why is Britain STILL giving billions in foreign aid?

[jennyjuniper]

Why is Britain STILL giving billions in foreign aid to countries like Pakistan? They have nuclear weapons and any country that can afford nuclear weapons doesn't need aid from a country that can barely afford to support it's NHS. We have to host charity events to help support a childrens hospital for goodness sake.
Also Pakistan is the main culprit for teaching and arming terrorists, so in effect are we paying for our own destruction?:conf:

[Withano]

Foreign aid is pretty much the only good thing Britain has got going for it. Without it we'd probably be the most morally corrupt country in the world. Creating naughty and nice lists would seem a tad hypocritical, we're amongst the worst.

If you were on holiday, and saw a local person drowning, would you jump in to save them? It would ruin your outfit and cost you at least £20. But of course you would save the dying person without a second thought.

Why are you fine with losing a couple quid saving a stranger that you can see but against saving strangers you can't see.

[Northern Monkey]

I believe foreign aid is a good thing but not to countries with space programs and nuclear weapons.
It would be great if we could somehow bypass the corrupt governments in many of the countries where people are starving and homeless and have no clean water.
Funding Indias space program is not the right place to direct foreign aid.

[jaxie]

A good point for discussion Jenny. I think that you are right in the sense that if a country can afford a nuke then it shouldn't be given aid payments. We should be focusing on our own indebted country and funding the NHS which helps many a stranger who seeks it but seldom pays for it.

I also feel financial aid should be very carefully given where dictators are in charge. I am all for helping the people of Zimbabwe but I dont think we should be lining the pockets of Mugabe and his cronies and helping keep them in power.

[Niamh.]

I believe foreign aid is a good thing but not to countries with space programs and nuclear weapons.
It would be great if we could somehow bypass the corrupt governments in many of the countries where people are starving and homeless and have no clean water.
Funding Indias space program is not the right place to direct foreign aid.

This is the dilemma though because it's those most vulnerable and in need who will suffer and die if aid stops. If we western countries stopped trying to help these people I don't think their own governments would suddenly say "Oh we better stop spending money on other s**t and help our poor now" It's always the little guy who suffers. I know in alot of these countries, their corrupt governments may take alot of the money but atleast some gets through

[Cal.]

Cos it's a good thing to do.

[jennyjuniper]

Foreign aid is pretty much the only good thing Britain has got going for it. Without it we'd probably be the most morally corrupt country in the world. Creating naughty and nice lists would seem a tad hypocritical, we're amongst the worst.

If you were on holiday, and saw a local person drowning, would you jump in to save them? It would ruin your outfit and cost you at least £20. But of course you would save the dying person without a second thought.

Why are you fine with losing a couple quid saving a stranger that you can see but against saving strangers you can't see.

It's the type of strangers. As I said in my post, why give aid to Pakistan, when they can afford to produce nuclear weapons. Give me an answer to that instead of a hypothetical scenerio which doesn't even compare.

[Shaun]

It's the type of strangers. As I said in my post, why give aid to Pakistan, when they can afford to produce nuclear weapons. Give me an answer to that instead of a hypothetical scenerio which doesn't even compare.

We can afford nuclear weapons too but would you go so far as to say that there's not a single UK citizen living in poverty? One would argue our government should do more to provide for those that are here, too.

[kirklancaster]

It's the type of strangers. As I said in my post, why give aid to Pakistan, when they can afford to produce nuclear weapons. Give me an answer to that instead of a hypothetical scenario which doesn't even compare.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: You are absolutely correct Jenny - That analogy is not really comparable.

Our government giving billions of pounds to the Pakistani government is an action we are both physically, emotionally and morally detached from, in addition to being powerless to stop the process .

Walking along a beach and seeing a 'local' person drowning, is a situation that we are immediately physically, emotionally, and morally affected by, and one where we ARE in a position to stop the drowning.

Obviously, and I should think to a man, we would ALL dive in and save that person from drowning, but not all of us agree to our taxes being handed to corrupt governments for charity purposes, when there is a preponderance of convincing evidence, that not only is that country wealthy enough to administer its own charity, but also that our hard earned taxes are NOT being spent in the areas which we donated it to be spent.

There has been too many of our billions of pounds wasted in our EU'Development' donations by having been spent by foreign governments on personal vanity projects, to watch these Foreign Aid donations with any relish.

It is a scandal - in my opinion.

By the way Jenny - I have sent you a Private Message. :wavey:

[Withano]

It's the type of strangers. As I said in my post, why give aid to Pakistan, when they can afford to produce nuclear weapons. Give me an answer to that instead of a hypothetical scenerio which doesn't even compare.

And I said in my post that its dumb to make naughty and nice lists. Foreign aid is there for those in need.

[Withano]

:clap1::clap1::clap1: You are absolutely correct Jenny - That analogy is not really comparable.

Our government giving billions of pounds to the Pakistani government is an action we are both physically, emotionally and morally detached from, in addition to being powerless to stop the process .

Walking along a beach and seeing a 'local' person drowning, is a situation that we are immediately physically, emotionally, and morally affected by, and one where we ARE in a position to stop the drowning.

Obviously, and I should think to a man, we would ALL dive in and save that person from drowning, but not all of us agree to our taxes being handed to corrupt governments for charity purposes, when there is a preponderance of convincing evidence, that not only is that country wealthy enough to administer its own charity, but also that our hard earned taxes are NOT being spent in the areas which we donated it to be spent.

There has been too many of our billions of pounds wasted in our EU'Development' donations by having been spent by foreign governments on personal vanity projects, to watch these Foreign Aid donations with any relish.

It is a scandal - in my opinion.

By the way Jenny - I have sent you a Private Message. :wavey:

Good job you dont run the country then, youve just accidentally sent a few thousand to their death with that physical, emotional and moral conscious. But thats good? Because now Pakistans weapons are less likely to get us? Christ.

[jaxie]

It's the type of strangers. As I said in my post, why give aid to Pakistan, when they can afford to produce nuclear weapons. Give me an answer to that instead of a hypothetical scenerio which doesn't even compare.

:clap1: Very well said Jenny.

[Niamh.]

It's the type of strangers. As I said in my post, why give aid to Pakistan, when they can afford to produce nuclear weapons. Give me an answer to that instead of a hypothetical scenerio which doesn't even compare.

Because it's not those who are in poverty deciding to spend money on nukes is it? But they're the ones who will suffer if Aid is stopped

[jaxie]

Because it's not those who are in poverty deciding to spend money on nukes is it? But they're the ones who will suffer if Aid is stopped

Do the people in need actually get the aid anyway?

[user104658]

Because, frankly, Britain owes the impoverished countries we give aid to more money than we will ever even come close to repaying? Most of them are impoverished, at least in part, because of how extensively the British Empire exploited the world in order to become "Great". It's really that simple. And we give them a pittance.

It's essentially like robbing a man blind, burning his home and business to the ground, then giving him £2 when you pass him slumped at the side of the street a decade later and being pissed off when he spends it on drugs.

[Denver]

We can afford nuclear weapons too but would you go so far as to say that there's not a single UK citizen living in poverty? One would argue our government should do more to provide for those that are here, too.

This ^^^^^^^^^

So many families live in poverty all because the government would rather give all the money to people that dont concern them we need to sort our own country out before sorting everyone else out.

[Saturn]

My lecturer used to say that Foreign Aid is given to procure business deals and allow us to rape minerals etc from poor countries with impunity, that having beensaid i am not sure how we did all we did in Afghanistan for China to get all the good stuff used in mobile phone technology from the ground (I dont know the specific mineral but like they have take most of it)?

[Maru]

This is the dilemma though because it's those most vulnerable and in need who will suffer and die if aid stops. If we western countries stopped trying to help these people I don't think their own governments would suddenly say "Oh we better stop spending money on other s**t and help our poor now" It's always the little guy who suffers. I know in alot of these countries, their corrupt governments may take alot of the money but atleast some gets through

This is where we have private organizations can help as many will come in to help feed the population. However, nation and organizations all have their agendas... some want to get bibles into people's hands, others want to further their own causes (righteous or not)... I don't really have a solid position on foreign aid per US, because I feel it's more case by case.... On one hand, it's a great thing that we are able to help when we can... however, it is often that this aid will get abused and becomes an incentive to further the same corrupt policies rather than reverse the mess they've gotten themselves into.

For example, in NK, we restrict aid for several reasons, one being their anti-West nuclear ambitions. The citizens starve as a result of our sanctions, but at the same time, we are affecting their regime in a positive manner as it further separates the ideological ambitions of the elite from the primary conditions of the bottom... in effect, we are encouraging reform rather than enabling their treatment of their own populace.

