why do developed countries support war in underdeveloped countries?
608571
for more money by weapon trading.
1084689
well each country keeps on developing newer and better weapons to oppose another, in case of conflict / war. If you want to survive, then yes.
116021
Low standard of living, under developed industrial base, low HDI... a lot of developing countries also tend to have large amounts of cheap labor (india for call centers, malasia for computer parts) which, despite common misconception, is actually very good for the developing countries.
258718
I think war is a very important part of our lives and especially the economy. The only reason for patriotism and the desire for peace comes from war, hate, and killing. The Second World War jolted America from the Great Depression of the 30's to the industrial wonders of the 40's and 50's. If there was no war, there would be no democracy because arguing is a verbal war, and pits brothers against one another. Some say the only way to have complete world peace is to be run under either a communist government or monarchy. But others would then get restless and brew up another war. As long as there is life, there can be no such thing as world peace, it is in all creatures nature to fight others either different or similar for survival and power. So there is really no reason for all the fuss about world peace. It isn't going to happen until all life is destoyed. The term pacifist then, according to nature, means "fool bent of the destucrtion of all life". Not exactly what they profess, is it?
163771
Developed nations are those countries with high standard of living for the generality of its populace.\nA developed country usually has good economic indices (in terms of per capita income, GDP, growth rate of the economy, level of unemployment etc)\nFor a country that wants to be "developed", it has to work towards improving those indices mentioned above.
328397
It's very largely a function of geography, and of climate, at least when it comes to which countries are third world countries.  It is also partially how aid is doled out to third world countries, we see first world countries giving aid to corrupt regimes that somehow fail to see to it that the aid gets to where it is truly needed. (There's a big shock)
281653
I agree with you.  I think if their economies were more global, with more wealth for more people (as opposed to oil wealth spread amongst a few) and more participative government, then, yes, there would be less violence and strife and unhappiness in that part of the world.
228109
times without peace are always setting us back in terms of progress. not only do wars physically damage the earth and the buildings of a place, they also do severe and often intergenerational psychological damage to people who are subjected to it. (soldiers and civilians alike.) it causes a rippling outward wound that takes years and years to recover from. \n\ni wonder what certain countries would be like if they hadn't suffered under years of warfare?: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Somalia... \n\nalthough technology often moves forward as a result of wartime funding, there is often great wastage of money which would be better spent on raising the standard of living. just look at the defense budget of the US, ponder the numbers of corporations and public officials who are subsequently caught for stealing that money one way or another, and then look at the education budget. \n\nif people truly believed in peace, if they stopped looking at the world through "gotta get mines" kinda glasses, then maybe we could stop wasting our time always always trying to recover from the five steps back we just took.
1158812
If you include morality, then at least the people who live in the country at war are citizens of that country.  The government is representative of their interests, and the decision to fight a war should be based on preservation of a societal order from which they benefit.\n\n(I know sometimes governments are run by tyrants and thugs who are not representative of the people and who do not provide for much societal benefit, but that is not the case in most countries).\n\nWith gangs, the gangs do not claim to be representative of their neighborhoods.  They do not provide for the social benefit of the people who live in the community, rather, they provide for the social and economic good of the gangsters.  Unlike governments, gangs do not build hospitals or schools to help communities. \n\nNo one has given 'turf' to a gang.  Real estate is owned either by a city or by private individuals.  Gangs rarely sell drugs on land they own, but rather land they 'claim' to be theirs (often by marking on it with graffiti).  \n\nWhat they are trying to do in claiming turf is establish a monopoly on the drug trade in a particular neighborhood.  This would be like Wal-Mart declaring an area around the store a 'turf', and then attacking the operations of KMart, Target or anyone else who is 'invading their turf'.\n\nThe two are not the same.
471119
well some countries do help but not enough,and other countries are developing there own countries,and also Israeli army is always destroying roads buildings,house and everything else\nand you have countries that want to suck up to western countries government and put the blame on the Palestinians and do not care except for themselves
567104
problem; political war due to decolonisation without leaving a proper government behind. (this is a VERY VERY brief explanation)\n\nsolution; hmm.. if there was an easy one they probably would have thought about it and put in to action by now.Till then all that the advanced countries will do is send supplies, medical stuff and blue helmet soldiers(to make the situation even worse lol).\n\nThis is an interesting question, i'm sorry that my answer is so mean, but if I were you I'd look up for the answers my self so that I get better chances of understanding and remembering the information. I think I'll make a study about ti right now ^^
135224
Personally, no war can be considered justified. Common citizens of rival countries usually don't have any real reason to kill each other. Their governments make them think there is a reason.
214319
I would say no. Countries that are more developed like ours are going to suffer, intially. While poorer, more underdeveloped countries will reap more benefits, at least in the earlier stages.
1014656
The answer is simple on undebatible, the war against militant Islamics effects more people in more places then anything else.  If we fail, the results for our future generations will be dreadful.\n\nI have to sidetrack here and respond to an answer previously given by se_rodd\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n  The most important thing going on right now is the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The numbers are staggering on how much the continent of Africa is destroyed by the virus. What is more staggering is that the only thing needed to preven this is money. Instead the US would rather use its money to fighting an injust war instead of saving lives. \n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\nWhy the @#%# is Africa our responsibilty?  We give more money to Africa then all other nations combined.  And this is not enough for you?  What would happen in the worst case scenario and every single person living in Africa died from Aids, I don't see what the world would miss all that much.  What is the great importance of a continent full of people who can't even master the use of a condom.
42925
The United States is one country that supports peace. That's why we're trying so hard to end a war that someone started against us.
165275
War can divert manpower and materiel from peaceful uses to preparation for and conduct of war.  This can leave a country in debt for future generations.  Every country has the right to protect itself from neighbors (or any other country) that would take their land or resources or harm their people.  War is never justified when there is no provocation.  Of course a country like Nazi Germany invented provocation to start war with Poland then murdered all citizens that opposed Germany (and most of the Polish Officer Corp).  Saddam invented reasons to attack Kuwait (and murdered many of its citizens) and ignored UN sanctions after they were driven back.  Iraq became an outlaw nation bent on conquering its neighbors.  Saddam modeled himself after Hitler and his early mentors were Nazis.  He had to be stopped to give world peace a chance.  Now Iraq has a brand new Democracy and a good chance to join the fellowship of peaceful nations.  Leaving Saddam in power after the first Gulf war was a big mistake but the coalition that existed at that time would not support his total removal from power.  He then murdered thousands more of his own citizens, especially in the south.  War often saves lives if performed surgically and timely.  Many believe that the UN should prevent war.  However the UN is not a coalition of Democracies (although there are many Democracies represented).  The UN is more an international debating society that at least might prevent gross miscalculations and buy time for diplomatic solutions to problems.  The strength of NATO is that an attack on any member is an attack on all members of NATO and NATO members do not attack each other.  Even the use of the A-Bomb saved lives ending WWII because the militarists there were prepared to sacrifice every man, woman and child to protect the Japanese homeland following a war they started and conducted with gross brutality throughout Asia.  Good luck with your debate.
767080
There's a big insurgency in Uruguay and in Sri Lanka. There's a civil war in Somalia, Nepal, and Cote d'Ivoire There's genocide in the Sudan. As part of the war on terror, the U.S. is helping the Philipinnes fight terrorists in their country. Also part of the war on terror, the U.S. set up bases in the Horn of Africa to prevent the re-emergence of terrorist cells and activities. Russia is fighting the Chechens in the Second Chechen War. There are several other small squirmishes and conflicts in Africa, Colombia, India, and Pakistan, but they all fall way short of being called a war.