10,000 children killed by malnutrition today

10,000 were killed by malnutrition the world over, aged 5 or under. Today, tomorrow, and every day thereafter unless we act. Will we be doing anything to save these little, innocent, helpless people?

I'm a parent. I can't begin to fathom the horror of my child dying from malnutrition.

Please forgive my confusion regarding Libya. We spent more than $1 billion on just the first day of this war, vs. http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=4064&cat=press-release">$350 million spent by all of the rich nations on childhood hunger in an entire year. I guess if we blow stuff up it's a better way to save lives.

Sid

Sid

And he was asked to make edits, which he did. The title is very different than the original, and better for it, but neither that edit nor the edits made to the body of the post change the point being made a single iota. Could a better choice of words have been used originally? Sure. Is that more important than the issue itself? Not by a mile.

I understand that you don't like his position, but you're smart enough to see the point being made, whether you agree with it or not.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am unreccing for the misleading subject line.

and starving to death and no one gives a damn..

You mean like stop allowing wealthy investors from speculating on food and basic commodities?

Fat chance.

I donate to charities like Oxfam and Save the Children; that's the most most of us can reasonably do--send what we can to people who'll be able to use it.

and poverty- be they children or adults, is worthy on its own.

You don't need to play stupid games to bring this issue up and champion it.

If you truly care about it- and seek to really do something positive about it- skip the lies and manipulation


please.

Sid

I think it's a reasonable way to draw attention to the claim that we're in Libya because it's the humanitarian thing to do. But let's see what happens.

:hi:

fits in with the point you wish to make. I basically agree with your point (NONE of us want children dead from malnutrition-NONE of us) but the tactics you use to make it are disappointing. If our side can't do better than this why do we even try?

should be done wherever and whenever possible? Or should every life saved be measured by its worth?

2011 Hunger Report

Then it demonstrates that plan A is not about saving lives.

Why do you think we spent 3 times more just on day one of the Libyan war, than we spend in an entire year for ending childhood starvation? I'm curious as to your thinking here.

you can feed a village in Africa much more cheaply than you can halt the advance of an armoured column but lives have been saved in both cases. And some things are better achieved by non-state actors; charitable organisations and UN relief agencies are probably better-placed for humanitarian aid than militaries. I support charities with donations; probably, on a purely cash basis, more than I support the military with my taxes. It may not be as effective since everyone pays tax and not everyone gives to charities and relief organisations, but I'd like to think it's not entirely pointless either.

And one is capable of both supporting intervention in Libya and also of caring about the problems of poverty and starvation in much of the world; one doesn't preclude the other.

There'd be fewer saved lives?

and again you're confusing the issue by looking at government military expenditures; do you contribute to charity, by the way? Or do you just piss and moan about how you wish the government would spend more on foreign aid instead of the military while not actually doing anything yourself?

because we need a certain amount in the "military" category instead of the "saving lives without blowing stuff up" category. And saving a life in Libya by blowing stuff up costs less than saving a life in Haiti by giving a kid food.

OK, got it.

As to your aspersions on my character - really? my questions make you that upset?

since you avoided answering I'll assume the answer is "no actually I don't".

And realistically the billions spent on ethanol subsidies and turning a third of the American corn crop into biofuel represents much more of an issue vis-à-vis global hunger than the military expenditure in Libya. Fun fact: nearly half of domestic US "oil production" actually comes from ethanol. But I suppose cheaper fuel is a greater concern than global hunger, eh?

My fingers should must be more tired than they seem to be. I'll rest them now.

Good night.

which amounts to the same thing.

since it now barely resembles what you had up there originally.

Sid

Now some people are going to want the United States to bomb Hungary.

NFZ -- and I look at it this way -- UK, France, Russia -- and USA even had a

contract with Gaddafi at the end -- weaponized him to the point where he could

not be thrown out of office by his own countrymen -- even after 40 brutal years

of his reign.

W "normalized" relations with Gaddafi -- supporting the guy even Reagan called a "Mad dog" --


And I'm also thinking of our own future here in America when we may want to address this

fascist "national security state" ourselves -- who will help us.


No amount of citizen concern can feed hungry children -- really only government can do that --

we can pressure, but only a people's government can do it.


If we actually had a people's government, we could change the priorities!!





The Richwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

The priorities are CLEAR.
Follow the Money.

This is something EVERYONE in the lucky 'first world' should take a moment to remember every day.

A lot of the food grown in the world goes to feeding animals for us to eat.