What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
292 Comments
- Pix869, on 10/12/2007, -32/+142It's easy to say "The money for ____ could also have been spent doing _____"
It's harder to explain why that matters, when both appear necessary to some. - Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -37/+122I wonder why it is that mankind has such ***** up ethics and priorities
- meshman, on 10/12/2007, -37/+121How do we feed the children of those 20 million children?
- drewhenson, on 10/12/2007, -43/+122Well, if it costs $.19 a day to feed a child, I wonder how much you have given to the cause recently? Probably none, and I'll admit that I haven't either. So if you complain about ***** up priorities what the ***** are yours?
- jerryparid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+65Did you know that in most third world countries; $0.19 USD can buy plenty of flour, beans, veggies.
- osmaker, on 10/12/2007, -21/+79Average cost per/month for internet: $30
That's about 158 children fed for a day.
So if the poster is really concerned about humanitarian issues, why does he pay for an internet connection? - Misterchef, on 10/12/2007, -4/+50It's actually 7,890,410 children for a year, not 20 million.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -10/+40How is that calculation done? What level of nutrition is that, does it account for transporting the food? It seems to me that sometimes the calculation is done without accounting for donations of time and energy (think those commercials with starving children in Africa). Also does that value change as the age of the child changes? The article says that it's according to WFP, but then links to the top level of the WFP's website.
My priority? In getting my own act together, but it sure doesn't help with all these unsubstantiated "case studies" of what needs to be done flying around. - Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39The sad thing is that if we stopped the war today, there is no way the U.S. government would use those funds to feed anybody. They'd use it for something else equally unhelpful to starving children.
- klawz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23quote
how about sending them the food instead?
/quote
Oh you mean how we already do send food, and it's sold for booze, hookers, and weapons? Oh yeah, that food. - guillermox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Yeah, but if we sent this money to Third World countries, their leaders would simply steal it to buy booze, hookers, and weapons.
- Larofeticus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18That seems like an overly simplistic way to look at things.
Food doesn't just appear because you have money and want it; it has to be grown and transported to where it will be eaten. I highly doubt there are 20,000,000 servings of food sitting around on a grocery store shelf in the same place where there are 20,000,000 starving children. Or that there is even a grocery store there. If anything, there is a local warlord hoarding or stealing the food, more than willing to sell it for that huge sum of money, so the result is fed children and an even more powerful warlord.
Just buying food won't help; it will take education, infrastructure and investment, like those microloan programs.
Though i certainly don't support any iraq war either. - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28Iraq = Vietnam
the lesson Bush said he learnt from Vietnam ? That if we stay, we can win ! - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Why was he dugg down? He's completely right.
They'd find something else to spend trillions on. Ignoring world hunger doesn't lose you many votes, unfortunately. - hmaugans, on 10/12/2007, -15/+29Maybe naive, but how can a child eat for $0.19 a day?
- sanman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16How many kids would the money spent on Nintendo Wiis feed?
(ducks quickly) - awhiteflame, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I have a question. If everyone paid the same amount of money for food, would it still be $0.19/day? I tend not to think so.
Anyway, what the heck does this have to do with anything? Just because that's true doesn't make the war in Iraq any less necessary. No matter where you stand on the war, you have to admit that this is a useless calculation, no? It's not as if the money would be spent saving the world if we weren't in Iraq. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12... your thinking in a potential future deal, which is a retarded logic. That's like the Catholics point "Well what if the kid you aborted yesterday was sent here to cure HIV"
- returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17"How do we feed the children of those 20 million children?"
Infrastructure like education and farming technology.
"So if the poster is really concerned about humanitarian issues, why does he pay for an internet connection?"
Because it allows his to spread his humanitarian concerns. He's writing articles in an attempt to foster awareness of the problem, so I'd say he's doing his part. At least he's certainly not part of the problem. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12We do send them food? The US exports more food then any other country. The problem is getting it to these countries. Kim Jong Il isn't exactly thrilled to allow the US Devil bring food in.
- Easty, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Or, Bush could buy everyone a decent HDTV, and maybe a DVD player. Maybe not one of those super fancy DVD players, but one that does the job.
- southwestnut, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Man I can not even find Mac and cheese on sale for less than 20 cents and I live in the sticks!
