produced, does that mean the USA has an obligation to help other countries?
2007-01-16 23:08:25 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Doing something out of obligation is not the same as doing something out of compassion.
Did you know America makes up only 5% of the worlds population while using over half of the worlds natural resources?
2007-01-17 00:04:33 · answer #1 · answered by az grande 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely.
Regardless of what one believes, all ethical or religious systems say that the haves should give to the have-nots, most prominently Christianity and Judaism.
Even from a purely logical or practical point of view, countries with the worst economies and resources are always unstable in several ways, and the more countries that are unstable in the world, the less countries the U.S. and other powerful nations have to trade with, and the more politically and economically unstable the countries surrounding the unstable or poor country will become, which on a global scale makes the whole world less stable economically if not politically.
2007-01-17 09:35:47 · answer #2 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By no means are we obligated to supply or help anyone else or any other country. However, the US does give a lot of aid to other countries in need as a form of diplomacy, good will, and foreign policy. To help others would be the right thing to do..... but a mistake would be to call it an obligation.
2007-01-16 23:14:14 · answer #3 · answered by Paulyterp 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No there is no obligation, however we should find something constructive to do with the food we don't use. I think all excesses should be used to help others, not just the food part. It would seem that would be the moral thing to do. This is one planet and we all live here.
2007-01-16 23:15:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the u . s . isn't the main effectual u . s . in the worldwide.What an excellent headed element to declare, yet u.s. did do nicely out of the employment marketplace by using out WW2, good fortune and from the Protestant wok ethic .do no longer confuse aggression with potential. Your u . s . is collapsing.
2017-01-01 03:30:12 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily; we still have people living in poverty here.
But we do share our agricultural know-how with most anyone; to help them learn to sustain themselves.
2007-01-16 23:33:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not see why they should not help fellow human beings.America needs friends at this worrying time
2007-01-16 23:13:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but they have the obligation to help their own folks , but they don't ;-)
2007-01-16 23:13:44 · answer #8 · answered by willow, the yodakitty from hell 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You do not have a complete question. Read your first sentence again, rewrite and submit.
2007-01-16 23:21:04 · answer #9 · answered by emiliosailez 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
NO! But we will probably do it anyway. And be hated for doing it.
2007-01-16 23:30:29 · answer #10 · answered by namsaev 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