2006-10-22 12:30:28 · 9 answers · asked by NoIsY 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Higher Education (University +)
A dictator is either at war or is "oppressing his own people" which is a low-level civil war.
Dictators have nothing to do with peace.
Show me a starving child, anywhere on any continent in the world, and I'll show you a dictatorship. (A dictator gets nothing back from a well-fed child -- the tot can't carry a rifle yet and can't wave a flag for him).
So the lack of peace that dictators represent results in hunger.
And the way to eliminate world hunger is to ELIMINATE DICTATORS FIRST, something that pious eggheads like Jeffrey Sachs simply cannot understand.
2006-10-22 12:39:13 · answer #1 · answered by urbancoyote 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately they are not. Most of the world's worst people who start wars were not motivated by hunger but power. Bin Laden was well rich and well fed. So was Lenin.
Many dictators, especially in Africa, use food as a weapon against their own people in order to maintain power. It's quite sad because the UN looks the other way.
2006-10-22 12:34:54 · answer #2 · answered by Arthur M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If this world was peaceful, then no one would be hungry. We would help each other by any means necessary to feed our fellow human beings who are hungry and mostly who are starving. If you think about it, would you want to starve? I know I wouldn't. But this world has trouble being peaceful, it has become something so difficult, I don't know why this is so. We ignore our fellow human beings who are starving in the world. If I had a bagillion dollars, I would feed everyone on the planet and give them 10 million dollars each. We would all be happy.
2006-10-22 12:48:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think achieving world peace would put an end to world hunger. My opinion.
.
2006-10-22 12:43:32 · answer #4 · answered by 2s2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in countries suffering from hunger, like the third world countries, like the following, india, philippines and africa (to name a few)poverty,hardship,lack of support from their own government are most likely suffering from hunger, and if the countries i mentioned are suffering from hunger, definitely there were some disturbances, rally, conversions of religions and beliefs,divisions of power that causes war. so as simple as this saying NO ENOUGH FOODS TO TAKE, NO PEACE ON EARTH. IF THERES FOOD TO EVERYBODY,NO HUNGER NOR SUFFERINGS, THERE'LL BE PEACE AND NO WAR.
2006-10-22 12:41:12 · answer #5 · answered by Salvacionf 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There always have been and always will be people who are notisatisfied in life unless they have power over others. it's the way that it is.
Regarding food .... food is power.
Control the food, and you have the power. Conquer world hunger, and an avenue for exploiting (and warring) others is eliminted.
2006-10-22 12:41:49 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if people weren't starving there would be world peace because they wouldn't be trying to find out new ways to get food so they and their families can survive.
2006-10-22 12:33:19 · answer #7 · answered by athenajade 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you cant have one without the other.
People are hungry so they get mad and take food from others and make an effort to store and protect the food they do have.
when there is plenty to eat people are happy and more apt to share what they have because they know they can get more.
2006-10-22 12:35:21 · answer #8 · answered by herekittykitty_07 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bad economy = hunger.
War = bad economy.
no peace= war
WAR = HUNGER
2006-10-22 12:32:34 · answer #9 · answered by retorik75 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