19 cents will buy you:
1/8 mile cab fare
.073 gallons of gas
4-5 broken Chiclets(?) gum from the candy machine with 9 cents left over
nothing in LA
1/189473th of a new Cadillac
nothing that will not break in 2 minutes
a whole truckload of New Coke
peace of mind to let you know that you are broke
OK bury me, just having fun - returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Umm, democrats were holding the military back during Vietnam, so where are you going with that?"
Any war can be won if you don't care about the costs of winning. If you allow torture, accept collateral damage, and strip the civilians of their basic human rights, you could probably win in no time at all. Take a lesson from Israel.
You'll be no better than the devil himself, but you will have won. - Easty, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14southwestnut:
How many children in America die of starvation compared to African children? - DeathtotheSwiss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Hear me out on this because I actually agree with you. The nations of the world would rather kill, maim and abuse their own people than feed their own.
Still, the thinking here, accepting that certain actions must be taken against dictators (you may not agree with me on this one) is similar to the idea that the money used to run police stations and fire departments would be better used elsewhere when we know that there are certain essential needs in any society.
If dictators around the world would give their people...MEN AND WOMEN the same inalienable and inherent human rights that we give our own we wouldn't have to waste money on war. I wish this were the case, that nations would leave well enough alone and not do their best to crush their dissidents and murder the innocent. We, the United States, wage war so that future wars will either be prevented or averted. We do our best to ensure a world free of tyranny. Or at least that is our goal, the one most conservatives believe we're fighting for.
You might be right that we're having the wool pulled over our eyes, but at least realize that we're not supporting something as evil and pointless as a war for oil or some ***** up version of imperialism. I'm not looking nor will I ever support an "American Empire". I would, on the other hand, like to live in a secular world where women and men have the same rights and corrupt world leaders don't have too much of a hand in how I decide to live my life. As long as I'm not hurting anyone I should be able to do whatever I want (so as long as I'm not beating my wife, molesting small children or murdering people over religious/political/personal beliefs I should be okay)
I hope this enlightens some of you on the conservative point of view, though I'm guessing many of you are going to assume most of the rest of us are following a religious or financial agenda. As an agnostic barely clearing 20k a year I can assure you that is not where I'm coming from. - diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This guy's math is way off. According to him:
it costs $69.35 to feed a child for a whole year.
US spends $547,200,000 a day on the war.
547200000/69.35 = 7,890,411
Thus one day of war could feed 7,890,411 children per year, *not* 20 million.
Still, that's a ***** of kids going hungry. - TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -13/+21It's nice to say that we could feed 20million children a day.
And we do have that problem, hell we could probably feed all of africa. But it would destroy their economy, not only that but it's not our place to feed these people.
This may seem harsh but charity more often hurts nations rather than helping them.
And I understand the point of this article fully, there's tons of better uses for the money we're spending in Iraq right now BUT we are there.
We can't leave Iraq for the simple fact that it would cause a massive sectarian-regional war that would make the 30 years war look like a picnic. So we have the dubious responsibility of sacrificing our resources and our blood in order to ensure the greater of good of preventing all out war. We should've never have gone to war with Iraq but we are there and we can't leave. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Wait 20,000,000 @ 19 cents a day? Okay so we have 300million in the United States. Make that 180million in the labor force who essentially have money.
Since 180million of us don't donate the 19cents a day, what makes us any better then the government. we both have the funds. It's not the governments job to feed the rest of the world. - TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10There is one similarity between Iraq and Vietnam: They are both being mismanaged by political leaders.
We never deployed enough troops in Vietnam to successfully take and hold an area
Militarily the US was winning, but the political forces that be didn't dedicated enough forces nor resources to the war and didn't give the military leaders what they needed.
Same thing in Iraq, due to political forces our forces in Iraq are way to small. They can take an area but they cannot hold it. - SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Believe it or not, giving people food so that their starving children live another few years is not a great idea.
Overpopulation is something of a misnomer--the biological capacity for a species is reached, and the rest die. If parents of children in third world countries aren't smart enough to avoid having more children than they have food, it's a sad truth that those children must ultimately die.
Sucks, but it's nature. Fighting it by giving food away doesn't solve anything.
