Human Development Report - Water

MrSpall · Post by **MrSpall** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:09 pm

The United Nations Human Development Report was released this week, and in it the report talks about the 1.1 humans in developing countries that lack safe drinking water.

The report also estimates that about $10 billion in capital investment would provide safe affordable drinking water to almost 500 million of these people.

$10 billion is about one months worth of our current military expenditures in Iraq. Given that withdrawal from Iraq is eventually inevitable, wouldn't it be wise to speed up the process by one month, and use the saved money to provide drinking water to half the developing world?

This would actually improve America's image on a global scale.

Thoughts?

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:11 pm

let them eat cake.

no, but seriously, i agree

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:21 pm

I say we do it in Iraq first, then the world. It would be a good way to still spend the money on Iraq and yet would be a great first step in helping the world.

Plus it's good PR and you can't put a price on that.

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:34 pm

Building the plants is one thing....having people pay to continue funding them is something completely different. It doesn't matter if you can build it, if the people there cannot pay to keep it running, it is useless and will fall into disrepair quickly. Just ask any Russian utility....

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:54 pm

And the governments ruling over these people will never let them have the water anyway. You show me starvation, dehydration and disease and I guarantee there's a corrupt government behind it (locally, not the US for you smart asses out there)

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:23 am

bassjones wrote:And the governments ruling over these people will never let them have the water anyway. You show me starvation, dehydration and disease and I guarantee there's a corrupt government behind it (locally, not the US for you smart asses out there)

reminds me of the "We Are The World" thing from 1985,...
ended up being a complete waste of energy and resources

...plus the song sucked as well!

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:28 am

Including revenues from the single, the album, the video and related merchandise, "We Are the World" raised about $50 million for famine relief.

Yeah, compassion is a bummer.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:33 am

sharkmansix wrote:
Including revenues from the single, the album, the video and related merchandise, "We Are the World" raised about $50 million for famine relief.
Yeah, compassion is a bummer.

Especially when the food and supplies that the money made, like
bassjones suggested, never made it to the people it was intended.
The local government wouldn't allow delivery and basically ended
up rotting on the docks and was a wasted effort.

= difficult to save folks from themselves.

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:55 am

SM6, intent is a wonderful thing. But when those proceeds are wasted on situations that no one wants us to take control over (Darfur comes to mind, Rwanda does as well). In both cases, the government wants a certain group removed from existence, and the best way to do that is to starve them out. Those groups then appeal to the world community who try to help them by sending food, which never reaches the final destination.

I am not saying we should not help these people, but we keep fixing the superficial symptoms as opposed to the deep rooted problems such as civil war.

Another example would be Mexico, which is going into the toilet and will in the next twenty years be one of the poorest nations on the planet when PEMEX reserves run dry and additional capital to retrieve new reserves does not exist.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:57 am

The only thing We Are The World accomplished is it made rich Americans feel better about themselves for donating and that stupid song irritated the hell out of everyone for months on end.

If compassion = us feeling good about ourselves for giving, then we're even more selfish than we're accused of. Real compassion would have made sure those people got the food. Of course, that would mean using the military and that thought is just unacceptable to the very people who claim to be compassionate.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:13 pm

that stupid song irritated the hell out of everyone for months on end.

Hear N' Aid was much wrose IMHO.

Of course, that would mean using the military and that thought is just unacceptable to the very people who claim to be compassionate.

Our military should be used to protect our nation, not police the world. Something like that would be the job of the UN. (and I'm not a fan of the UN)

I'm all for sending in a multi-national force into Darfur; I just don't think America should go it alone.

zenmandan · Post by **zenmandan** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:40 pm

bassjones wrote:The only thing We Are The World accomplished is it made rich Americans feel better about themselves for donating and that stupid song irritated the hell out of everyone for months on end.

And now that I have read this thread, I'm not gonna get that song out of my head any time soon. Thanks guys!

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:39 pm

^ I've had 'London Calling' in mine for about a week now. I've been on a clash binge.