I think when we are encouraging trade by creating agreements, services and creation of jobs to those nations... that is often more optimal than aid as we are encouraging them to become more independent and creating an environment for growth with our support. Of course, there are times when even the most dire of situations become such... that it makes sense to step in and provide aid, as the basic foundation isn't even there yet to benefit from those developments. However, that should last only to a point... the problem though, you will have always have neighboring countries who interfere in their affairs for their own goals and purposes... so like most things in life, I guess really too complicated to hold a strictly black and white position on as a diplomat. Though I think in most cases it is very helpful to setting in setting guidelines to who receives aid and how much and for how long. So that the recipient will know this is only stalling the inevitable and they need to continue to deal with their internal affairs accordingly.

I do think the US in particular needs to back off on how deeply involved in some of these nation's internal affairs. However, that for me is a political stance as I strongly am against overly interfering in other culture's very private matters... only if reached out to, should we reciprocate if desired and only to the extent that would not going in to guide (read: dominate) their efforts... which often means policing others... something I am against with regards to how we approach other cultures.

[jennyjuniper]

We can afford nuclear weapons too but would you go so far as to say that there's not a single UK citizen living in poverty? One would argue our government should do more to provide for those that are here, too.

That was my point Shaun, that we have to host charity events to support childrens hospitals and charities, the NHS is crumbling and we are giving money to countries that would be better spent on our own poor and needy.

[Ammi]

..I don't know, I think that it's a bit of a complicated one..even though some countries have things like nuclear weapons etc, if they didn't receive foreign aid for development of things like hospitals/schools etc...all it would achieve is that they would still have nuclear weapons but wouldn't have some of the things that the aid helps to fund.../from governments and countries, aid isn't just given as a charitable thing..it's also mutually beneficial in trade etc and many things but it also does benefit those who need it../well whatever percentage that actually goes to projects...we're not really helping to fund weapons and our own potential destruction with those weapons although I can see why it feels a bit screwed up like that but those people desperately needing aid aren't the ones who make the decisions about their government spending..so to not give it would just mean 'two wrongs' I guess, being screwed by their governments in some cases and then being screwed again by other countries ...it would be an ideal in the world if aid could be given directly and always by-passing governments but that's just not the way it is because the generosity of a country gives them something back as well and expects something back in terms of trade etc...so corruption and misuse always also will be involved...and really I don't personally believe that if we didn't give aid, it would make any difference at all in addressing 'home needs'..it's never been an 'either/or' thing...either no one benefits or someone does and in giving aid, someone does...

[kirklancaster]

Good job you dont run the country then, youve just accidentally sent a few thousand to their death with that physical, emotional and moral conscious. But thats good? Because now Pakistans weapons are less likely to get us? Christ.

I really have no desire to become embroiled in any over-heated debate with you again Withano, but I really do not understand what you mean by your response???

Just WHAT is there in my post to Jenny, which you could so misinterpret that you write what you have above?

[arista]

Why am I paying for India's Space Crafts?


The feckers are Diverting the Money
Kirk


Cut Funding to India
PM.May
We need that Cash now for NHS
as we are NOT out of the EU until 2019.

[kirklancaster]

Why am I paying for India's Space Crafts?


The feckers are Diverting the Money
Kirk


Cut Funding to India
PM.May
We need that Cash now for NHS
as we are NOT out of the EU until 2019.

Exactly Arista. Exactly.

[arista]

Exactly Arista. Exactly.

We need it on T-shirts
KIRK

[kirklancaster]

You implied that youre not a fan of foreign aid because youre not physically, emotionally and morally affected by such a scandal. Or is this one of those times where you write something but everybody interprets it wrong and its their fault.

No - This is another of those times when you have a problem understanding exactly what I said.

YOU said in response to Jenny's post:

"If you were on holiday, and saw a local person drowning, would you jump in to save them? It would ruin your outfit and cost you at least £20. But of course you would save the dying person without a second thought.

Why are you fine with losing a couple quid saving a stranger that you can see but against saving strangers you can't see."

To which Jenny replied:

"It's the type of strangers. As I said in my post, why give aid to Pakistan, when they can afford to produce nuclear weapons. Give me an answer to that instead of a hypothetical scenario which doesn't even compare."

To which I replied to Jenny:

"You are absolutely correct Jenny - That analogy is not really comparable.

Our government giving billions of pounds to the Pakistani government is an action we are both physically, emotionally and morally detached from, in addition to being powerless to stop the process .

Walking along a beach and seeing a 'local' person drowning, is a situation that we are immediately physically, emotionally, and morally affected by, and one where we ARE in a position to stop the drowning.

Obviously, and I should think to a man, we would ALL dive in and save that person from drowning, but not all of us agree to our taxes being handed to corrupt governments for charity purposes, when there is a preponderance of convincing evidence, that not only is that country wealthy enough to administer its own charity, but also that our hard earned taxes are NOT being spent in the areas which we donated it to be spent.

There has been too many of our billions of pounds wasted in our EU' Development' donations by having been spent by foreign governments on personal vanity projects, to watch these Foreign Aid donations with any relish.

It is a scandal - in my opinion. "

By writing: "Our government giving billions of pounds to the Pakistani government is an action we are both physically, emotionally and morally detached from, in addition to being powerless to stop the process", I meant NOT that we are physically, emotionally, and morally detached from anyone's genuine suffering, but that we have no INPUT on a physical, emotional, or moral level into what the Government does with our Taxes and WHERE it goes.

Whereas, in your analogy; if we were walking on a beach and saw someone drowning, we are IMMEDIATELY physically, emotionally AND morally invested.

I qualified my statements by pointing out in the first example that we are; "powerless to stop the process"and in the second, that; "we ARE in a position to stop the drowning."

By 'stop the process' I am referring to stopping the Government wasting our taxes in sending them to 'aid the poor' in countries which do not aid their own poor even though they have billions to spare for Nuclear weapons, Space Rockets, the latest and most expensive Military Hardware, and BETTER EQUIPPED ARMIES than our own - among a host of other luxuriant 'State' possessions.

There is a wealth of evidence that such countries 'divert most of their Foreign Aid' receipts - as someone has already stated - and Pakistan is among the most corrupt of them.

It is most notable on here, that a lot of those who opposed us renewing our Nuclear Deterrent because 'those billions could be better spent on helping the poor' decry that same argument when it comes from some member such as Jenny who asks 'WHY should we send our money to foreign Governments who elect to have nuclear weapons'?

THERE is the 'hypocrisy' which you accused Jenny of.

I notice that you NEVER leap on anyone else's posts - even when they are in opposition to your view - with such a degree of pedanticism, or barely veiled aggressiveness, as you seem to do with my posts, and you STILL have not answered my perfectly reasonable question of just HOW what I wrote justifies what you claim to have educed from it:

"Good job you dont run the country then, youve just accidentally sent a few thousand to their death with that physical, emotional and moral conscious. But thats good? Because now Pakistans weapons are less likely to get us? Christ."

The above has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.

How has what I wrote: "sent a few thousand to their death"
How does what I wrote mean that: "Now, Pakistans weapons are less likely to get us? Christ."?

You are just MAKING things up.

I will now bore you with a true story:

My friend's daughter is married to a man who is an alcoholic and who does not now work because he lost his job through absenteeism due to being an alcoholic.

They have three very young children, and my friends are ALWAYS having to bail them out with money which they can ill afford and having to look after one or more of those babies overnight, or even for days at a time, because he does not help with the children and she cannot cope alone.

My friend's daughter - at her parents insistence - forced her husband to go to the doctor's with his problem, and he was put on a course of tablets which prevented him drinking.

He STOPPED taking the tablets and continues to buy up to 12 cans of beer per day and the odd bottle of vodka when they receive money - usually the money donated by my friends to help them buy food and clothe the babies buy nappies and keep the house warm etc, or their benefit payments, which are, of course given to them for the same purposes.

Now, I have told my friends to STOP giving them money, because it is ENABLING this waste of space to continue his selfish habits and is doing virtually ZILCH for the children OR their daughter.

I will tell you what will happen should they HEED my advice:

Her life and the children's will become so intolerable, that she will EVENTUALLY wise up or even from despair, she WILL give him an ultimatum - STOP DRINKING. GET A JOB. OR I AM LEAVING YOU.

He will either stop drinking and find a job, or she will leave him.

But that day will NOT come whilever that despair, that 'wising up' is being deferred by my friends money cushioning the hardship and delaying reality dawning.

A little bit like the poverty stricken, oppressed and deprived in comparatively wealthy foreign countries run by corrupt regimes and governments.

