I'm not suggesting that we invade a country starving. However, I do find it ironic that some people (not saying all), make the statement that we went to war with a country (and then they make a bull---- statement, of saying"for oil") when instead we could have easily gone to war and get rid of governments with starving people. I've actually HEARD that from people several times, so I decided to attack it before it's brought up.
let me just play devil's advocate here for a minute and ask: wouldnt be destroying more precious resources by making war? even if it is just temporarily? And in regard to getting rid of further trade barriers, I think that you would get cheaper resources from other countries, but you are sacrificing the wages of your work force when you buy them. So you get poorer and others (owners of the sweat shops) get richer.
no. it will never happen. too many people in the US eating everything in their path. therefore, more fat people in the US and less food for everyone else. game, set, and match. Merged Post: but you know it was really w finishing his fathers dirty work....
No buddy... it's not what I know. In fact, I bet YOU don't even know the story behind it. This is straight from Wikipedia: So little did you know, the original thing behind George Bush Senior against Iraq, was because he was defending a country that was much less powerful. It was not a war for oil then, it's not a war for oil now. Like I said, the reason we don't do anything about world hunger now, is because people will bitch about us doing it, because they don't like the way we go about it.
