jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (14 posts)

I wonder why fighting wars take priority over fighting poverty?

  1. Goodpal profile image91
    Goodpalposted 4 years ago

    I wonder why fighting wars take priority over fighting poverty?

    Iraq / Afghan War

    "The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion," reported The Washington Post, March 28, 2013

    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 … r-veterans

    In contrast, in 2010 the World Bank estimated 1.2 billion extreme poor in the world and the  poverty gap to be only $169 billion on its $1.25 poverty line.

    Is multiplying human suffering more important than eliminating it?

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/8377452_f260.jpg

  2. cfin profile image81
    cfinposted 4 years ago

    Because war makes the greedy richer, fighting poverty doesn't help them and they are the people with the most say, and have the most power to change the world.

    1. ChristinS profile image96
      ChristinSposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, this. If there was a nickel to be made helping people then it might be done, but wars are great for business. Sad but true.

    2. Goodpal profile image91
      Goodpalposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Eliminating poverty is actually a good business preposition. They will have more buying power that is good for business. Fighting poverty is in a way an indirect investment to expand the market. It is sheer stupidity if the rich don't see it.

    3. Rock_nj profile image92
      Rock_njposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Goodpal.  That is a good long term business perspective, and certainly good for everyone in the long run.  However, the lobbyists who influence spending in Washington are concerned with boosting profits in the near term for specific clients.

    4. Goodpal profile image91
      Goodpalposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So the basic problem is the "short-termism" and quick profits. Look at how fast China has eliminated poverty in the last decade and expanded the middle class and the whole business world is reaping the benefits. I feel public opinion can change minds

  3. Rock_nj profile image92
    Rock_njposted 4 years ago

    The reason why is clear.  Those who influence spending decisions in Washington, DC profit from wars, not from addressing poverty.  In the U.S. it goes a lot further than simply not fighting poverty.  A whole slew of regular government infrastructure spending that any developed country routinely does, from road and transit improvements and expansion to water and irrigation projects, is neglected in the U.S. because the money is spent by the trillions on dubious wars.  I hate sending my money to Washington and seeing it go to destroy and rebuild countries I will never set foot in, while my own country crumbles from neglect.

    1. Goodpal profile image91
      Goodpalposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The disproportionate high influence of a few in the running of a country is bad for the democracy. I really wonder which way the US is going by neglecting the social and infrastructure development and its own 15% poor people.

  4. CraftytotheCore profile image81
    CraftytotheCoreposted 4 years ago

    When I saw the starving Syrian children on the news, that was my first thought too Goodpal.  Why are we fighting a war, when we could be helping them get food.

    But I don't know a whole lot about it because I don't want the news enough.

    1. Goodpal profile image91
      Goodpalposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, it is certainly moving to see children suffer whether in Syria, Africa or in Bangladesh. How about the hardships of soldiers and their families? It appears that the virtues of human kindness and compassion have become irrelevant.

  5. someonewhoknows profile image74
    someonewhoknowsposted 4 years ago

    There are those who see overpopulation as the downfall of mankind.They believe  depopulation of 95% of the worlds people is the answer to poverty
    War and or disease  and disasters are the solution as some people believe.
    If,we are to avoid future wars we must find solutions to poverty and social differences other than war. http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersite … idestones/

    1. Goodpal profile image91
      Goodpalposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think the simplest solution of poverty is economic development. Development is also the solution of over population. Wars are never a solution of anything; they are by nature always part of the problem - in my opinion.

  6. kknde profile image61
    kkndeposted 4 years ago

    very simple: profit. If we cure world from poverty, some people won't have such big profit and also if people are pleased, they are less likely to be easily manipulated. So, raising war, imposing fear, leaving people hungry- best way to manipulate!

    1. Goodpal profile image91
      Goodpalposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I fully agree with you. But don't you think that we should do something about this silly mindset? There should be more in the world than mere wars, insecurity, fear and conflicts propagated by greed of a few power hungry leaders.

 
working