Read this and think how pouring money into these countries helps.
Quote:
The most effective and least expensive approach would be to help Third World countries solve their basic environmental and public health problems before they cripple societies. The cost of a global program to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis -- the world's three most costly infectious diseases -- is estimated by public health organizations at about $25 billion, or one- quarter the cost of a single military intervention.
Attacking problems before crises is a policy that differs in motivation (though not in policies pursued) from a traditional humanitarian response that comes out of a moral commitment to address crises. Its motive is selfish. Preventing chaos abroad benefits the United States. President Bush would be on the right track with his policy of preemption if he were aiming at preempting crises, rather than at preempting military aggression.
In today's globalized world, any country can pose a threat: Just look at Somalia and Afghanistan, which rank among the poorest, weakest, most isolated countries on Earth. We can't take on the whole world militarily. Keeping weak countries from getting into the kind of trouble Iraq found itself in would ultimately save the U.S. money -- and generate global political capital.
|
The article already admits money is available.
Quote:
|
As the end product of this history, the former world center of wealth, power and civilization is now poor in everything except oil. Iraq's leaders ensured that few benefits of that oil reached their people.
|
Even sitting on the world biggest reserves of oil, and enough money to solve all their problems. They can't. And did they allow the ordinary people to have Western schools and hospitals? No, those ordinary people join terrorists groups to destroy them.