Would you rather...

No not at all, any answer is fine. It doesn't have to be yes or no. I actually went with stop world hunger because I feel like it affects a far larger amount of people then war. All the kids in Africa and poor countries starving and dying. I guess stopping either one is good, it's just a matter of figuring out which one affects more people.

I’ve thought the same. Hunger or poverty can really affect a population in adverse ways both for those hungry and for those watching the events unfold. Also we know the media tends to sensationalize and if I might be so bold as to blurt out media often reports inaccurate and untruths. Media will focus on a relatively small event too. In a war torn area the situation may not be as unrecoverable as it is being made out to be on the news for that particular day. Therefore war could be considered the lesser evil. From a more social viewpoint, war I think can be a shameful act while hunger a pitiful circumstance. You created an excellent question here. If we had to make a choice which directive would do the most good? Do we send resources to countries where it will used anyway for a war effort or worse taken out of the hands of the poor? Do we send in peacekeepers or declare another kind of war, economic sanctions on war weapon manufactures while watching from afar the population’s sufferings. Splitting up the money for both objectives may not be effective enough. Perhaps someone else can offer up their vote?