Why The U.S or Any Country Does not give Iraq a budget to end Terrorism?

[John Iverson]

i watched Leo's blog about Understanding war and i found out the major problem is that they do not have any support from their government and to other countries and U.S stop giving them money. Whyyyy?.  I  see that the only way to end this is to support them with money for military support and even support for the civilians who does not have any food shelter and struggling bouncing here and there without no place to really stay.

Edited June 10, 2021 by John Iverson

[Leo Gura]

We already spent 2 trillion.

The problem is, when a country is so deeply corrupt, no matter how much money you send them, most of it will be stolen and no structural reform will come. The people who need it will not get it. That money will used for weapons, drugs, terrorism, and hookers. You cannot buy your way out of corruption or upwards in Spiral Development.

[John Iverson]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

We already spent 2 trillion.

The problem is, when a country is so deeply corrupt, no matter how much money you send them, most of it will be stolen and no structural reform will come. The people who need it will not get it. That money will used for weapons, drugs, terrorism, and hookers. You cannot buy your way out of corruption or upwards in Spiral Development.

If i for example go directly to meet the anti terrorist group and civilians who needs my money who is the one will steal it from them? and how they do it if i am the one really go out and give them the money directly? or maybe the government won't allow me go to them directly? 

[Parththakkar12]

2 minutes ago, John Iverson said:

If i for example go directly to meet the anti terrorist group and civilians who needs my money who is the one will steal it from them? and how they do it if i am the one really go out and give them the money directly? or maybe the government won't allow me go to them directly? 

The mistake you'd be making here is to not deal with the people in power directly and instead, try to 'empower' people who don't have that much power. The problem is that this isn't a high-leverage point in the system to create change, it's a low-leverage point. The impact from the high-leverage point, the people in power, will outweigh your impact. They can steal the money from the civilians! And there is no anti-terrorist group there, it's a government that's trying to somehow negotiate with terrorists to maintain peace on a day-to-day level. They have no long-term solutions to eradicate terrorism!

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Your politicians are probably as corrupt as any other third world country's politicians, if not even more.

Not even close! Not even in the same ballpark.

Your analysis lacks nuance and experience with how bad corruption can be in places like Iraq or Russia.

Be ware of false equivalencies. This is like saying Trump and Biden are the same. Not even close.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, John Iverson said:

If i for example go directly to meet the anti terrorist group and civilians who needs my money who is the one will steal it from them?

You will get your head chopped off before you reach them.

The entire state is run by cartels and mafias. All the little people have tribal and mafia alliances so they don't get killed.

A mafia's job is to not let anyone circumvent them.

You will give money to a little person and the mafia will come and take it from him by threatening to cut off his dick. Everyone in town will know when someone is given foreign money is.

[Preety_India]

@Leo Gura but your country needs to do better and can do better when it comes to helping other countries. 

Now don't say you aren't opening orphanages. 

 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

@Leo Gura but your country needs to do better and can do better when it comes to helping other countries.

Help can only be given to those who are ready for it.

[Preety_India]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Help can only be given to those who are ready for it.

So what are we getting at here? 

Whats the solution you suggest? 

Simply sit and watch all the mayhem in the Middle East? 

 

[ArcticGong]

@Preety_India Most successful interventions are those where there is local support for them. When the US fought off the nazis where most Europeans happy to host and cooperate with them. In the case of the middle eastern insurgency from terrorism do I get a feeling that most countries there don't want an American-led intervention. Only attend to other's affairs if you're invited, I guess.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Preety_India said:

Simply sit and watch all the mayhem in the Middle East?

Pretty much.

Maybe some very strategic and targeted interventions with humanitarian aid, technology, medicine, etc.

But we cannot solve their problems for them.

[DocWatts]

8 hours ago, Preety_India said:

@Leo Gura but your country needs to do better and can do better when it comes to helping other countries. 

Totally agree. Less than one percent of the US Budget goes towards Foreign Aid to other countries, though many Americans somehow believe it's much higher (polls indicate that an average American mistakenly thinks that it's closer to %10 ).  

When just %10 of the US Military budget would be enough to vastly reduce (or even eliminate) world hunger were it redirected towards the helping the poorest areas of the world, hard to see the current allocation of resources as nothing short of a tragedy.

Source: Estimates for the yearly cost to end world hunger range from $7 billion to $265 billion a year, with $30 billion being the UN's figure.

https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/

https://borgenproject.org/cost-to-end-world-hunger/

[diamondpenguin]

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

Totally agree. Less than one percent of the US Budget goes towards Foreign Aid to other countries, though many Americans somehow believe it's much higher (polls indicate that an average American mistakenly thinks that it's closer to %10 ).  

When just %10 of the US Military budget would be enough to vastly reduce (or even eliminate) world hunger were it redirected towards the helping the poorest areas of the world, hard to see the current allocation of resources as nothing short of a tragedy.

Source: Estimates for the yearly cost to end world hunger range from $7 billion to $265 billion a year, with $30 billion being the UN's figure.

https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/

https://borgenproject.org/cost-to-end-world-hunger/

The thing is the countries would just waste it, because the leaders don't know how to handle having that kind of money. They need "INFRASTRUCTURE" not more money. Throwing money at things doesn't automatically solve problems. But building useful things does. 

[DocWatts]

34 minutes ago, diamondpenguin said:

The thing is the countries would just waste it, because the leaders don't know how to handle having that kind of money. They need "INFRASTRUCTURE" not more money. Throwing money at things doesn't automatically solve problems. But building useful things does. 

That $30 billion United Nations estimate I mentioned was specifically for Sustainable Development programs to help areas lacking in food security become self sufficient.

If you're thinking that it would just be a no strings attached cash handout to political leaders in unstable areas (or UN peacekeepers handing out sacks of food to poor farmers), you've got the wrong idea.

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by DocWatts

[Shin]

«Why does he buy alcohol instead of food ?»

Says gullible eternity me after giving to a homeless person.