2007-10-07 01:19:26 · 12 answers · asked by Darrell 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
for example, access to clean drinking water and basic nutrition, safe from warfare.
2007-10-07 04:14:32 · update #1
mudmarine, Taxing those who can afford it ("American" or any other nationality) to provide water, nutrition and a roof for those who can't afford and don't have these things should already be done. Interestingly you use the phrase "to the death" as that's what those without access to clean water or nutrition suffer despite the plentiful global resources.
2007-10-07 04:15:06 · update #2
No, and we shouldn't either. There is no "interests of the world", only the individual selfish interests of the countries (and organizations) that make up the world.
If you believe that the rest of the world thinks ONE thing, and we think another, you are very, very naive.
2007-10-07 02:19:41 · answer #1 · answered by cmd3982 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
To some degree the answer is yes. It is in our interest to maintain peace for instance. An open market world wide makes things better for us and for everyone else. As to how securing oil for ourselves benefits the whole world, it doesn't, and we haven't, but stabilizing the region where most of the oil comes from makes it available to the whole world, not just us.
So, yes, our interests are worldwide.
We don't have anything to gain by sending aid to the victims of drought or civil war in Africa, but we do it. I believe that the reason is that we are attempting to maintain stability throughout the entire world because to do so is to insure a better life for everyone, and as a part of the world community it is our obligation to do so.
2007-10-07 08:39:44 · answer #2 · answered by maryjellerson 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't know of any country that shares the interests of the whole world. As far as I can see, every nation puts its own interests ahead of the planet. If they didn't, we would not have such extreme problems with environmental and other common issues.
2007-10-07 08:25:14 · answer #3 · answered by Helen M 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If it comes down to it, a resounding no way.
If you've been following the news and do a bit of lateral thinking, I'll leave it to your imagination!!
2007-10-07 08:57:39 · answer #4 · answered by PRH1 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes but are unknownly contributing to one of the biggest problems world-wide; this war on drugs. Please to understand this better at 8:00pm (EST) please watch CNN's; "Narco State: The Poppy Jihad". The people in the middle east have easier assess to heroin than they do to clean drinking water and they are NOT a population of drug addicts. Why is the US spending so much money on the war against drugs while INDIRECTLY supporting the terrorist's??
2007-10-07 08:29:39 · answer #5 · answered by pacer 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
This is a joke ... right!
They care about nobody but themselves ... well George Bush does anyway
2007-10-07 08:23:37 · answer #6 · answered by ger72k 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
It does because it is also good for the US. I would call it enlightened self-interest.
2007-10-07 08:23:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
nope - how was invading iraq beneficial to the ENTIRE world?
How is securing the oil for themselves beneifical to the entire world?
2007-10-07 08:23:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Does anybody?
2007-10-07 08:28:20 · answer #9 · answered by Barry K 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsK1NQzxUyS8ECHoWH80gdDty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071004042101AAEajpg
2007-10-07 08:25:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