Also, the money being poured into Iraq includes money that feeds, clothes, builds, and medicates. - EuphopiaB, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Not saying I am for the war, but doesn't everyone, everyday basically make this choice when they spend $X.XX on a hot dog? or a burger? or drink a bottle of wine? Shouldn't we all be blamed when we don't give until we are spending $0.19 a day on food? I'd rather the money on this war go to something like the fight against schistosomiasis or malaria, sure, but am I not enjoying my $1 pack of gum right now? Am I not on my $XXXX computer?
- southwestnut, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18Umm, democrats were holding the military back during Vietnam, so where are you going with that?
- nullcodes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@southwestnut
"I do not mind helping other country's, but what about the children in our own country? Do they not deserve a better future? A better education? A chance to live what we were founded on?"
Ok, if that is your position .. I understand you feel responsible to your own country first, so we'll ignore the whole argument of how $100 would help far more helpful to the humans outside than here ... but ... what is the threshold in which you will say "ok, now let's help kids in other countries". I mean, there will always be SOME level of income disparity. Not everyone can own an mile of the florida coast. Also, there are thing sadly unattainable in the near future like "100% curing of childhood health conditions" or "100% prevention of abuse". So, what are the reasonable conditions you would like to see here before you decide that people in other countries are deserving of your help?
After all, any parent would help another kid who was in desperate trouble even if it meant slightly/moderately inconveniencing their own. - TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11You know that once the American Govt floods the market with cheap or free food it would destroy their economies.
Even if we just gave them the money to buy the food in their own market it would just drive prices up, lower supplies, cause inflation. You can't just GIVE people stuff on a massive scale. It ruins economies.
I know that sounds harsh but that's life. - precision4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's been said before, and I will just harp on it some more - If it really costs 19 cents a day to feed a child, how many child can you feed, yourself, on a daily basis?
That cup of coffee...
That tank of gas.....
That extra beer.......
That internet connection....
In all honesty, this is just another stab at something unpopular used to make people feel guilty. Prospective is needed when making accusations, something rarely brought when people post here.... - goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If i had a lot of money, none of it would go to any poor person in a 3rd world country. What I would do is create facility's with food and clean drinking water, and help their government grow. All your doing by giving to charity is throwing your money away. Do something greater, don't allow the red cross to waste your money by sitting in a bank account.
- Ninja337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You can't just throw money at issues by doing things like buying them food. You need to educate people how to grow their own food, and make leaders run their countries better.
- awhiteflame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@BlackMagic2:
..and?
I'm not saying that it's not a problem, I'm saying: This statistic is pointless.
Be thankful your government doesn't force you to spend money on the rest of the world and give to charities *yourself*, and help others if you feel the moral need. This statistic is just anti-war propoganda and doesn't mean anything because a grand total of $0.00 of that money would be spent for world hunger if we were not in Iraq. - mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6its the government's job to protect its own people. the United States already gives more money and aid to the rest of the world than any other country.
we have already freed millions of people from oppression and look at the thanks we get. from now on, the US should not give ANY aid to any other countries and then see how much begging and help people will want from the US. - theskullboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What the heck are we feeding these kids for $0.19????
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hay and compost.
- sahaskatta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8how about sending them the food instead?
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15What nobody points out is that most of the cost of war is soldier salaries - money we would be paying ANYWAY.
- mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
An old Biblical proverb that makes sense even today. Sure we could GIVE these starving African nations food and money, but it doesn't solve the problem, and in some cases, makes it worse. Instead, we should be helping to improve their economic infrastructure so they can buy (and grow) the food themselves. - garg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A loaf of bread costs about 5 US cents in some areas of Pakistan and India. That loaf of bread can actually feed a bunch of kids for a day. The real problem is actually the lack of clean water.
- rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"I wonder why it is that mankind has such ***** up ethics and priorities"
Simple. We treat people like things, and things like people. - klawz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Besides relying on one single news article, do some research, don't be ignorant.
- neuropsychguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"An old Biblical proverb"
I know that's not in the Bible anywhere. I believe it is attributed to one Lao Tzu but I could be wrong. - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6cozy contracts to companies like haliburton.
- caution, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Why don't you smart asses look up how much in foreign aide, private donations and foreign investment pour out from America every day.
The military budget pales in comparison. Less than 4% of our GDP. It is amazing the US military can even function considering how little we spend.
Get off your America bashing. We keep the world afloat. -
Show 51 - 100 of 294 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is