I recently read the108’s post on “How to save the world,” and it references recent studies, books and papers comparing the actual cost of the Iraq War (claimed to be $2 tillion) and how much it would cost to complete specific projects that, although sounding impossible in nature, might have an actual price tag and could be achieved if only the money were spent on it.  I saw the same article by the Kielburgers first published by the Toronto Star, and although neither article had references I could check, I’ll proceed with the assumption that the numbers are accurate.  Besides, the discussion isn’t about the accuracy of the numbers, it’s about the appropriation of funds.

The projects and price tags mentioned include:

• Eliminating extreme poverty around the world ($135b)
• Achieving universal literacy ($5b/yr)
• Immunize every child, everywhere ($1b/yr)
• Fighting AIDS epidemic ($15b/yr)

As I composed my comment on the blog, after a while I realized it was just.. too.. long.. for.. a comment.  So I put it here instead.

Read the108’s article first.  Then come back here.  I’ll wait.

(time passes)

Ok, welcome back.  I’ve put my thoughts in the extended entry, below

---

I fully applaud the effort to help others. I think one of the things that sets evolved society (or mankind in general) apart from animals or other societal groups in nature is the concept of helping others at one’s own sacrifice. Assistance that is anonymous in nature is all the more valued.  Call it pay it forward, call it liberalistic actions, call it philanthropy; you don’t find it in the animal kingdom.  At least, not if the animal wants to survive.Altruism, it could be said, is a trait specific to humanity.There are other traits that humanity possesses, like greed, envy, violence, might-makes-right and down-right pure survival instincts, that it does NOT have a monopoly on.  Most, if not all, of nature’s abundant creatures around the world embody these traits as well because if they don’t, they die. The ones that fail to dominate or work with those that do dominate fail to reproduce the next time around. The lion that lets his brothers eat that week’s kill before he does never eats, or eats the spoiled meat.

Now enter the semi-evolved human - combine all these evolution-enabling traits above with something very specific to the human: ego. Greed + Ego = Dictator. Greed by itself is simply survival, but it’s the addition of “I will take even though I don’t need” that creates the need for war. Maybe this is how “need” evolves to “greed”.  Wars in the name of need are infinitely more justifiable to my mind than wars in the name of greed.

I believe the Iraq War helped to eliminate a dictator - someone whose greed and ego was so inflated and internally supported that he was able to stop countless others from not only developing their own lives, but even to stop surviving.  His greed resulted in many not getting what they need.

I believe eliminating that dictator was important, and it obviously had a cost associated to it.  Comparing that cost to other things that “should” be done is a much harder task because not everyone agrees on what “should” be done.  *Should* we have roads?  Most people agree we should.  *Should* we have police protection?  Again, most concur.  *Should* we pay people to not work?  Ehh…. some people are of different mind on that matter.  

Perhaps before we decide to armchair quarterback decisions on a war that A) have factors we can’t possibly be fully aware of, and B) requires full-time and dedicated analysis that no common citizen could afford, we can instead look to see where money is truly squandered.  I don’t think the Iraq War is akin to a drunken sailor out on a spending spree or that it wasn’t needed.

But what of the $286.4 Billion highway bill in 2005, with $24b of pet projects for Congressmen?  Or the recent energy bill?  The billions in earmarks over the last 10 years?

*just the pork* from that one bill of one year funds the proposed literacy project for more than 4 years.

I would think as people around the globe learned to read and write, they’d be able to do something for themselves for poverty. I’ve found that people who work for themselves not only handle the problem better than if someone else did it, they’re also a heckuva lot more grateful and proud of their achievement. To have someone fix the problem for them just makes them need someone to fix the problem again tomorrow.

In general, I would say Americans are giving. I personally believe in acting liberal and voting conservative, because it is the person-to-person contact that makes altruism, as described above, worthwhile. Having the government do the giving for you just makes the government the dictator, because in order for them to “give”, it must take from those who have achieved higher levels of prosperity for themselves. So do we really want our government to embody the very characteristics we want to be able to control and minimize as humans? 

Spending money on the world and addressing these problems is a good idea.  However, I favor individuals acting to help the world vs the government doing it.

Ask yourself this question: is the government good at what it does?  Unless you’re being argumentative, you would probably say - NO.  The government isn’t efficient.  The government isn’t about performance and optimal process.  Who gets more work done in 8hrs - the typical government worker or the entremeneur whose next dinner rests on the success of his efforts?  Why trust an entity who doesn’t need to adhere to a balanced budget, and has a near-infinite supply of funds?  If they need more, they. just. take. it.  Like the leading lion with this week’s kill. 

Do you want this inefficient government in charge of your giving?  Or your healthcare, for that matter? 

My recommendation is two-fold.  First, take back giving and do it yourself.  You’ll find you’ll enjoy it a lot more, as will the recipients.  Volunteer.  Donate time and effort more than money.  Don’t rely on someone else’s taxes to do your donating for you.

Second, vote for people who will end non-essential government spending.  Support the Oath of Presidential Transparency.  Demand your politicians be accountable for the accounting they do.

My name is Wayne Hall, and I support this message.

I don’t think anyone would deny that there are certain wars that need to be fought. This war is anything but just. I wish more people would consider what it must be like. Currently, I am living in a country where my leadership, in my opinion, is very shady and corrupt and my government does messed up things. Our current President has just built a death chamber at Guantanamo Bay and is planning on killing off a bunch of “suspects”, most of hom who have done nothing wrong without ever giving them the decency of a trial. He has just decided that they should die with no proof to their crimes and with no due process.

Someone else did that, too: Hitler.

Yet, no one comes to our country and says, “Let us liberate you from your screwed up, selfish, dictator of a President. Let us drop bombs everywhere we can all over your country until we locate him and then we will kill him and leave your country in even worse shambles than it was before.” No one does that to us and, by god, if it were ever suggested even those of us who are unhappy with our leadership would still never want war for that unless we were in far worse shape. We don’t need to be liberated and maybe they didn’t, either. Or, maybe they did and so do we.

My husband has been to Iraq and will be returning in September. He will be out there pulling guard duty and watching people die. As much as he loves our country and wants to defend it, it is impossible for him to feel as if that is what he is doing. He feels like a henchman, not a hero.

I am certainly hoping that this upcoming election creates change because we are in desperate need of it here in America. I am extremely politically involved and work for Barack Obama’s campaign. We’ve donated money to the candidates and research and watch the news, debates, rallies and speeches. We have gone to see these candidates in person at rallies, voted in caucuses and have tried everything we can to do our part. I am just hoping that my husband doesn’t die in Iraq before all of these changes can be made

Kyra, even if you determine that the start of the war was not just, that does not automatically mean that the right thing to do moving forward is to abandon the mess that now exists.

You mention that your husband “feels like a henchman” and I would like more information about that. What is he being assigned to do that makes him feel that way? I could understand someone feeling that way during the initial offensive, but now that the goals are security and rebuilding it seems like an odd way to feel.

As I understand it, Senator Obama feels that if it is clear that we are leaving then Iraq’s leadership will step up to fill the void. I am far from convinced that this is the case; rather, it seems much more likely that insurgent forces would be quick to fill the void. In any event, this is just a different strategy for achieving the same goal that the current administration has already expressed — transition control to the Iraqi government. It may be a better plan or it may not, but it is the same goal.

It does appear that one significant difference is that Senator Obama does not intend to have any US military bases in Iraq after the withdrawal, while I expect (but don’t actually know) that President Bush and Senator McCain would want to establish permanent bases. On the other hand, Senator Obama does say that he would keep troops in place if Al Qaeda were attempting to build bases.