WITHOUT 'Foreign Aid' to continually ENABLE their corruption, the status quo will very soon change, be it by revolution or through the ballot box, because - as history has repeatedly taught us - it is only when the downtrodden masses really have had enough, that they set about in earnest HELPING THEMSELVES by DOING SOMETHING about it.

In the meantime, our money is doing virtually NOTHING to help those who it is intended for, and is doing instead, EVERYTHING to help the corrupt Governments continue with 'Business As Usual' - In my opinion.

[Kizzy]

Why not then for your own peace of mind surmise that your taxes don't fund international aid, and instead presume they instead fund a myriad of other things?
Like our public services, NHS, education, defence, housing, culture, the environment, pensions, infrastructure, industry or the national debt.
You could say you paid for a window at Buckingham palace if you wanted, if that would be more appealing?

[Brillopad]

Good job you dont run the country then, youve just accidentally sent a few thousand to their death with that physical, emotional and moral conscious. But thats good? Because now Pakistans weapons are less likely to get us? Christ.

Seems to me there is emotional and moral conscious on both sides - the difference is that one side are attempting to take 'choice' away from the other.

[Withano]

No - This is another of those times when you have a problem understanding exactly what I said.

YOU said in response to Jenny's post:

"If you were on holiday, and saw a local person drowning, would you jump in to save them? It would ruin your outfit and cost you at least £20. But of course you would save the dying person without a second thought.

Why are you fine with losing a couple quid saving a stranger that you can see but against saving strangers you can't see."

To which Jenny replied:

"It's the type of strangers. As I said in my post, why give aid to Pakistan, when they can afford to produce nuclear weapons. Give me an answer to that instead of a hypothetical scenario which doesn't even compare."

To which I replied to Jenny:

"You are absolutely correct Jenny - That analogy is not really comparable.

Our government giving billions of pounds to the Pakistani government is an action we are both physically, emotionally and morally detached from, in addition to being powerless to stop the process .

Walking along a beach and seeing a 'local' person drowning, is a situation that we are immediately physically, emotionally, and morally affected by, and one where we ARE in a position to stop the drowning.

Obviously, and I should think to a man, we would ALL dive in and save that person from drowning, but not all of us agree to our taxes being handed to corrupt governments for charity purposes, when there is a preponderance of convincing evidence, that not only is that country wealthy enough to administer its own charity, but also that our hard earned taxes are NOT being spent in the areas which we donated it to be spent.

There has been too many of our billions of pounds wasted in our EU' Development' donations by having been spent by foreign governments on personal vanity projects, to watch these Foreign Aid donations with any relish.

It is a scandal - in my opinion. "

By writing: "Our government giving billions of pounds to the Pakistani government is an action we are both physically, emotionally and morally detached from, in addition to being powerless to stop the process", I meant NOT that we are physically, emotionally, and morally detached from anyone's genuine suffering, but that we have no INPUT on a physical, emotional, or moral level into what the Government does with our Taxes and WHERE it goes.

Whereas, in your analogy; if we were walking on a beach and saw someone drowning, we are IMMEDIATELY physically, emotionally AND morally invested.

I qualified my statements by pointing out in the first example that we are; "powerless to stop the process"and in the second, that; "we ARE in a position to stop the drowning."

By 'stop the process' I am referring to stopping the Government wasting our taxes in sending them to 'aid the poor' in countries which do not aid their own poor even though they have billions to spare for Nuclear weapons, Space Rockets, the latest and most expensive Military Hardware, and BETTER EQUIPPED ARMIES than our own - among a host of other luxuriant 'State' possessions.

There is a wealth of evidence that such countries 'divert most of their Foreign Aid' receipts - as someone has already stated - and Pakistan is among the most corrupt of them.

It is most notable on here, that a lot of those who opposed us renewing our Nuclear Deterrent because 'those billions could be better spent on helping the poor' decry that same argument when it comes from some member such as Jenny who asks 'WHY should we send our money to foreign Governments who elect to have nuclear weapons'?

THERE is the 'hypocrisy' which you accused Jenny of.

I notice that you NEVER leap on anyone else's posts - even when they are in opposition to your view - with such a degree of pedanticism, or barely veiled aggressiveness, as you seem to do with my posts, and you STILL have not answered my perfectly reasonable question of just HOW what I wrote justifies what you claim to have educed from it:

"Good job you dont run the country then, youve just accidentally sent a few thousand to their death with that physical, emotional and moral conscious. But thats good? Because now Pakistans weapons are less likely to get us? Christ."

The above has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.

How has what I wrote: "sent a few thousand to their death"
How does what I wrote mean that: "Now, Pakistans weapons are less likely to get us? Christ."?

You are just MAKING things up.

I will now bore you with a true story:

My friend's daughter is married to a man who is an alcoholic and who does not now work because he lost his job through absenteeism due to being an alcoholic.

They have three very young children, and my friends are ALWAYS having to bail them out with money which they can ill afford and having to look after one or more of those babies overnight, or even for days at a time, because he does not help with the children and she cannot cope alone.

My friend's daughter - at her parents insistence - forced her husband to go to the doctor's with his problem, and he was put on a course of tablets which prevented him drinking.

He STOPPED taking the tablets and continues to buy up to 12 cans of beer per day and the odd bottle of vodka when they receive money - usually the money donated by my friends to help them buy food and clothe the babies buy nappies and keep the house warm etc, or their benefit payments, which are, of course given to them for the same purposes.

Now, I have told my friends to STOP giving them money, because it is ENABLING this waste of space to continue his selfish habits and is doing virtually ZILCH for the children OR their daughter.

I will tell you what will happen should they HEED my advice:

Her life and the children's will become so intolerable, that she will EVENTUALLY wise up or even from despair, she WILL give him an ultimatum - STOP DRINKING. GET A JOB. OR I AM LEAVING YOU.

He will either stop drinking and find a job, or she will leave him.

But that day will NOT come whilever that despair, that 'wising up' is being deferred by my friends money cushioning the hardship and delaying reality dawning.

A little bit like the poverty stricken, oppressed and deprived in comparatively wealthy foreign countries run by corrupt regimes and governments.

WITHOUT 'Foreign Aid' to continually ENABLE their corruption, the status quo will very soon change, be it by revolution or through the ballot box, because - as history has repeatedly taught us - it is only when the downtrodden masses really have had enough, that they set about in earnest HELPING THEMSELVES by DOING SOMETHING about it.

In the meantime, our money is doing virtually NOTHING to help those who it is intended for, and is doing instead, EVERYTHING to help the corrupt Governments continue with 'Business As Usual' - In my opinion.

I think it was LT who said if you cant make your point in 200 words, you may have missed it.
So lets try an make a summary

Jenny thinks we should cancel or limit our foreign aid to countries like Pakistan (quite unclear but I think her sole reason is because they can afford weapons, perhaps she thinks cancellig foreign aid would stop us from being a target, instead of becoming more of one.. unclear argument, lets skip it until she elaborates)
You think Jenny is bang on correct

I think you both need to do further research, if you're fine with killing strangers you can't see but saddened at the thought of killing a stranger that you can see, then you havent thought about this enough.

[kirklancaster]

I think it was LT who said if you cant make your point in 200 words, you may have missed it.
So lets try an make a summary

Jenny thinks we should cancel or limit our foreign aid to countries like Pakistan (quite unclear but I think her sole reason is because they can afford weapons, perhaps she thinks cancellig foreign aid would stop us from being a target, instead of becoming more of one.. unclear argument, lets skip it until she elaborates)
You think Jenny is bang on correct

I think you both need to do further research, if you're fine with killing strangers you can't see but saddened at the thought of killing a stranger that you can see, then you havent thought about this enough.


I'm not fine with any innocents being killed anywhere, but I think I'll agree to disagree Withano.

[Withano]

I'm not fine with any innocents being killed anywhere, but I think I'll agree to disagree Withano.

Then how is Jenny bang on correct? The opposite was the summary of her argument which you agreed to originally.

[kirklancaster]

Then how is Jenny bang on correct? The opposite was the summary of her argument which you agreed to originally.

What???

Jenny NEVER said or meant that she was fine with anyone being killed and neither did I.

In a nutshell, Jenny's question was; "Why are we giving money which is being TAKEN FROM OUR OWN POOR, and GIVING IT TO THE RICH OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY - A COUNTRY WHICH CAN AFFORD TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Stop making things up just because you want an argument.

[Niamh.]

This is where we have private organizations can help as many will come in to help feed the population. However, nation and organizations all have their agendas... some want to get bibles into people's hands, others want to further their own causes (righteous or not)... I don't really have a solid position on foreign aid per US, because I feel it's more case by case.... On one hand, it's a great thing that we are able to help when we can... however, it is often that this aid will get abused and becomes an incentive to further the same corrupt policies rather than reverse the mess they've gotten themselves into.

