>>>No. In other words, I don't need to do a bunch of research to know the
>>>US is not responsible for the rest of the worlds hunger, disease and
>>>poverty as hinted to by the tone of the original posters statment.
>>>
>>It's certainly not responsible for all of it. But it is certainly
>>responsible for more of it than you think.
>
> Ok, whatever number that may be...
Isn't any amount too much? Or are you saying that it's OK for the US to
be responsible for a certain amount of suffering, but not for a lot?
> Not if people are spouting emotional opinion instead of fact. I'm not
> arguing that I have the facts, I'm arguing that people that don't have
> them are making statements like they do.
"If I don't have the facts, then no-one else is going to have them either"?
> Not making dumb statements like 'why isn't the US declaring war on
> hunger and poverty if they're declaring war on terrorism?' would be a
> good start.
Both are bad things that kill people and that the world should (IMO) be
uniting against. The only differences are:
1) terrorists kill people actively, whereas people die of starvation
through neglect
2) Americans get killed through terrorism, and Africans and Asians die through
starvation.
So which is the reason that we are investing a great deal of resources
to prevent one and not the other?
Gerv
