2007-02-27 14:05:35 · 10 answers · asked by Duminos 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
(If Malaria killed 1 million people in the US each year (as it does elsewhere) we would find a cure!)
2007-02-27 14:06:59 · update #1
As for finding a cure, not a chance. If 1,000,000 people in the US contracted malaria each year, there would never be a cure. There would be lots of treatments though. Lots and lots of expensive drugs and lots of treatment centre set up all over the country.
2007-02-27 14:11:42 · answer #1 · answered by Walter D 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They had a cure back in the 60's. It's called DDT. It wipes out the mosquitoes and thus no malaria. Some environmental wacko wrote a book in the late 60's that claimed DDT was terrible for the environment which was later refuted, but not soon enough, the libs picked up the claim and got DDT illegalized, about 55 million people died around the world because of this.
2007-02-27 22:17:49 · answer #2 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Whenever someone dies who could have been saved, it is important. Until a cure for Malaria is found, it really can't be stopped. The soldiers dying can.
2007-02-27 22:14:20 · answer #3 · answered by David K 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both are important, how could anybody choose between the two, all those lives are wasted in their own way, Both the soldiers that died unnecessarily from being in a war that was based on lies, and the Malaria victims are preventable deaths.
2007-02-27 22:15:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no way to equate the importance of one death over another. Someone is mourning for at least one of the 5,000 who died from malaria today, just as someone is mourning for the 1 to 5 soldiers who died in Iraq.
My daughters have been mourning for a year for their father who died of a heart attack one year ago tomorrow. Does that make his death less important, just because he died of a heart attack and that he didn't make world headlines?
Please don't attempt to place the health and safety of one person over that of another: Everyone matters.
2007-02-27 22:33:06 · answer #5 · answered by Baby Poots 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question is flawed, but here is an idea. Remove the soldiers from Iraq, save their lives, spend the money spent on keeping them in theater on malaria research. Done, done and done.
2007-02-27 22:24:59 · answer #6 · answered by mykll42 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
both are issues... more important... I would lean to the Malaria, just due to the size...
but that doesn't mean the other isn't important... and the simple fact is... if we took out the troops and spent all that money on malaria treatment... then both problems would be solved...
you can't just ignore one problem, because another problem may be worse though...
2007-02-27 22:24:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a no-brainer!!!! The Soldiers!!!! Malaria is brought on by over population and the malaise of the population.
2007-02-27 22:16:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
its impossible to cure malaria right now
and numbers dont matter, who cares how many die? dont you think that those two to five soldiers are important? they had lives and families and they just wanted to defend their country but died for oil
so I dont think that either is more important
2007-02-27 22:14:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Important? it would have to be the soldiers, because they die for a cause while disease victims die as a matter of happenstance..
2007-02-27 22:13:49 · answer #10 · answered by mrjones502003 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