For example, in NK, we restrict aid for several reasons, one being their anti-West nuclear ambitions. The citizens starve as a result of our sanctions, but at the same time, we are affecting their regime in a positive manner as it further separates the ideological ambitions of the elite from the primary conditions of the bottom... in effect, we are encouraging reform rather than enabling their treatment of their own populace.

I think when we are encouraging trade by creating agreements, services and creation of jobs to those nations... that is often more optimal than aid as we are encouraging them to become more independent and creating an environment for growth with our support. Of course, there are times when even the most dire of situations become such... that it makes sense to step in and provide aid, as the basic foundation isn't even there yet to benefit from those developments. However, that should last only to a point... the problem though, you will have always have neighboring countries who interfere in their affairs for their own goals and purposes... so like most things in life, I guess really too complicated to hold a strictly black and white position on as a diplomat. Though I think in most cases it is very helpful to setting in setting guidelines to who receives aid and how much and for how long. So that the recipient will know this is only stalling the inevitable and they need to continue to deal with their internal affairs accordingly.

I do think the US in particular needs to back off on how deeply involved in some of these nation's internal affairs. However, that for me is a political stance as I strongly am against overly interfering in other culture's very private matters... only if reached out to, should we reciprocate if desired and only to the extent that would not going in to guide (read: dominate) their efforts... which often means policing others... something I am against with regards to how we approach other cultures.

You're probably right Maru, it just must be so difficult for the poorest of the poor to mobilise themselves into any sort of rebellion when they have no money, no food, no education etc I think education actually is key in these countries

[Withano]

What???

Jenny NEVER said or meant that she was fine with anyone being killed and neither did I.

In a nutshell, Jenny's question was; "Why are we giving money which is being TAKEN FROM OUR OWN POOR, and GIVING IT TO THE RICH OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY - A COUNTRY WHICH CAN AFFORD TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Stop making things up just because you want an argument.

Right.. But taking it away will kil hundreds within a year.. Maybe you just havent thought this through enough.

You cant both; be against innocents dying whilst claiming that foreign aid should be limited, even to those who rely on it to stay alive (because their government has weapons? Still unclear)

[jaxie]

Right.. But taking it away will kil hundreds within a year.. Maybe you just havent thought this through enough.

How do you know this? :shrug: How can anyone know what will happen?

[Northern Monkey]

Right.. But taking it away will kil hundreds within a year.. Maybe you just havent thought this through enough.

By not funding countries who can afford nukes or space programs 'WE' as in Britain are not 'killing' anyone.Our country is'nt responsible for the populations of other nations.That responsibility falls firmly on the feet of those nations governments.Just as our government gets all the flack for and is responsible for the poor and homeless in our country.
Now is it nice when we can help?Of course it is.

[jaxie]

Because, frankly, Britain owes the impoverished countries we give aid to more money than we will ever even come close to repaying? Most of them are impoverished, at least in part, because of how extensively the British Empire exploited the world in order to become "Great". It's really that simple. And we give them a pittance.

It's essentially like robbing a man blind, burning his home and business to the ground, then giving him £2 when you pass him slumped at the side of the street a decade later and being pissed off when he spends it on drugs.

The problem with this is that you can't go on apologising for the past forever. You didn't do it, someone in the past did. If you are going to go down that road then how can we ever trust Germany after their behaviour in the 1940s? They are more or less running Europe now and people are going along with that and want to be part of it. :shrug:

[Northern Monkey]

The problem with this is that you can't go on apologising for the past forever. You didn't do it, someone in the past did. If you are going to go down that road then how can we ever trust Germany after their behaviour in the 1940s? They are more or less running Europe now and people are going along with that and want to be part of it. :shrug:

Very true:thumbs:

[jaxie]

By not funding countries who can afford nukes or space programs 'WE' as in Britain are not 'killing' anyone.Our country is'nt responsible for the populations of other nations.That responsibility falls firmly on the feet of those nations governments.Just as our government gets all the flack for and is responsible for the poor and homeless in our country.
Now is it nice when we can help?Of course it is.

Great point. I wish I'd said that!

[Northern Monkey]

Great point. I wish I'd said that!

You said something better:laugh:

[Withano]

How do you know this? :shrug: How can anyone know what will happen?

Well, what would happen to those who receive life-saving medication, thats an obvious one. Vaccines against preventable diseases? How would children miraculously become prevented without them? Did you think that question through at all? Its almost insulting that you would imply deaths wouldnt happen as a direct result of this.

[jaxie]

Well, what would happen to those who receive life-saving medication, thats an obvious one. Vaccines against preventable diseases? How would children miraculously become prevented without them? Did you think that question through at all? Its almost insulting that you would imply deaths wouldnt happen as a direct result of this.

Well how do you know that their own government or another body wouldn't provide those things? Do you know for sure that we do provide those things and it's our responsibility alone? It's not insulting at all it's a reasonable question. Stop with the veiled insults all the time Withano, it's getting tedius.

[Withano]

Well how do you know that their own government or another body wouldn't provide those things? Do you know for sure that we do provide those things and it's our responsibility alone?

Foreign aid is there for those who need it, you take it away and you kill millions. Luckily Britain isnt the only country who supplies this, other countries feel a responsibility to prevent poverty-stricken families dying from preventable diseases. You feeling as if children and mothers dont deserve this because their government has science programmes running is so ugly. But I'm not mad, I honestly dont feel as if there has been much thought into this strange thread from many people in it. Im sure with a bit of empathy or rational thinking, you can come to a more age-appropriate conclusion. Same applies to many others here.

[jaxie]

Foreign aid is there for those who need it, you take it away and you kill millions. Luckily Britain isnt the only country who supplies this, other countries feel a responsibility to prevent poverty-stricken families dying from preventable diseases. You feeling as if children and mothers dont deserve this because their government has science programmes running is so ugly. But I'm not mad, I honestly dont feel as if there has been much thought into this strange thread from many people in it. Im sure with a bit of empathy or rational thinking, you can come to a more age-appropriate conclusion. Same applies to many others here.

I'm sorry but I think the highlighted statement is melodrama based on your own emotions and no facts whatsoever. :shrug: You don't even know if government aid actually goes to those who need it. Charities are fairly transparent and it can be easily traced with regard what they do with their money but honestly how do you know who ends up with government aid and what it is spent on?

Again with the insults 'it's so ugly' bla bla bla. I've never once said I think children and mothers should be made to suffer, or anything you said in that sentence so don't put words in my mouth thank you all the same. It's not a science project, stop sugar coating it, it's nuclear arms which in reality could kill the millions you claim to care about. Do I think our aid might be being spent on those nuclear weapons? Highly possible.

It is perfectly reasonable to say, if you can afford weapons of mass destruction, why are we paying to feed your people and where is that money going? The very question Jenny is asking.

Would you go through life never asking questions just hand over your money, never ask, never question? :shrug:

Let me also ask you, if you are overdrawn in the bank, would you be working to pay that back, or spending your money buying treats for friends? Because if the answer is buying treats for friends, it's damn irresponsible. This country is overdrawn in the bank. It's completely acceptable to question where we are spending our money.

[Withano]

Again with the insults 'it's so ugly' bla bla bla. I've never once said I think children and mothers should be made to suffer, or anything you said in that sentence so don't put words in my mouth thank you all the same..

Well you cant have it both ways.

You cant take it away from the government without killing the citizens. This is the very basic principle of foreign aid and you completely skipped through it. We cant progress with the conversation until you make it clear whether you would prefer to kill the citizens and stop a government being capable of war... Or keep the poverty sticken children alive whilst their government funds a proportion of their wealth on projects that you may or may not agree with.

You can not have both. Until you understand this, your argument is senseless.

If the question really is why is this happening (i dont think anybody is really asking this) then this is the answer..
Each government is responsible in distributing the wealth where they see fit, if there isnt enough for basic human rights then foreign aid can help prevent the unnecessary deaths.

[jaxie]

Well you cant have it both ways.

You cant take it away from the government without killing the citizens. This is the very basic principle of foreign aid and you completely skipped through it. We cant progress with the conversation until you make it clear whether you would prefer to kill the citizens and stop a government being capable of war... Or keep the poverty sticken children alive whilst their government funds a proportion of their wealth on projects that you may or may not agree with.

You can not have both. Until you understand this, your argument is senseless.

I think we should definitely be looking at where our money is spent with considerable scrutiny. Again you make bald statements killing of thousands with no proof, facts etc. Bizarre.

Define what you meant in your previous comments about my post not having age appropriate conclusions? I was sure I took it right down to your level.

