revolutio wrote:
I agree that threats have to be dealt with, but we are spending all of our time on a single type of threat.
We're not. Just before we hit Iraq we took out some top members of Al Qaeda. In addition, our initial strikes killed an exiled member of the PLO. Those are the only reports I've heard recently, largely because the media has been focused most heavily on Iraq. That doesn't mean the gov't has the same single-mindedness.
Quote:
Starvation is much easier to solve than terrorism, we don't have to go right in and try to get at countries with dictators.
Starvation is inevitably caused by a government because left alone people are quite good at harvesting food. (We've only been doing this for our entire existence...) Almost all famine is *deliberate*, either used to keep the population in check or because the food (including aid) is sold off to pay for the army. If a regime is starving its people and you feed them, you just prop up the regime allowing them to keep the people living at a subsistence level. The only way to end starvation is, say it with me now, regime change!
Quote:
Why not start with the thousands of people that are starving in North America?
Are you talking about rural poverty? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink... Most of those people refuse to deal with the US gov't. Claiming that we should fix that is like saying we shouldn't allow the Amish to go without modern medicine.