<p>The United States has already accepted much of the responsibility for dealing with the world’s problems. Our isolationist days are over. We project economic and military power all over the globe. What we say and do affects the entire world to one degree or another. That means, like it or not, we are already involved and invested in either the success or failure of global peace. Whoever said “To whom much is given, much is expected” hit the nail on the head. The rest of the world looks to us for leadership and example, that is a position WE have put ourselves in and accepted since the beginning of the 20th century. Yup, lets just crawl back into our superior hole, surround ourselves with superior firepower and let the much of the rest of the world starve. </p>
<p>“Next, we should NOT be trying to end world hunger and poverty”</p>
<p>I really get a kick out of the fundamentalist christian churches in this country who have decided to get so involved with our political process yet I hear the same things from them. Apparently we are a “christian nation” but I guess christian charity only applies to those who think and live as we do. After all, we are superior–we are more motivated and determined than everyone else. Good grief. We have enough of our own skeletons in our national closet that I thought we’d at least have a bit of humility as well.</p>
<p>We have a great nation, but if we lose sense of our role in the world and our ability to help others we lose who we are. If my neighbor and his children are lying in a muddy ditch Im gonna help them up first, Im not going to wait to ask what they did to get there.</p>
<p>For decades we felt the responsibility to protect the nations of the world from the spread of communism, yet now you propose that the United States shouldn’t lead the effort to end world hunger and poverty? Now that we’ve saved much of the world from “Godless Communism” is this how God’s “christian nation” is to act? Because they don’t embrace a capitalistic system or they aren’t “determined” or motivated enough? Did the American Indian get pushed into either extinction or the reservation because they weren’t motivated? </p>
<p>No my friend, we do have a responsibility, and as as long as we hold the kind of economic might that we do, history (at the very least) will hold us accountable for how we use it.</p>
<p>While I haven’t lived abroad I have travelled. One of the most poignant experiences I had was talking to some Japanese gentlemen on the island of Kyushu. They live in a small town about an hours drive from Kokura. Kokura was the primary target for the second atomic bomb to be dropped on Japan. The target was clouded over so the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. These gentlemen and their wifes lived through the war. Some of them lived in Kokura at the time the 2nd bomb was dropped. They are keenly aware how close they came to dying that day. While the Japanese are one of our staunchest allies, they also consider the atomic bomb from a perspective none of us can, and hopefully never will have. They told me they understood the rationale for dropping it but thought it was still a horrific thing to do. They told me that one of the smartest things we did when they surrendered was to leave the emperor in place. They still hold Gen. MacArthur in high regard because he took the time to understand the Japanese people instead of just ruling with an iron fist. The moral of the story that being in a position of power does not eliminate the need for understanding and working with people who are different than ourselves. It’s part of that national responsibility I was talking about earlier.</p>