Paul,

An American bomber pilot that I knew well said that he and his friends had to fly a set number of missions over Vietnam and that thy mostly dropped their bombs on uninhabited jungle and went back for another load.
That's probably one of the reasons why so many bombs were dropped and so few people killed for the tonnage dropped.

Onthebeach,

I'm skeptical of these types of sites as their assessment often has a poor basis to it. For example:

"But what if the problem you're trying to solve is in the middle of a war zone? Doctors Without Borders Executive Director Sophie Delaunay says she's leery about a system that would grade a nonprofit based on its results.

I mean, it really depends on how they're going to use their results and what is their own understanding of what they're trying to analyze,"

Charity Navigator won't evaluate themselves - giving you a list of excuses - excludes some charities, have selective criteria, a paid CEO and staff, sells products and takes donations. Independence?

People on this page reply of their own choice - that is what a free democratic country is about. Our democratic voting rights are taken by many for granted in Australia.

I feel very strongly about peace - being vegetarian and don't want any type of violence in principle.

There are plenty of people and groups out there helping others in war torn and poor countries suffering from the horrible 'violence' factors that are thrust upon them.

NathanJ,

There are other government and independent sites where you can check a charity or not-for-profit.

If you cannot find information like that anywhere on what do you base your encouragement for others to follow your recommendation?

onthebeach,

All sites that assess charities can and do have assumptions with them. For example some charities receive millions of dollars in government funding - whilst others get nothing and are yet assessed on the same basis.

If people want to access a website to find out more about a charity - that is fine - but don't judge a book by its cover. I volunteer with three not for profit groups - and we don't get millions of dollars from anyone.

The people with the most power, who can make a real difference worldwide are the ones I want to question - and that is government.

War is not always seen as the solution. The 49th parallel which makes up most of the boundary between the US and Canada was settled by peaceful negotiation between the two countries. Unlike the US where the ending of slavery was effected by a great war England and Brazil ended slavery peacefully. Czechoslovakia broke up into the Czech and Slovak Republics peacefully.

Settling international differences peacefully is not as dramatic or noteworthy as going to war, but it has happened many times.

Sometimes my critical faculties are asleep, and I accept propositions, questions or statements without thinking.

This thread assumes that war is always seen as the solution. It is not always seen as the solution.

david f,

I agree with what you have just said. I would like peaceful outcomes all of the time. It's the best option.

However my point is that 'violence' has become so embedded in our society - it is seen as 'normal' or 'what happens' - when it should be seen as something (we) in principle worldwide should not support, but this of course requires research, thought, discussion, negotiation, working together and having to address the many years of embedded hatred that exists between some living in Israel and Palestine for example.

'Embedded violence' like child abuse, drunken behavior, sexual assault, school bullying, domestic violence, racial hatred, terrorism and gun shootings....... I could go on.

People can switch off their television sets when they don't want to hear or see these stories - but they are still out there and we as a community (very nicely) need to say no to violence in all forms.

We can't just go into a 'war torn mode' every time something negative occurs against the western world - our governments need to help out where possible - in a non violent way.