[Niamh.]

Can we debate this without the personal comments please?

[jaxie]

Can we debate this without the personal comments please?

Apologies Naimh, I thought we could all play Withano's game.

[Niamh.]

Apologies Naimh, I thought we could all play Withano's game.

It wasn't directed at just you :laugh:

[Withano]

I think we should definitely be looking at where our money is spent with considerable scrutiny. Again you make bald statements killing of thousands with no proof, facts etc. Bizarre.

Define what you meant in your previous comments about my post not having age appropriate conclusions? I was sure I took it right down to your level.

Christ. Limiting foreign aid will limit medication, will limit vaccines. Will kill many people, most specifically children and pregnant mothers. Some things dont need proof, they need twenty seconds of thought.

Making a thread about where our money should go would be fine, making a thread on how governments spend their cash is fine. But thats not what this thread is, this thread is simply implying that foreign aid isnt needed in countries that can afford weapons and that is ugly. You have simply killed off anybody living under a corrupt government with a "its not my bloody job" attitude. Make it your job to care about those struggling to stay alive.

[kirklancaster]

senseless.

If the question really is why is this happening (i dont think anybody is really asking this) then this is the answer..

Each government is responsible in distributing the wealth where they see fit, if there isnt enough for basic human rights then foreign aid can help prevent the unnecessary deaths.


This is possibly one of the most ludicrous statement I have EVER witnessed Withano - Are you REALLY saying that a Government is OK to squander its money on Nuclear Weapons, New Palaces with gold wc's and fleets of top limousines for its ministers, or equipping its armies with latest hi-tech weaponry and equipment, while its poorer citizens go without food, water and shelter, because Foreign Aid will step in and save the day?

[jaxie]

Christ. Limiting foreign aid will limit medication, will limit vaccines. Will kill many people, most specifically children and pregnant mothers. Some things dont need proof, they need twenty seconds of thought.

Making a thread about where our money should go would be fine, making a thread on how governments spend their cash is fine. But thats not what this thread is, this thread is simply implying that foreign aid isnt needed in countries that can afford weapons and that is ugly. You have simply killed off anybody living under a corrupt government with a "its not my bloody job" attitude. Make it your job to care about those struggling to stay alive.

Money should never be given blindly or you are in danger of funding the very things you claim to oppose.

The thread is asking why we are giving aid to countries who can afford weapons of mass destruction. It's a fair question.

If you want to make dramatic statements prove it or don't call others stupid for disagreeing with you. :shrug:

[jaxie]

This is possibly one of the most ludicrous statement I have EVER witnessed Withano - Are you REALLY saying that a Government is OK to squander its money on Nuclear Weapons, New Palaces with gold wc's and fleets of top limousines for its ministers, or equipping its armies with latest hi-tech weaponry and equipment, while its poorer citizens go without food, water and shelter, because Foreign Aid will step in and save the day?

Yes, yes he is.

[Withano]

This is possibly one of the most ludicrous statement I have EVER witnessed Withano - Are you REALLY saying that a Government is OK to squander its money on Nuclear Weapons, New Palaces with gold wc's and fleets of top limousines for its ministers, or equipping its armies with latest hi-tech weaponry and equipment, while its poorer citizens go without food, water and shelter, because Foreign Aid will step in and save the day?

Thats a different issue, but to me, no not personally. Offtopic though.

[Withano]

Yes, yes he is.

Oh right, there we were thinking i was the one putting words in your mouth, you gave me a telling off for it too

[jaxie]

Oh right, there we were thinking i was the one putting words in your mouth, you gave me a telling off for it too

:laugh:

[Kizzy]

I don't see Germans bitching about their war reparations...which they are still paying.

[Kizzy]

By not funding countries who can afford nukes or space programs 'WE' as in Britain are not 'killing' anyone.Our country is'nt responsible for the populations of other nations.That responsibility falls firmly on the feet of those nations governments.Just as our government gets all the flack for and is responsible for the poor and homeless in our country.
Now is it nice when we can help?Of course it is.

If the UK is paying reparation for colonial rule then it is up the the recipients what they spend any monies owed on.
If I owed you £20 I cannot demand to know what you intend to do with it. :/

[jaxie]

I don't see Germans bitching about their war reparations...which they are still paying.

Do you read German forums then? I always admire people who read other languages.

Oh except that according to several articles and essays on the web they bitched and moaned a lot and never paid that much in reparations.

[jaxie]

If the UK is paying reparation for colonial rule then it is up the the recipients what they spend any monies owed on.
If I owed you £20 I cannot demand to know what you intend to do with it. :/

If they are spending the money on weapons of mass destruction then no, it's really not. I wouldn't want to be responsible for their nukes, would you? :shrug:

[Kizzy]

Do you read German forums then? I always admire people who read other languages.

Oh except that according to several articles and essays on the web they bitched and moaned a lot and never paid that much in reparations.

Which articles are those?...

[Kizzy]

If they are spending the money on weapons of mass destruction then no, it's really not. I wouldn't want to be responsible for their nukes, would you? :shrug:

Um, are they not as entitled to 'defence' as we are?....

*disclaimer
In an ideal world nobody should need nukes.

[jaxie]

Which articles are those?...

Google I'm not being the secretary.

[jaxie]

Um, are they not as entitled to 'defence' as we are?....

*disclaimer
In an ideal world nobody should need nukes.

Of course but not if we are paying for it.

[Kizzy]

Of course but not if we are paying for it.

Essentially it's their money, they can do what they like with it, I don't like my taxes funding things like arming saudis but .... :shrug:

[Kizzy]

Google I'm not being the secretary.

I don't have time to check every unsubstantiated claim on the forum.... I'd be here forever :laugh:

[jaxie]

I don't have time to check every unsubstantiated claim on the forum.... I'd be here forever :laugh:

Stay uninformed then. I was curious.

[kirklancaster]

Stay uninformed then. I was curious.

:laugh2:

[jaxie]

Essentially it's their money, they can do what they like with it, I don't like my taxes funding things like arming saudis but .... :shrug:

Then I can choose not to give it and it won't be their money at all. If I am giving aid of course I should have every right to question what it is spent on, just as I'd have every right to stop giving if I disapproved. I wouldn't fund an alcoholic or drug addicted friend. That wouldn't help them at all.

I am stunned anyone thinks it's OK that aid could be spent on weapons of mass destruction if that is how the recipient wants to spend it.

[jennyjuniper]

What???

Jenny NEVER said or meant that she was fine with anyone being killed and neither did I.

In a nutshell, Jenny's question was; "Why are we giving money which is being TAKEN FROM OUR OWN POOR, and GIVING IT TO THE RICH OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY - A COUNTRY WHICH CAN AFFORD TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Stop making things up just because you want an argument.

That is exactly what I meant Kirk. Also especially Pakistan because that is the main culprit for training and arming terrorists. Why give them help, when there are so many other countries worthy of the aid.

[jennyjuniper]

You're probably right Maru, it just must be so difficult for the poorest of the poor to mobilise themselves into any sort of rebellion when they have no money, no food, no education etc I think education actually is key in these countries

Yes, but in countries like Pakistan they are not so much educated as brain washed! And if you are female, forget it.

[jennyjuniper]

Right.. But taking it away will kil hundreds within a year.. Maybe you just havent thought this through enough.

You cant both; be against innocents dying whilst claiming that foreign aid should be limited, even to those who rely on it to stay alive (because their government has weapons? Still unclear)

Withano it seems quite clear to me. If a country can afford to have nuclear weapons, yet the poor are still hungry, then the money is not going to help them, it's going on other things...like nuclear weapons.

[Ammi]

...foreign aid (as with charitable aid as well..)...is a complicated thing I always think because both thought processes are equally so sound in their thinking...so much of aid in general is subject to corruption is one thing but there's also the 'trading' bit that is done with foreign aid as well and our (or other country governments..)..not really closely looking at where the aid is going exactly but then if they did and stopped it, not only would certain things that are beneficial to us probably not happen..but those nuclear weapons would still happen I feel and it would only be those in need who would lose out in terms of their health, education, medication etc...nothing makes sense though when it comes to government spending, why are people evicted from their houses and yet cries of homelessness increasing being an issue...it's all pretty screwed up and one democracy that will never happen is us (the taxpayer..)..all having any say in how money is spent...

[Ammi]

..I guess it's to think of it as things like large fund-raising things like Band-Aid and such the like/National yearly events..that not all funds raised will possibly be well spent or appropriately spent but for the amount that is and does benefit, it's an essential to so many lives still existing and a positive benefit to lives and education .../rock on Bono and Bob..:love:...

