Do you think countries should spend less on buying weapons and spend more on helping the poor & disadvantaged?

Question

military spending

Answer 1

They do not necessarily have to spend less on military in order to spend more on helping the poor & disadvantaged. However for countries who are not as developed like Iran, they should spend a lot less on weapons to help their own poor people. For advanced countries like America, they have the right to spend more on weapons as their needy people are already being taken care of.

Answer 2

well everyone know that it is the right thing to do and it should be done, but then the question remains why arent we doing it??

and the reason is if we spend less on buying weapons then

whats gonna happen to all those multi billionaires sitting on the boards of all these comapnies which churn out weapons?
who will contribute to the election fund of our politicians??
who will keep the pockets of our bueareucrats full??

Answer 3

Yes I do. But it will never happen. Human nature.
There are too many vested interests in the Industrial Military Complex, too many jobs, too much money.
Besides, who starts to dismantle their arms industry first? If we do, the French will step in and flog weapons, if they stop, the Germans will carry on. If the US disbands its Military, then the Russians and the Chinese will take advantage. Probably....but its too risky to find out.

Maybe we should all wear flowers in our hair tooo (I'm bald)

Answer 4

The poor and disadvantaged need to step up.... they should be out there stealing all those shiny brand new weapons.

Answer 5

Governments job is to protect the citizenry, not to treat them like children, making them dependent on the government, removing their self-reliance. It's not right to take money from one person to give to another.

I give out of my own pocket. What about you?

Answer 6

By all means YES