It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

40,000 kids

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
an esitmated of 40,000 starving, malnutritioned kids die every day.
why cant America spend a small fraction of there warefare funds (possibly as high as 400billion) and save many of these lives?.. it frustrates me... thats 14.6million kids a year.




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Why doesn't Australia cheeser?
Rther than suggestng my government do something about it why don't you exercise your right to influence your government and suggest they do something about it?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
A Call For U.S. World Domination


Originally posted by cheeser
why cant America spend a small fraction of there warefare funds (possibly as high as 400billion) and save many of these lives?.. it frustrates me... thats 14.6million kids a year.

That's because most of them starve due to crooked politicians siphoning away the America already sends to help them.

Billions of dollars a year not good enough for you? Put up or shut up.

Of course, if you consider that our job, we can eliminate all that corruption by taking over the world and feeding all those starving kids directly.

Is that want you really want?

What I dont see is any criticism in your post for those who should actually be taking care of them: their parents.

My advice: Ask questions that make sense.

I also recommend losing the something-for-nothing attitude and telling other people what to do mentality.

I don't mean to knock you as a person, but what you posted here is not a post I'd want to take credit for.

It reeks of brainwashed idealism that conveniently lays blame at the feet of those who aren't responsible for the problem.

My advice, find out the truth behind the politics of global hunger. Then maybe you'll realize why you're thinking on this topic is so embarrasingly misguided.

I know this seems harsh, but your post is just crazy talk, and betrays a very misguided perspective on the real situation in the world.

Please, look into this further, and stop pointing the finger at people who actually are doing something about it.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I have to agree, why is it technnically the taxpayers of America who should pay for this? It is a world problem, we al have a part to play in it.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by cheeser
an esitmated of 40,000 starving, malnutritioned kids die every day.
why cant America spend a small fraction of there warefare funds (possibly as high as 400billion) and save many of these lives?.. it frustrates me... thats 14.6million kids a year.


Yet again you make outrageous charges without data. Provide a link for your 40,000 kids BS................ever heard of the UN?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I have a feeling this topic has now expired.....the UN was the final blow, this type of thing is the only thing the UN DOES do right.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk
I have a feeling this topic has now expired.....the UN was the final blow, this type of thing is the only thing the UN DOES do right.


Actually the UN childrens fund that once fed kids, is now goping for abortions and social engineering. The UN no longer feeds kids..........



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   
oh, yes, the UN is aborting all these kids, so how can there be 40,000 of them starving!!!

Doc, no money given to the UN by the US has or ever will be used for abortions. That is a bunch of crap!!



As for the original post....
well, how this, we'll borrow 20 trillion more dollars, and feed all the children in the world......and then default on all our debt....
would that make you feel better?

The US economy is too closely tied to everyone elses, if it doesn't stay afloat, there will be more that just 40,000 children starving to death!! What the US needs to do rather soon is trim down their budget to the bare necessities for awhile and strengthen herself.....maybe some of the other countries could take care of some of this charity for us? What ya think?
Unfortunately, it seems we have a president who thinks he's gonna spend his way out of the mess. He shouldn't have started so many wars to begin with....Afghanistan, yes......did the world a great service there....but Iraq I have my doubts about....we can't afford this crap, and we can't just pick up and leave there now.....so, well, what can I say...we are short on funds, he's driving us deeper under. And, well, I doubt if you are going to get many americans screaming at our government to give away more!!

Now, the actually individual people that make america, well, that is a different story....they give an outrageous amount of money to many charities that try to help people. But, if the country that these people are in are so unstable that it's too dangerous, or the actual government ruling the place is too big of a threat to the aid workers, well, what do you propose to do......

We just don't have the capability to take over the whole world and overthrow all the tyranical regimes in the world. and then feed them too....what, do you think we're Gods over here or what?


[edit on 16-2-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
you mean your not GOD? But my pudding pops fell from the sky!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
And how much money do you spend on saving malnourished kids?

If democracy works out in iraq, the people won't starve there, ever. Democracies tend to not have famines.

