[ClearCase_guy]

Sigh. The world has plenty of food. The problem is distribution, which is always a political problem. Money does not help in these situations -- it just contributes to corrupt, oppressive regimes in third world countries. People may be hungry in Zimbabwe, but giving $100M to Mugabe isn't going to feed anyone except Mugabe's friends and relatives. Pick a country. Any country. It's the same everywhere.

Promote freedom. Don't send money.

[not2worry]

I am sure the farmers in the Midwest and maybe even Wisconsin and Minnesota are gonna love this!

[Never on my watch]

Three billion to line the pockets of third world tyrants and assist them in the systematic starvation of their “undesirables.”

If this money feeds one village it will be because a camera crew was sent there for propaganda purposes.

If you want to feed the starving you need to kill the dictatorial figures that allow it to happen. Instead we host them at cocktail parties in the U.N.

[count-your-change]

The aid will amount to a direct deposit to a Swiss bank account.

[jwparkerjr]

I would make it a requirement that we provide food, not money. And I would make certain the food came from American farmers, shipped on American ships and distributed by American relief organizations.

Fat chance. It's not the liberal way. Liberals want to ‘do something’ not solve problems. Of course there are true liberals who go to the lands and risk life and limb to provide help, but they are the exception. Sadly, the easy way out taken by the pseudo-liberal is to send money and all that does is make it harder on the true liberals who in the field doing the hands-on labor. The true liberal is seen as a threat to the dictator who wants the money that was sent by the pseudo-liberals and has no problem killing the true liberal to get it.