While I am all For Helping

Now, do not take this post the wrong way. I am all for helping these people. However, should this really be a major issue for the United States when we have our own problems that seem to never get corrected?

Here is the video in question.



Now, I applaud anyone who is willing to help these poor people. However, I just don't know if this is an issue to base a presidential campaign on.

That film was a total joke towards the end about how much "America does for the world." Everything the politicians do or have done that have in any way "helped" people came at an extreme price. It is so sad to see people saying they are so proud for what we have done for the world yet this country has sponsored more terrorism, dictatorships, murder, rape and mayhem than any other nation in the world. The military may not be deployed to directly take actions, but the money certainly is, that or they send the CIA in to take care of it for them covertly.

Also what is pathetic is they show figureheads on their who never give a rats (self deleted)'s about anyone other than the elites and furthering the NWO/Elites.

I am not willing to help people if there are strings attached to their very souls.

Also, as far as politics go for election campaign... This is not enough, given each politician will only select a few issues to talk on or "take care of" should they get elected... However we all know what happens AFTER they get elected: null and void. Anymore you have two choices: fascist one, fascist two, each with a different face and party, but the same message.

I also believe that we cannot help other nations if we can NOT even provide for our own.

The only way to solve poverty is the solve the root problem: ECONOMY!

[edit on 16-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

I believe that everyone in the world would be better off if we just help them figure out how to plant and grow their own supply of food. Then if anyone destroys that supply by wars or something like that we step in and use our military strengh to take what ever has messed up that supply out of the equation. If we just keep feeding them, they will keep their hands out and keep them out till we feed them again. Simple solutions for simple problems.

General, while that is probably true, I don't know what are you going to grow in nations like Ethiopia or some of the Middle Eastern countries. This would be a problem in arid nations.



[edit on 17-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

If you want to introduce the equation of "growing food" to help the world which is not being done... There are plenty of options for arid nations. Go through a history book and try and find out what they USED to grow in that nation and how, then simply reintroduce it. Some squashes take very little water, some gourds, etc. DO NOT give them RICE to grow in the middle of the bloody desert... One thing that is frequently grown in arid regions which makes a DARN good export is: DATES! Not A date as with another person for those who have never eaten one, a date is a fruit, small, about the size of your thumb. These are grown on VERY tall palm like trees, many North African countries grown them today and export them for a good premium.

Now as for water: If you introduce to them WATER FILTRATION systems and WATER TREATMENT systems so as to keep the water in use even after it is "soiled" you create more water for them to use. Also, if you bring in DRIP IRRIGATION you will NOT lose any of the water when irrigating crops, however the catch is you must remove the lines by hand before harvesting. So this is a very viable option, you only need to employ technology, teachers, money and machinery. After that leave it up to them, make a deal of: you give us X proportion of X crop and we give X amount of raw materials or X amount of other kind of food for a more staple diet then again trade X amount of X crop for X amount of X machinery.

Also some cattle can be raised in certain regions, though they are skinny... They still produce milk and on the most harsh conditions: meat. However these would be far and few inbetween.

Irrigation and water treatment is the solution for arid regions, just be wise not to use aquifers or else you further dry out the land. If we made a pump system like that in Alaska for oil, only this time for water... We could easily pump extremely large amounts of water inland with ease. Then simply treat the water to get rid of the salt. Salt is harsh on filters yes, but if we start making LOTS of these filters... Prices go down. Supply and demand is also key.

Anyway there are some kick off ideas for you.

Well, one of the big problems, particularly here in the U.S, is food waste. Hell, we throw out more food in a year than many countries grow.

There have been several groups that have tried to come up with solutions to this problem.

A Guide for Feeding the Hungry and Reducing Solid Waste Through Food Recovery

* A restaurant chain donates food to local food rescue organizations that are part of a national network that handles prepared and perishable food.

* A food processing company donates extra packaged products to a national network of food banks or to a local food bank.

* A state Office of Waste Reduction helps divert more than 21,000 tons of excess food from state landfills by assisting four local food recovery programs through a food waste reduction grant program.

