Money for war, but not to end slavery?

A lot of people throughout the world are in desperate need of help. Much of their troubles were brought about by their own government. Mauritania, an African country of 3.8 million people, has an estimated 140,000 to 160,000 citizens living in slavery. Haiti, a nation plagued with disaster after disaster, has a population of 10.2 million people, more than 200,000 of whom are slaves. Pakistan, a country that receives millions of dollars in military assistance from the U.S. taxpayer, allows more than 200,000 people to live in slavery.

I could go on and on. No one seems terribly concerned about this. The press doesn't talk about it. The United Nations apparently doesn't consider it something worth bothering with. I don't see the U.S. doing anything about it, no embargoes or anything. It just doesn't seem to be a very high priority.

War is another matter, though. Unless it is taking place on the streets of our own cities, our leaders are eager to participate in some way. We've learned our lesson, some say. "No boots on the ground, advisers only, no fighting troops." You've heard that song before.

Military advisers were sent to Vietnam as early as 1950. That involvement was escalated in the early '60s. By 1965 we were involved in a devastating and bloody war that cost us billions. It is still costing us and will for many year to come.

We don't have the means stop slavery in other countries. We simply can't afford to feed and house all the starving people of the world. I can agree with that. However, we always seem to find the money to fund wars.

Ron Flowers

Elk Grove Village