[jennyjuniper]

Foreign aid is there for those who need it, you take it away and you kill millions. Luckily Britain isnt the only country who supplies this, other countries feel a responsibility to prevent poverty-stricken families dying from preventable diseases. You feeling as if children and mothers dont deserve this because their government has science programmes running is so ugly. But I'm not mad, I honestly dont feel as if there has been much thought into this strange thread from many people in it. Im sure with a bit of empathy or rational thinking, you can come to a more age-appropriate conclusion. Same applies to many others here.

Empathy is good, but gullable naivity isn't. Do you suppose that a government of a country like Pakistan gives two hoots for it's poor and hungry, because I sure as hell don't. If they did they would spend the money they get in foreign aid on them, NOT on nuclear weapons or to arm terrorists.

[jennyjuniper]

Christ. Limiting foreign aid will limit medication, will limit vaccines. Will kill many people, most specifically children and pregnant mothers. Some things dont need proof, they need twenty seconds of thought.

Making a thread about where our money should go would be fine, making a thread on how governments spend their cash is fine. But thats not what this thread is, this thread is simply implying that foreign aid isnt needed in countries that can afford weapons and that is ugly. You have simply killed off anybody living under a corrupt government with a "its not my bloody job" attitude. Make it your job to care about those struggling to stay alive.

But can't you see Withano that people who live under a corrupt government are NEVER going to see one penny of that foreign aid. So all we are doing in effect is enabling that corrupt government to prosper. Please tell me you can see that?:shrug:

[Withano]

But can't you see Withano that people who live under a corrupt government are NEVER going to see one penny of that foreign aid. So all we are doing in effect is enabling that corrupt government to prosper. Please tell me you can see that?:shrug:

I mean.. They do though.. The money doesnt get handed over in cash for the government to clap and high five each other before their shopping spree in H&M. Money goes directly into medicines, supporting children through school and making sure the young wont die tomorrow. I think a lot of your argument is just paranoia.
If you wanted to make a thread about how other governments should distribute their cash, I think we'd have similar opinions. But taking foreign aid away from those who need it because their government (which are located close to central war zones) have ways of defending themselves is obviously bat**** crazy. Why punish a child because of their government?

[Ammi]

..I think that they do receive though, it's just that they don't receive all of but if they didn't receive at all, if it completely stopped it wouldn't stop governments from arming themselves as a priority, it would only stop vitals and essentials needed of those who need most...

[Ammi]

..or similar to what Withano says, jeez you type quickly..:laugh:...

[Withano]

..or similar to what Withano says, jeez you type quickly..:laugh:...

I have work to do.. So naturally, I'm procrastinating haha.

[Ammi]

I have work to do.. So naturally, I'm procrastinating haha.

..I have a quick small window in the mornings when my thoughts work and then for the rest of the day, I try not to think too much when I'm working/chill my brain completely..(on work days..)...it pretty much seems to work for me...

[jaxie]

I mean.. They do though.. The money doesnt get handed over in cash for the government to clap and high five each other before their shopping spree in H&M. Money goes directly into medicines, supporting children through school and making sure the young wont die tomorrow. I think a lot of your argument is just paranoia.
If you wanted to make a thread about how other governments should distribute their cash, I think we'd have similar opinions. But taking foreign aid away from those who need it because their government (which are located close to central war zones) have ways of defending themselves is obviously bat**** crazy. Why punish a child because of their government?

Once again, how do you know this? What are the supporting facts?

[jaxie]

Where did the rest of the thread go?

[Withano]

Once again, how do you know this? What are the supporting facts?

By understanding the basics.

If you want supporting facts, you can google it yourself.

Alternatively you can read an article that I helpfully found for you (below). If you wanted the facts that directly support my point instead of a general understanding of the topic area, you can skip directly to page 39

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/570148/Statistics-on-International-Development-2016.pdf

[jaxie]

By understanding the basics.

If you want supporting facts, you can google it yourself.

Alternatively you can read an article that I helpfully found for you (below). If you wanted the facts that directly support my point instead of a general understanding of the topic area, you can skip directly to page 39

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/570148/Statistics-on-International-Development-2016.pdf

That PDF tells you nothing about who the money goes to and what it is spent on. I don't see how it is relevant. It doesn't tell you if it goes to the government of the country, what department etc etc.

[Withano]

That PDF tells you nothing about who the money goes to and what it is spent on. I don't see how it is relevant.

Well.. Then re-read it because that is its entire content.

[jaxie]

Well.. Then re-read it because that is its entire content.

Maybe you should read it. :shrug:

[Withano]

Maybe you should read it. :shrug:

Must be trolling now, baiting at best. If youre sincerely not then I apologise and I would suggest that you find a source that suggests the opposite may be true if you want to carry on the discussion, otherwise this little tiff is my source vs your paranoia.

[jaxie]

Must be trolling now, baiting at best. If youre sincerely not then I apologise and I would suggest that you find a source that suggests the opposite may be true if you want to carry on the discussion, otherwise this little tiff is my source vs your paranoia.

Why do you persist with the personal remarks? Is it something you can't help like a twitch or something? :shrug:

[Withano]

Why do you persist with the personal remarks? Is it something you can't help like a twitch or something? :shrug:

How was that personal? You asked for a source, i gave you one, i gave you the specific page and you told me to reread it as if is wasnt relevant, it is entirely relevant. That is either trollish or a genuine mistake which i apologised in advance for in case it was one.
Without a source of your own, our argument is my source versus you premade assumptions, and without a source, i am lead to believe that there is little reasoning behind your assumptions. I didnt mean to get personal.

[jaxie]

How was that personal? You asked for a source, i gave you one, i gave you the page and you told me to reread it as if is wasnt relevant. That is trollish or a genuine mistake which i apologised in advance for it was one. Without a source of your own argument is my source versus you premade assumptions.

You called me a paranoid troll. Do you not realise you are doing it?

[Withano]

You called me a paranoid troll. Do you not realise you are doing it?

A troll, as in an internet troll.. As in youre deliberately trying to get a reaction from me.. Yes.. That is trolling. And your argument is based on paranoia and premade assumptions unless you provide a source of your own to prove otherwise.. This is not personal. This is a definition that may apply to anybody.

[jaxie]

A troll, as in an internet troll.. As in youre deliberately trying to get a reaction from me.. Yes.. That is trolling.

I'm really not going to stoop that low.

I did ask you how you knew what aid went where and how millions would die if the aid was withdrawn, you gave me a link which didn't answer me.

[Withano]

I'm really not going to stoop that low.

I did ask you how you knew what aid went where and how millions would die if the aid was withdrawn, you gave me a link which didn't answer me.

Well it did, if you beleive the opposite may be true and you would like to continue a discussion, provide a valid source of your own. Otherwise your argument has no substance at all and could be perceived as you trolling me, sorry. It just appears that way.

[jaxie]

Well it did, if you beleive the opposite may be true and you would like to continue a discussion, provide a valid source of your own. Otherwise your argument has no substance at all and could be perceived as you trolling me, sorry. It just appears that way.

I don't have a source that give any kind of list as to where the money goes and who it is delivered to, nor what it is actually spent on. I don't think it's transparently out there. Therefore you can't really claim to know these things. :shrug: And no it's not trolling, there we go with another word you aren't really understanding.

[Withano]

Well as i said originally, page 39. Find any source that may suggest that page 39 might not be entirely true and we'll continue. Otherwise it really is a government-made article vs you thinking 'hmm but that goes against what I thought of it yesterday so cant be true'

[jaxie]

Well as i said originally, page 39. Find any source that may suggest that page 39 might not be entirely true and we'll continue. Otherwise it really is a government-made article vs you thinking 'hmm but that goes against what I thought of it yesterday so cant be true'

So you think that page 39 tells you what department in Pakistan gets the aid and what it is spent on? Not seeing of that. :shrug:

Btw an internet troll is someone who winds people up cleverly on the internet or causes discord and argument in a group.

How is asking for clarification of a statement trolling?

[Withano]

So you think that page 39 tells you what department in Pakistan gets the aid and what it is spent on? Not seeing of that. :shrug:

Btw an internet troll is someone who winds people up cleverly on the internet or causes discord and argument in a group.

How is asking for clarification of a statement trolling?

More to the point, does it, or does or not mention weapons for Pakistan (anyone)? That was the only argument that you had. Asking for clarification on that closed argument is trollish. Prove it wrong with valid sources instead of discrediting it with your own premade assumptions. I will be ignorin your argumens from now unless they have an ounce of substance.

[Brillopad]

The use of the word ' trolling is often a way of attempting to shut down opinions, can't be doing with it. Easy way out of a disagreement.

