Why would a retard think that America is responsible for starvation in other countries, we don't owe you?

Question

Kisss my Asss, You take up our time and we have our own people, losers.

f you ford52 you can't handle a real question can you. retarded brainwashed fool

Answer 1

Because they are just want you said retarded! If people in countries (like Cuba) didn't do wrong against us then we would have to retaliate! Cuba's leader Castro is responsible for his people starving. As was Saddam, and the Iran leader. They need to realize who the real culprits are!! Saddam executed how many people while he was the leader? How many people starved because of him? And it's all our fault. I don't think so!! As far as the road blocks, well if there weren't so may terrorist in your country then maybe the road would be safe to use! And did you have food and medicine given to you by YOUR gov. when Saddam was in power? I would venture to guess NOT!

Answer 2

Actually as of now Obesity has a much larger percentage than starvation in the masses...and guess where its at its highest...America...land of the fast food...don't you think that If you donated only a fraction of your earnngs or time to people in need both the problems can be solved...otherwise how can you expect the people of the world to help you in your time of need...and by the way America is'nt responsible for starvation...but it can do a lot more to make sure its gone than its doing now...

Answer 3

Because they all want handouts from America.

Cantcu- How about mentioning that the UN and France were helping Saddam steal the money in the food for oil program? Apparently they didn't care if the Iraqi people starved! We were allowing oil to be sold for food and medicine that Saddam was instead using for his military! We know he had WMD's he used them. Period. He had no intention or care if his people starved. He killed thousands and thousands of people every year. Most of the deaths in Iraq are now caused by militants from other countries and Shiites killing Sunnis and Sunnis killing Shiites. They continued to protest when Saddam was alive because they had no choice. To not do something Saddam wanted was to invite torture and execution. Quit ranting, go to Iraq, talk to the people there and see for yourself.

Answer 4

some of the poverty in the world is caused by economic powers that create conditions that prevent local entrepreneurship from success, this is combined with local corrupt establishments that are sponsored by the same economic powers. Many of these economic powers are interest groups and global firms with bases inside the USA and the EU.

Answer 5

Because you're so wasteful. You're using up the world's resources.

There are people in Africa and South America who would kill for the half-eaten Big Mac you throw in the garbage every day.

Answer 6

In fact haven't you been responsible several times for starvation in Palestine, Iraq, Cuba and so forth? I'm sure there are more. Not that I judge you or anything, it's just a fact.

Answer 7

I was talking about our blockaids where we were not allowing food or medicine to go into Iraq! !/2 Miilion kids under 5 dead, and they are on your doorstep!! We only blockaided them for a decade

Lift The Embargo On Aid To Iraqi Civilians
by David Cortright and George A. Lopez

This month marks the 10th anniversary of U.N. sanctions against Iraq -- the longest and most severe economic boycott in modern history.
Despite a massive oil-for-food relief program, U.N. agencies acknowledge the sanctions, which went into effect on Aug. 6, 1990, have contributed to a humanitarian disaster in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have died prematurely.


Iraqi women try to get medicines at a hospital in Baghdad August 2, 2000. Iraq marked the tenth anniversary of its invasion of Kuwait on Wednesday with defiant rhetoric despite difficult economic situation caused UN trade sanctions. (Faleh Kheiber/Reuters) .

The recalcitrance of the Iraqi regime regarding arms inspection and the absence of compromise within the U.N. Security Council -- especially by the United States -- have produced a political stalemate. The result is a brutal ordeal for innocent Iraqis with no end in sight.

The United States now finds itself isolated in its policy toward Iraq. Even Great Britain has recently urged Washington to ease sanctions. There is growing support in the Security Council for suspending the general trade sanctions while maintaining a strict embargo on weapons and military technology.

There are two compelling arguments that should motivate U.S. support for this approach.

First, by lifting the civilian trade sanctions, the United Nations could concentrate on the arms embargo that has been instrumental in degrading Iraq's war-making capacity. Prior to their ejection from Iraq in December 1998, U.N. weapons inspectors were successful in locating and dismantling most of Iraq's nuclear, ballistic missile and chemical-weapons capabilities.

The U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, UNSCOM, certified in 1997 that ``there are no indications that any weapon-usable nuclear materials remain in Iraq'' and ``no evidence in Iraq of prohibited materials, equipment or activities.'' The arms embargo part of U.N. sanctions has blocked imports of military equipment. As a result, the Iraqi armed forces suffer from ``decaying, obsolete or obsolescent major weapons,'' according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

These gains could be preserved through a policy that focuses on blocking military-related shipments while permitting the controlled recovery of Iraq's civilian economy. But these inspections can't be carried out as long as economic sanctions remain in place, since Saddam Hussein has no incentive to cooperate.

Second, a policy that leads to the death of hundreds of thousands of children is morally unacceptable. The human costs of the general trade sanctions have far exceeded any political gains. From Patrick Buchanan to Rosie O'Donnell, Americans have expressed outrage about the Iraq sanctions.

Lifting civilian sanctions while maintaining a vigorous arms embargo is a humanitarian imperative, but it also makes sense politically and diplomatically. Such a policy would recognize the progress that the United Nations achieved in Iraq, and it could be offered as an incentive to encourage less hostile relations between Iraq and the rest of the world.

The stakes are huge, not only for the people of Iraq, but for the U.S. leadership position within the United Nations. Sanctions against Iraq have eroded international support for the United Nations and the United States. If we act now to lift civilian trade sanctions while maintaining an arms embargo, it would relieve the United Nations of responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

It also would bolster the legitimate commitment of the United Nations to peace and security in the Gulf region and beyond. Economic sanctions have taken a terrible toll. They must be lifted now.

Cortright and Lopez are authors of ``The Sanctions Decade: Assessing U.N. Strategies in the 1990s.'' The authors can be reached at the Progressive Media Project, 409 E. Main St., Madison WI 53703. Distributed for the project by KRT News Service.

Answer 8

Clearly your the only retard here!

Answer 9

Yeah...! u should have thought of that before u actually took it.!

Answer 10

..... I just sent a abuse report in on this question -- Get off