In article ,
"cat daddy" wrote:

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:02:13 -0500, "cat daddy"
wrote:


It would have probably followed along the lines of what I hoped the
future would be like at this stage, helping solve the world's real
problems.
And, coincidentally, the following was posted today...

2001: A Timeline of What Could Have Been
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/3...uld-have-been/

We certainly would NOT have spent almost two TRILLION dollars on a
war, which we started and cannot get out of. How can people sit by
while children are starving to death in Darfur, or Somalia, or India?
How does this work? It's all very disgusting.

I remember feeling a dark cloud lifting once the Reagan/Bush1 era ended,
and hoped that finally we would be able to address problems in Africa, South
America, etc. The transformation of the eastside of town where I live
(graffiti gone, people fixing up their houses), was concurrent and not just
coincidental to this new feeling.
"With $2 trillion, we could have funded the entire world's commitment to
foreign aid to poor countries for the next twenty years." I read that $1
billion would fund all the wildlife preserves in Africa for a year. What's
that, about 3 days of Iraq war funding. Some percentage of the war funding
could have converted everyone to solar power three times over. "One quarter
of the war budget would have fixed Social Security for the next seventy-five
years."
It's shameful.

I whole heartedly agree.

No sense of priority. At all. :-(
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson