People will always have selfishness, violence, insecurity, and hate. No matter how much you give them, you will never fill the hole that's in them. Individuals may transcend this, but as a species, we will not.
This philosopher says that the have's should be giving to the have not's. Is the assumption then that the have's don't have their own problems? Would you say that the German's before WW2 lived in the same conditions as some of the countries in Africa? Certainly they were impoverished and their discontent gave rise to a brutal dictator, but they were leaps and bounds better than what is in certain areas today. Yet their society still produced some very bad people.
Shelter and Food =/= Peaceful Existence. It is part of the equation but not the end all be all.
I don't know what the answer is, but just "helping people out" is not going to change the world. You are looking at the symptoms and not the cause of their condition.
BTW, OP what is more important to you, the end's or the mean's? Was removing Saddam better as we believe Democracy is the most fair way to rule on principle, or was the stability he offered better than the stability we have now? Serious question, I am not being sarcastic.