Spend the money on innocent children or to kill terrorists who are born every day?

Question

I'm a John Lennon humanistic type. We are spending billions of dollars on wars right now, and there are probably billions of kids (including in the U.S.) who are starving. Can you morally telll me that these wars are more important than the kids?

El Cucay- I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but John Lennon did not get killed by a terrorist, he was the victim of a demented fan.

Answer 1

Not more important but as important.

Answer 2

You are putting the question in a twisted manner. Kind of "have you stopped beating your wife- answer yes or no" type.
Are the wars more important than children? Yes and no. The US is at this moment feeding the starving people of North Korea- definetly a good thing by itself, I suppose. However this means that the North Korean regime gets more healthy people to fill the ranks in their army and security forces- and that's not so good.
The problem with Lennon was that he failed to see anything but the surface of the problem. And the main problem is that 80% of the countries of our world are brutal dictatorships who care nothing about their own people. Any money or food you send there is going to end up either in the dictators bank account or will be spent on creating more brainwashed slaves for him to play with. The only way to end this cycle is to topple the dictator regimes- which means war. The only problem is that many of the oppressed people of these regimes have been so brainwashed that they will rather die protecting the dictator than be free- the same mechanism like an abused dog fighting to protect his master from a cop- who comes to free the dog from abuse.
If you doubt this, please look up how this mechanism works over centuries- "Janissary" or "Mameluk" should give you an idea.
And please get off that Lennon thing. He sang a few good songs, but was a dumbo in all other matters and was led by the nose by the soviet secret services.

Answer 3

Okay, you're a Lennon type but how did Lennon get blown away? Wouldn't you say that the shooter was a terrorist? Now if we disregard the terrorists, we're sure not going to see any humanitarian monies going to the children because we'll be fighting all the damages done by those who hate the USA.

Answer 4

Would you rather hand money over to a despot leader who spends it on his own whims and fancies instead of feeding the children, maybe even harboring terrorists? Americans are most generous helping the oppressed and the hungry; I believe we do what we can. Terrorists, on the other hand, would like to abolish us and our way of life. If they were to succeed, life as we know it would end. The terrorists must be stopped; the cost is irrelevant.

Answer 5

How about spend billions to protect the innocent children from terrorists? Even if you don't go looking for war, it will still come looking for you. It's fun to pretend that we can sit around smoking pot and hope that will bring about world peace but somehow that just doesn't seem to cut it in the real world.

Answer 6

You should ask; spend money of children for terrorist to kill everyday or kill terrorists.

Kill terrorists, hands down.

Answer 7

No one is born a terrorist any more than they are born a Christian or a Muslim. A person is exposed, indoctrinated and accepts being a terrorist. It's more environmental than it is biological. Rephrase your question in equal terms.

Answer 8

And the terrorists are from the US, right?

Answer 9

It is the never ending cycle, no one is right, but we are all wrong