20-1-2005 by raven2012]

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 12:14 PM
It's funny that we account for almost half the defense spending in the world, yet our military is pathetic in the sense that we can barely handle the situation we are in now.

What would happen if we got attacked now. Nothing, we'd get our asses handed to us.

We need to cut defense spending by at least 50%.

new topics

top topics


log in