[jaxie]

More to the point, does it, or does or not mention weapons for Pakistan (anyone)? That was the only argument that you had. Asking for clarification on that closed argument is trollish. Prove it wrong with valid sources instead of discrediting it with your own premade assumptions. I will be ignorin your argumens from now unless they have an ounce of substance.

You don't have an answer so you resort to calling me a troll. :shrug:
You could just have said you don't actually know.

I don't know that Pakistan spends the aid on weapons, and I dont know they don't. You seemed to think you knew what the money was spent on, clearly you don't either.

[Withano]

You don't have an answer so you resort to calling me a troll. :shrug:
You could just have said you don't actually know.

I don't know that Pakistan spends the aid on weapons, and I dont know they don't. You seemed to think you knew what the money was spent on, clearly you don't either.

We both know where foreign aid goes. The entire sum of money can be seen in bar graphs. There is no axis for weaponary, that is just premade assumptions that you have unrightly brought into the discussion to further a point. If 0% of foregin aid goes to weaponary across the world, guess how much goes into weaponary in Pakistan. Sorry for the KS2 math quiz but I think we're really stuggling to get past this hurdle.

[kirklancaster]

We both know where foreign aid goes. The entire sum of money can be seen in bar graphs. There is no axis for weaponary, that is just premade assumptions that you have unrightly brought into the discussion to further a point. If 0% of foregin aid goes to weaponary across the world, guess how much goes into weaponary in Pakistan. Sorry for the KS2 math quiz but I think we're really stuggling to get past this hurdle.

You are genuinely missing the point Withano.

And that point is - NOT that our Foreign Aid billions MIGHT be being DIRECTLY spent on buying weaponry by the Pakistani Government but that, if they can AFFORD Nuclear Weapons, then they can afford to help their own people in need, and so by us continuing to pump money into the Pakistani Government's grubby little hands, we are doing NOTHING to make them re-think their priorities.

There is an argument that OUR own Government has its priorities wrong by renewing Trident while our poor citizens get poorer, and our homeless problem and other problems degenerate, but WE do NOT receive Billions of pounds in Foreign Aid handouts from other countries.

[Withano]

You are genuinely missing the point Withano.

And that point is - NOT that our Foreign Aid billions MIGHT be being DIRECTLY spent on buying weaponry by the Pakistani Government but that, if they can AFFORD Nuclear Weapons, then they can afford to help their own people in need, and so by us continuing to pump money into the Pakistani Government's grubby little hands, we are doing NOTHING to make them re-think their priorities.

There is an argument that OUR own Government has its priorities wrong by renewing Trident while our poor citizens get poorer, and our homeless problem and other problems degenerate, but WE do NOT receive Billions of pounds in Foreign Aid handouts from other countries.

Actually, you missed the point by not reading through the thread (again :hee:). I completely acknowledge that foreign aid would not go towards weaponary, that was simply the leading point in the argument from the opposing side. I agree, its utterly irrelevant, and frankly distasteful... Not to mention, simply incorrect.

My opinions on the second point you brought up can also be found on the thread. (Really should read through it before jumping in for a fight :hee:).. Should foreign aid go towards countries that can afford weapons? In my summary yes, lets not kill off innocent children because we dont like their prime-minister.

If you did read through the thread :hee:, you would have saw that you and I would have similar opinions had the title been 'is [any country] distributing their wealth appropriately', but in a hurry for an argument or a hasty conclusion, you missed this. The thread is about foreign aid, and I'd like to think that you wouldnt want to discontinue or limit funding to Pakistan to teach the country a lesson? I'm sure that isn't what you're implying, that would give the thread an entirely new dark route, which I wouldnt walk you down.

I'm sure follow-up questions that you have to any of this can also be found on the thread, I don't care too much for repeating any of it, so get reading :hee:.

[kirklancaster]

Actually, you missed the point by not reading through the thread. I completely acknowledge that foreign aid would not go towards weaponary, that was simply the leading point in the argument from the opposing side. I agree, its utterly irrelevant, and frankly distasteful.

My opinions on the second point you brought up can also be found on the thread. (Really should read through it before jumping in for a fight).. Should foreign aid go towards countries that can afford weapons? In my summary yes, lets not kill off innocent children because we dont like their prime-minister.

I'm sure follow-up questions that you have to any of this can also be found on the thread, I don't care too much for repeating any of it, so get reading.

:joker: There it is - I wondered where your customary aggression and unnecessary unpleasantness was tonight.

Perhaps it only surfaces when you are losing a debate. Either way, there is NO need for it.

I believe that I have been civil with you.

Anyway, I do not need to read through the thread - I ALWAYS read EVERY post on any thread which I join.

Suffice it to say, that I BASED my response upon the post of yours to Jaxie which I quoted.

Here is your post - YOUR own words, I believe?:

Posted by Withano View Post

"We both know where foreign aid goes. The entire sum of money can be seen in bar graphs. There is no axis for weaponary, that is just premade assumptions that you have unrightly brought into the discussion to further a point. If 0% of foregin aid goes to weaponary across the world, guess how much goes into weaponary in Pakistan. Sorry for the KS2 math quiz but I think we're really stuggling to get past this hurdle."

And here for clarity, is my response - the response which you seem to take such umbrage with:

Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post

"You are genuinely missing the point Withano.

And that point is - NOT that our Foreign Aid billions MIGHT be being DIRECTLY spent on buying weaponry by the Pakistani Government but that, if they can AFFORD Nuclear Weapons, then they can afford to help their own people in need, and so by us continuing to pump money into the Pakistani Government's grubby little hands, we are doing NOTHING to make them re-think their priorities.

There is an argument that OUR own Government has its priorities wrong by renewing Trident while our poor citizens get poorer, and our homeless problem and other problems degenerate, but WE do NOT receive Billions of pounds in Foreign Aid handouts from other countries."

Now, I would say, that BASED on your own words in YOUR own post, that my response was perfectly valid and appropriate.

But there is no need to fall out Withano, we are only debating.

[Withano]

:joker: There it is - I wondered where your customary aggression and unnecessary unpleasantness was tonight.

Perhaps it only surfaces when you are losing a debate. Either way, there is NO need for it.

I believe that I have been civil with you.

Anyway, I do not need to read through the thread - I ALWAYS read EVERY post on any thread which I join.

Suffice it to say, that I BASED my response upon the post of yours to Jaxie which I quoted.

Here is your post - YOUR own words, I believe?:

Posted by Withano View Post

"We both know where foreign aid goes. The entire sum of money can be seen in bar graphs. There is no axis for weaponary, that is just premade assumptions that you have unrightly brought into the discussion to further a point. If 0% of foregin aid goes to weaponary across the world, guess how much goes into weaponary in Pakistan. Sorry for the KS2 math quiz but I think we're really stuggling to get past this hurdle."

And here for clarity, is my response - the response which you seem to take such umbrage with:

Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post

"You are genuinely missing the point Withano.

And that point is - NOT that our Foreign Aid billions MIGHT be being DIRECTLY spent on buying weaponry by the Pakistani Government but that, if they can AFFORD Nuclear Weapons, then they can afford to help their own people in need, and so by us continuing to pump money into the Pakistani Government's grubby little hands, we are doing NOTHING to make them re-think their priorities.

There is an argument that OUR own Government has its priorities wrong by renewing Trident while our poor citizens get poorer, and our homeless problem and other problems degenerate, but WE do NOT receive Billions of pounds in Foreign Aid handouts from other countries."

Now, I would say, that BASED on your own words in YOUR own post, that my response was perfectly valid and appropriate.

But there is no need to fall out Withano, we are only debating.

Youve missed the point Kirk.. For clarity though, remind me. Cancel foreign aid to Pakistan, limit ir, or keep it. If it was enitely up to you right now. Keep in mind, some of these options would kill innocent children.

[jaxie]

Youve missed the point Kirk.. For clarity though, remind me. Cancel foreign aid to Pakistan, limit ir, or keep it. If it was enitely up to you right now. Keep in mind, some of these options would kill innocent children.

I'll answer as well if I may. I'd look at it, delve deeply and find out what use it was being put to before making a decision.

[Withano]

I'll answer as well if I may. I'd look at it, delve deeply and find out what use it was being put to before making a decision.

Decent answer, you havent killed off innocent children yet. Not the best answer you could have given, but up there. Lets just hope water sanitaion, medication, vaccines and education are good enough uses for you by the time you conclude, otherwise the thread will go horribly dark.

[Kizzy]

Decent answer, you havent killed off innocent children yet. Not the best answer you could have given, but up there. Lets just hope water sanitaion, medication, vaccines and education are good enough uses for you by the time you conclude, otherwise the thread will go horribly dark.