Whether you call it feeding the hungry or food recovery, such efforts are all part of a growing national movement that is working daily to ensure good food goes to the dinner table instead of going to waste.

In the United States, we not only produce an abundance of food, we waste an enormous amount of it. More than one quarter of America’s food, or about 96 billion pounds of food a year, goes to waste--in fields, commercial kitchens, manufacturing plants, markets, schools, and restaurants. While not all of this excess food is edible, much of it is and could be going to those who need it.

Waste not

Obviously, if half the food that restaurants and homes waste were sent to starving nations, the world wouldn't be facing the epidemic world hunger problem that it is today. While I am not saying that it would be alleviated, it would be much reduced.

Actually it is not the fact of restaraunts unless you are refering to the major food chains... The problem comes from HOW we go about using what we grow: cattle, pigs, chickens and other "feeds" used for animal consumption. I do believe it goes along the lines of 10 gallons of water, and 100lb. of grain for 1lb. of beef. Insane no? Thus our lands are ravaged and fertilizers are in the extreme use, which is what the elites WANT to begin with. If we simply change our habits we will solve the problem, do we honestly need to eat so much meat? No. In truth if you look at a food chart from Asia or the rest of the world... Meat is one of the worst foods, it should be eaten in great moderation. So in effect let us get rid of these darn corporate farms and slaughter houses, the sooner the better. We will not only get rid of major waste, pollution and slave labor but we will open up smaller areas of agriculture: family farms. No more slave labor from Mexico thank you!

I suggest you read this book: Fast Food Nation
They also made a movie which parallels it but I HIGHLY suggest you still read the book.

Actually it is not the fact of restaraunts unless you are refering to the major food chains... The problem comes from HOW we go about using what we grow: cattle, pigs, chickens and other "feeds" used for animal consumption. I do believe it goes along the lines of 10 gallons of water, and 100lb. of grain for 1lb. of beef. Insane no? Thus our lands are ravaged and fertilizers are in the extreme use, which is what the elites WANT to begin with. If we simply change our habits we will solve the problem, do we honestly need to eat so much meat? No. In truth if you look at a food chart from Asia or the rest of the world... Meat is one of the worst foods, it should be eaten in great moderation. So in effect let us get rid of these darn corporate farms and slaughter houses, the sooner the better. We will not only get rid of major waste, pollution and slave labor but we will open up smaller areas of agriculture: family farms. No more slave labor from Mexico thank you!

I suggest you read this book: Fast Food Nation
They also made a movie which parallels it but I HIGHLY suggest you still read the book.

This is a tiny bit ignorant. You can't eradicate hunger or hate, sending money somewhere doesn't do much unless it's used correctly.

But that doesn't matter. I'm all for charity, I think it's one of the greatest things you can do if you ensure that it's actually going where you think it is (as in, some organizations are less than reliable). However, tax dollars have no place in Africa. It must be understood that we can't spend American money on foreign projects like we do now, for the more we use on that, the more money we take from our hungry and our economy. Likewise, it has absolutely no place in politics.

But again, if we're not forced to do it through taxation, I fully support charity.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Likewise, it has absolutely no place in politics.

I tend to agree. This is certainly not an issue that is going to make me vote one way or the other.

Originally posted by Vekar
Actually it is not the fact of restaraunts unless you are refering to the major food chains... The problem comes from HOW we go about using what we grow: cattle, pigs, chickens and other "feeds" used for animal consumption. I do believe it goes along the lines of 10 gallons of water, and 100lb. of grain for 1lb. of beef. Insane no? Thus our lands are ravaged and fertilizers are in the extreme use, which is what the elites WANT to begin with. If we simply change our habits we will solve the problem, do we honestly need to eat so much meat? No. In truth if you look at a food chart from Asia or the rest of the world... Meat is one of the worst foods, it should be eaten in great moderation. So in effect let us get rid of these darn corporate farms and slaughter houses, the sooner the better. We will not only get rid of major waste, pollution and slave labor but we will open up smaller areas of agriculture: family farms. No more slave labor from Mexico thank you!

