Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
But "we" didn't, because "we" didn't think it was worth the costs.
"We" are busy selling our hats to each other at the moment. "We" don't
have a national will to do great things any more.
And I think "we" made the right decision.
Lessay we concentrate all our resources into feeding the poor, fixing
all the social inequalities, and making the world a better place for our
children and our childrens children.
After all that. I would wager my life that there will still be poor,
there will still be starving people, there will still be inequality, and
the world will not be any better a place than it is today.
A-yup.
Brian ought to be able to at least partially attest to this...I am
sure Somalia bears some resemblence...
While on one of those missions that he and Lennie said I wasn't on,
we were briefed on the poverty of the local community, certain cultural
do's and don'ts and the likelyhood of who/where the "bad guys" would
be.
During the "these are really poor folks" part of the lecture, we
were told about how the average (certain Central American country)
citizen only earned less than the equivilent of USD $1000/yr. And
indeed, when we got there, there were some of those same kids you see
at 3AM, doe-eyed and playing in squalid poverty.
We were only in this community 6 days, and I was initially prone
to dispensing my MREs to the kids...Until I realized that almost
everyone had an AK-47, M-16, or FN-FAL rifle...And each bragged of how
much it cost him to get it...
They will live in putrid, debilitating poverty, but manage to find
the cash for guns and ammunition.
That's where my liberal streak ended.
I am always amazed at the CNN, MSN, and other news shows that have
"on the scene" reporters in countless third-world countries that are
pontificating about poverty while the men in the streets are carrying
assault rifles like my wife carries her purse.
73
Steve, K4YZ