And we wonder why Michelle Obama was not always proud of her country. I knew exactly what she was saying.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080427/news_lz1e27navarre.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/19/uttm/main1633202.shtml

We are not the only country with immigration problems.


_______________________________

To stay on topic, id say its not a matter of producing enough food to feed every person on the planet(currently) its about getting that resource to them, without a warlord taking it, or killing, or enslaving them.

It depends on the provisions in the resolution and I have not read it*, but if it implies that we should go in and fix peoples governments so that we can get food to people who have no infrastructure (due to that same crap government) and will not be able to feed themselves in any kind of way (ever as long as they have no working gov, or infrastructure) then I can understand why our leaders didn't want to sign it. (anyone remember Somalia and the warlords that took all the food that was sent and killed everyone that tried to eat, or get food for there families?)

I only mentioned this becuase it appears clear that no one on this thread has read the thing completely and that is how these things work, there is all kinds of previsions, and extra crap tacked on to these accords, and if you don't read it all you don't see the big picture.

I will look up the actual verbiage and get back to this topic.

It seems to me before you call the USA names about not signing something like this you should read what our leaders didn't want to sign.

I also want to make clear that I bring up this point not because I am on either side of this issue, but becuase without the details taking a side is idiotic.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7kt4g/un_votes_on_the_right_to_food_180_for_1_against/

At the above link a conversation is going on regarding this topic with many good points.


And here is the verbiage:
http://www.righttofood.org/new/html/WhatRighttofood.html

EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO GO TO A GROCERY STORE...................

Bushidobillyclub

Your point is that we need to look at the reasons why the U.S. refused to sign for emergency funds.

It would be interesting to review that information, but that would not be - nearly sufficient - to see the whole picture.

It's true that there are fringe societies that have no "monetary based" infrastructure. And in some cases sending food is not the answer - but until the real questions are asked there can be no answers, and in the mean time - those people still need food - they still need medical attention.

Then there are the societies that have some type of governing infrastructure, even if that structure is hardley recognizable. What can be recognized in the industry in those areas, that are extensions of major, worldly influential, corporations. Most of these industries have no conscience. They set up shop, pay slave labor, destroy the land, demoralize the people, and you can bet they DON'T want a highly organized governing infrastructure set up around them. Those infrastructures have a tendancy to demand benefits for its people, to demand that pollution and destruction be minimalized. Imagine that! How dare these people interfere, afterall, before they came...... well before they came those people seemed to be surviving. Of course not in the same Americans are just surviving.

We look at a coin and judge that by knowing both sides of the coin we know all about that coin. But no matter the size of the coin, it has depth. It's what lies in the area of that depth that is hidden by the pretty surface of its apparent two-sided nature.

I would still be interested in seeing the reasons why the U.S. declined the emergency relief efforts, aside from what I've read.

Also, as always, your willingness to see all sides is well appreciated. Thanks.

More than enough food being produced in the world to feed every person here. Its the hows and whys of distribution. Most grains raised in this country go to feed animals-livestock.
Grains raised in other country feed people.

I don't want the UN to dictate what we are to grow, who we must sell it to, send it to, feed it to, how much we will sell it for, give it away, etc, etc.

I know many people think it would be good if the USA left the world stage, and stayed within its borders. Before you pray for an end to US power consider this:

If the US pulls out of Europe, then European nations will have to spend much more on defense against hostile nations.

If the US pulls out of South Korea, they will likely be at war with North Korea.

If the US pulls out of Japan, they would have to change their constitution to allow for much higher military spending.

If the US cancels aid to Africa, many will starve, and many will go without HIV treatments.

Without US there are no major UN peace keeping activities.

Without US funding the UN would lose half its revenue.

Without US funding the IMF and World Bank would not have the money to help nations in need.

If the US Navy comes home, there will be so much piracy that the Sudan will seem like a safe place to go on a pleasure cruise.

Without the US, Taiwan would be a part of Mainland China.

Without the US, the world would be a much darker and more dangerous place.

And that is why I know the US is usually one of the good guys.