|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Questions of the Day |
Current rating: 0 |
by Jim Ru, reposted from global IMC
(No verified email address) |
29 Oct 2001
Modified: 04:24:42 PM |
|
Questions that need to be asked of everyone |
Why is it that the United States has enough money to buy Cipro, the drug that cures anthrax exposure, and not enough to stop people from wanting to use anthrax in the first place?
The United States never has enough money for education, health care, and the general welfare of the culture and environment, but always enough to buy more military weapons. (The United States has just contracted to completely replace it's Air Force jets with newer models, costing hundreds of billions of dollars.)
Why is it that billions can be spent to bomb a country, but humanitarian aid comes in at small amounts, if at all?
When will the link between bombing people and creating more enemies be made? When will the link between feeding and sheltering people and making friends be made?
If the United States would go into countries with humanitarian concerns, rather than a desire to control oil, (like Iraq and Afghanistan and the Balkans,) then the people who live there wouldn't be so upset and wish to terrorize.
Why is it that billions of dollars can be spent to stop terrorism, but the word "terrorism" is never defined to include the murderous actions of US funded death squads, nor the United States military bombing civilians?
Why is it that billions of dollars can be spent to stop terrorism using military force and the destruction of civil rights, but there isn't enough money to stop the terror of poverty and the destruction of the culture and the environment?
When will we have governments that are not controlled by corporate military expansion and profit? When will civil rights, education, heath and the welfare of the culture and the environment take precedence?
When will the United States become part of the world community? Expanding the role of the United Nations to include government over US interests must happen if there is to be an end to US corporate rule over all resources and people of the world.
Why is it that oil is still the basis for the United States economy when alternative fuels exist?
Why is it that war is the basis of the United States economy when the structures of the United Nations and the internet link us together as a world community?
If it's "United We Stand" then why does this not apply to the entire world?
Why do people turn to religion to solve political problems? The separation of church and state was put in place for a reason. It's easy to see those reasons when you look at Israel and Palestine, or the Balkans. Religious differences are meant to be resolved in churches not in governments. If churches would do their jobs and encourage debate, rather than being country clubs for an elite few who agree with a dogma, then they wouldn't need to turn to the government to resolve philosophical questions.
When will the corporate media realize how stupid they look to people who have access to the internet?
Why do people who sit at computers think that the world is going to change if they don't get out there and confront face to face the politicians selling weapons and corporate power?
When will people with knowledge of alternative forms of government stop talking to each other over the net and actually get out there and do something? |
See also:
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=80272&group=webcast
|
|
Well, because... |
by Charles M. Bee
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2001
|
If the United States would go into countries with humanitarian concerns, rather than a desire to control oil, (like Iraq and Afghanistan and the Balkans,) then the people who live there wouldn't be so upset and wish to terrorize.
Well, of course, no one likes their ethnic cleansing interrupted. Shame on us. |