Besides, the welfare of non-americans is not the responsibility of america. America should no more have to take from its warefare budget than France should have to take from its welfare budget.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
i believe that this is a euorpean problem. afterall it was europeans who colonized africa, displaceing tribes and moving them on to rival tribes land.

europe should get the bill for africa

should the US stay out of it? no. but we should not have to bear the brunt of other countries actions. we paid the price for messing around in vietnam, why cant europe take resposibility for what they did in africa?

europe should pay the bill, and the US the tip for a lack of better words.

europe should send the bulk of the troops used in peackeeping missions, the bulk of the food, the bulk of everything going to that continent.

now in terms of unexpected natural catastrophes like the tsunami in the indian ocean, every nation should help. there should be a little friendly compotition on what country can send the most aid and actually deliver on it.

but the US has to stop being the care giver to the world. if you europeans think your better than americans, step up to the plate!



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
When did the US become the caregiver of the world, I read a report in the Heral Tribune that stated the United States as a charitable nation was the stingiest of all westernized nations, personal contributions were half of what they are in other industrialized western nations.

The United states government certainly leads the world in creating situations that require aid given to the people, then expect a 'coalition' to pay for it!


Odd

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
so you think world hunger is america's fault?

you're dumb



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Quite clearly america does spend the largest sum of funds on military in the world. the american war campaigns over recent times havnt been pritty, america has INVADED other countries, not to mention they have either directly or indirectly killed above 500,000 children.
How much money does america spend on there war campaigns? this is what im trying to point out. if not so much money was put into bullets and bombs and into aid for third world countries... i think the world would be a better place, but no wait, its not about that that. its about power.
australia isnt funding large amounts of money into their military in comparisment to america. and for australia to donate 50billion a year directly into countries where large somes of people are dying everyday from starvation, is just no feesable, but for america i would say it is.

in 2003, there was $956 billion dollars spend on military worldwide, america contributing to around 47% of this... which was followed by japan with 5%.
so i ask you, is this money well spent? i should of explained my opening post better.



[edit on 12/17/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Ahh cheeser theres the rub ah? Its not feasible for your country to do it but you think its feasible for mine to?
You must be the australian equivalent of a democrat because you have no problems spending other peoples money.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odd
so you think world hunger is america's fault?

you're dumb


I wasn't insinuating that world hunger was americas fault, i was saying that instead of creating situations all over the world in which children suffer becuase of miltary incursions or blockades etc... the US should focus more efforts on feeding children and helping the innocents.
How does that make me dumb? If anything I thought it would have been enlightened. But ofcourse if you think intelligence is determined in how many bombs you can drop and how many people you can ill than I guess I am retarded.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Ahh cheeser theres the rub ah? Its not feasible for your country to do it but you think its feasible for mine to?
You must be the australian equivalent of a democrat because you have no problems spending other peoples money.


america is now spending around 420billion dollars a year on military, around spends around 9.9billion.
You tell me. If australia put 10% of their total military funds into third world countries, that wouldnt even be a billion dollars, on the other hand, if america put 10% of their total military funds into starving countries, that would be 42billion dollars, that around 42times the difference.
you just think about it.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
btw, in your signature
*Americans are Gods chosen people *
wouldnt god want the americans to redirect a large amount of the military funds and human efforts out of military and into saving lives?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   


Of course, if you consider that our job, we can eliminate all that corruption by taking over the world and feeding all those starving kids directly.

meh, you reminded me of hilter for a second there... conquer the world... for a better.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
God would and does want individual americans to decide for themselves to give to charity.
Yes America is richer than australia, so what?
You are still missing the point cheeser, if this problem is such a priority for you then you should give money, if you feel a governemnt should help you should influence your own government.
You do not however have any business telling me what my country should and should not be spending money on, that is for our elected officials decide based on what the public at large perceives as being necessary. We believe a strong military is a big priority thus that is where we spend our money.
In other words its our money and we decide how it will be spent not you



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join