Well, if we get rid of corporate farms and slaughter houses the price of meat will rise considerably. That means that more people will be malnourished because they can't get any. Its effects are actually to the contrary of what you want (which is, I'm assuming, causing less people to starve).

If the availability of grain and meat are as intertwined as you say they are (which they may or may not be, I'll work on your assumption), then by lowering the demand for meat, we would lower the price. By lowering the price, you discourage people from raising livestock for slaughter, so you will have less meat raised and sold. Supply will fall and eventually find a place where it is somehow proportional to the demand (taking price into account as well). What that will do, based on your assumption, is lower the demand for grains and other products used in animal feed. As demand drops, so will price, causing supply to fall as well.
Now, I don't know enough about the market, but I could see demand rising from this point because more people buy more cheaper grain. In that case, you've succeeded in lowering prices and having grains used for human consumption and not animal consumption. But there's no guarantee that it will happen that way. That's all based on the assumption that the price will drop enough to find a point where more people buy grains at that price but won't at a higher one.
The price of livestock may go down, and instead of just less people raising them, more people might buy livestock for other uses, such as milk (in the case of beef). Though that doesn't apply to pigs, obviously, or some other animals.

I'm absolutely no economist, but I could see a greater availability of grains or grain products on the market for consumption by humans if the consumption of meats goes down. But you have to convince people to eat less meat, you can't do it through things like selective taxation without adverse effects.

[edit on 19-6-2007 by Johnmike]

JH they are not assumptions what so ever, I told you my source book: Fast Food Nation. Go look it up and read it. It not only covers the fast food industry but covers the corporate slaughter houses. Now I can tell you YOUR assumption that people will be malnourishes if ABSOLUTELY unfounded. Why? We have meat alternatives.

Look around you today JM: how many people do you see that are starving to death? Now how many do you see that are about 200lb. overweight? The obesity in the USA is climbing. Proof is simply by walking around town.

Meat alternatives: FISH, SOY, CHEESE, etc. YOU JM are assuming way too much, there is nothing wrong with some meat in the diet but we DO NOT need this insane amount of meat we currently have. It is not only raping the land and causing severe pollution but is inviting massive amounts of diseases and cancers into society. Do you really need to eat meat 7 days a week, 2-3 times a day? NO!

YOU JM are assuming too much. The USA was just fine before when we did not have the corporate farms and meat was more expensive, people were also healthier and not as FAT as they are today. Now that transporation is no longer a problem we can effectively feed the nation without as much waste and meat. I eat meat rarely and I am doing just fine as are many, MANY others. Vegetarians are not malnourished because they have meat alternatives in their diet. What I have said will work just fine, only difference is you will no longer be apple to eat your greesy fast food burger for .99 cent but maybe two or three dollars. Meanwhile fruit and vegetable prices will go down because all that land which was overused will go back to growing things SUSTAINABLY and boom, problem solved. It truely is easier than it sounds.

So JM, before you run around saying I am making assumptions (which you do every single time you talk to me) I highly suggest you stop and think about your own words then. Mine came from a book based on research done in the field.

Originally posted by Vekar
JH they are not assumptions what so ever, I told you my source book: Fast Food Nation. Go look it up and read it. It not only covers the fast food industry but covers the corporate slaughter houses. Now I can tell you YOUR assumption that people will be malnourishes if ABSOLUTELY unfounded. Why? We have meat alternatives.

But are they cheaper than cheap meat? That's the question.

Originally posted by Vekar
So JM, before you run around saying I am making assumptions (which you do every single time you talk to me) I highly suggest you stop and think about your own words then. Mine came from a book based on research done in the field.

Are you done?
Maybe you should read what I say before you go off on one of your little rampages. In fact, what I said supported you more than anything. But you didn't notice that, did you?

Christ, is it so hard?

Your comments did not support anything I said, it condoned them, maybe you need to stop and think about how you sound to other people for once in your life. What you said what the opposite of what I said, what you said is in conflict to what I said. Learn that.

Also, if your going to be a snoot, do it somewhere else. My comments all stand, go read the book.

You have never seen a rampage yet, I promise you that, and you will never get to see it either.