Excellent point, similar to my 'where does my tax go' post on page 2 in that even if the portion of tax you pay did find it's way to Pakistan, it may for the peace of mind of some to imagine they are providing any of the benefits you mention.

[kirklancaster]

Excellent point, similar to my 'where does my tax go' post on page 2 in that even if the portion of tax you pay did find it's way to Pakistan, it may for the peace of mind of some to imagine they are providing any of the benefits you mention.

Oh yes.... Right then.

Why then do you - self-admittedly - repeatedly submit NEGATIVE, CRITICAL, and DEMEANING posts which attack the policies of THIS Government?

'Take your own medicine Doctor', and simply PRETEND to yourself that all your tax money is being spent by the Government on Housing the Homeless, Increasing Benefits for EVERY CLAIMANT, Building New Hospitals, why, and even paying the Campaign Costs for Jeremy Corbyn's next attempt at being Prime Minister.

Go on Kizzy - close your eyes and dream away.

The above MIGHT work for you, but for some of us others, NOTHING will suffice, except KNOWING that our hard earned, much self-needed tax monies are NOT simply being handed over in any 'Willy Nilly. Legs Akimbo, Dip Yer Bread In' fashion to CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS as 'Foreign Aid', only to be squandered or worse, WHEN A HUGE SECTION OF OUR OWN PEOPLE ARE INCREASINGLY IN NEED OF URGENT HELP.

[Kizzy]

Oh yes.... Right then.

Why then do you - self-admittedly - repeatedly submit NEGATIVE, CRITICAL, and DEMEANING posts which attack the policies of THIS Government?

'Take your own medicine Doctor', and simply PRETEND to yourself that all your tax money is being spent by the Government on Housing the Homeless, Increasing Benefits for EVERY CLAIMANT, Building New Hospitals, why, and even paying the Campaign Costs for Jeremy Corbyn's next attempt at being Prime Minister.

Go on Kizzy - close your eyes and dream away.

The above MIGHT work for you, but for some of us others, NOTHING will suffice, except KNOWING that our hard earned, much self-needed tax monies are NOT simply being handed over in any 'Willy Nilly. Legs Akimbo, Dip Yer Bread In' fashion to CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS as 'Foreign Aid', only to be squandered or worse, WHEN A HUGE SECTION OF OUR OWN PEOPLE ARE INCREASINGLY IN NEED OF URGENT HELP.

Because I am opposed to the conservative ideology, however I accept I am not in control of what the govt does with income tax once collected :/
Therefore I do hope it is a beneficial cause wherever it lands.

Yes they are and as we are a first world country not a developing nation you would have thought that we would have the needy catered for wouldn't you? And yet we appear to be hell bent on making the gulf between the haves and have nots wider, or abandoning whole subsections of society altogether via government policy.

I'm not naive enough to believe that even should foreign aid end tomorrow that every UK citizen would have a warm safe bed and a full belly.

[Ammi]

..I was thinking about this a bit yesterday, about Pakistan in particular and I guess that them having nuclear weapons so giving them 'power' as a country in terms of ally etc...also is what maybe helps with trade and bringing much needed foreign aid in...so that's a bit of a complicated one also because they may not be given so much aid without the weapons spending, their importance as a non nuclear country would be lesser..?...


..anyways, I do think that government aid is very much needed to continue and especially to prevent diseases etc with improved sanitation and vaccines as Withano has mentioned...

[Livia]

We give more in aid than any other country except the USA. So it astounds me that the first thing I read on this forum is Withano claiming we are the most corrupt nation in the world and that only Foreign Aid is saving us. What complete and utter bullsh1t. When people knock out country it just demonstrates a profounbd lack of knowledge.

Why are some countries still in need of aid? Because despite decades of cash they still can't sort themselves out because of civil and religious war, because the leader is feeding cash straight into his treasury, or maybe buying himself a new private jet. We've been digging wells in Africa since Victorian times and yet we're still seeing adverts about how kids are having to drink water than animals have pissed in.

While we have people sleeping on our streets and dying because they have to choose between turning on the heat and eating, then no money should go abroad. If people want to donate personally, knock yourself out.

[Cherie]

We give more in aid than any other country except the USA. So it astounds me that the first thing I read on this forum is Withano claiming we are the most corrupt nation in the world and that only Foreign Aid is saving us. What complete and utter bullsh1t. When people knock out country it just demonstrates a profounbd lack of knowledge.

Why are some countries still in need of aid? Because despite decades of cash they still can't sort themselves out because of civil and religious war, because the leader is feeding cash straight into his treasury, or maybe buying himself a new private jet. We've been digging wells in Africa since Victorian times and yet we're still seeing adverts about how kids are having to drink water than animals have pissed in.

While we have people sleeping on our streets and dying because they have to choose between turning on the heat and eating, then no money should go abroad. If people want to donate personally, knock yourself out.


:clap2:

[Withano]

We give more in aid than any other country except the USA. So it astounds me that the first thing I read on this forum is Withano claiming we are the most corrupt nation in the world and that only Foreign Aid is saving us. What complete and utter bullsh1t. When people knock out country it just demonstrates a profounbd lack of knowledge.

Why are some countries still in need of aid? Because despite decades of cash they still can't sort themselves out because of civil and religious war, because the leader is feeding cash straight into his treasury, or maybe buying himself a new private jet. We've been digging wells in Africa since Victorian times and yet we're still seeing adverts about how kids are having to drink water than animals have pissed in.

While we have people sleeping on our streets and dying because they have to choose between turning on the heat and eating, then no money should go abroad. If people want to donate personally, knock yourself out.

Christ what source did you use to work out Britain isnt currently or historically corrupt? The bnp daily? If you want to cancel or limit foreign aid and effectively kill off a few thousand children then I dont particularly wanna talk with you about the issue, but I think you should at least accept that compassion ranks higher on some peoples priorities than it does on yours.
USA and UK dont actually distribute the most considering their respective wealth ("profound lack of knowledge" seeming misplaced in your post) and homelessness is a separate issue (around the world) which needs dealing with. Removing all foreign aid for UK problems is grossly immoral, selfish and naive really. Killing off thousands of children to help our homeless is a horrid conclusion which I sincerely hope, you just didnt think through enough instead of genuinely believe.

A homeless guy is contemplating shelter or food and gets -some- help
A poverty stricken child from the other side of the world is dying of a preventable disease and gets -some- help

Why you want to remove aid entirely to one and use that money to go towards solving some issues partially for the other is beyond me. But it is disgusting.

[Brillopad]

Christ what source did you use to work out Britain isnt currently or historically corrupt? The bnp daily? If you want to cancel or limit foreign aid and effectively kill off a few thousand children then I dont particularly wanna talk with you about the issue, but I think you should at least accept that compassion ranks higher on some peoples priorities than it does on yours.
USA and UK dont actually distribute the most considering their respective wealth ("profound lack of knowledge" seeming misplaced in your post) and homelessness is a separate issue (around the world) which needs dealing with. Removing all foreign aid for UK problems is grossly immoral, selfish and naive really. Killing off thousands of children to help our homeless is a horrid conclusion which I sincerely hope, you just didnt think through enough instead of genuinely believe.

A homeless guy is contemplating shelter or food and gets -some- help
A poverty stricken child from the other side of the world is dying of a preventable disease and gets -some- help

Why you want to remove aid entirely to one and use that money to go towards solving some issues partially for the other is beyond me. But it is disgusting.

Sorry but you aren't convincing people with your constant attemped guilt trip comments about killing children. We are not responsible for The world's ills. There comes a point when we have to give priority to our own.

[Withano]

Sorry but you aren't convincing people with your constant attemped guilt trip comments about killing children. We are not responsible for The world's ills. There comes a point when we have to give priority to our own.

Hahah, this isnt a guilt trip, this is a fact. And its grim if youre comfortable with it, a lot appear to be more than comfortable - practically promoting it. Grim.

We do already give priority to our own. Weird thing to say. What you really want to say is that its time to give everything to our own? Grim.

[Brillopad]

Hahah, this isnt a guilt trip, this is a fact. And its grim if youre comfortable with it, a lot appear to be more than comfortable - practically promoting it. Grim.

We do already give priority to our own. Weird thing to say. What you really want to say is that its time to give everything to our own? Grim.

If you say so.

[Cherie]

Hahah, this isnt a guilt trip, this is a fact. And its grim if youre comfortable with it, a lot appear to be more than comfortable - practically promoting it. Grim.

We do already give priority to our own. Weird thing to say. What you really want to say is that its time to give everything to our own? Grim.

Why is it grim to help our own, if you had to choose between a family member who needed help to pay a bill or donate to a charity and you couldn't afford to do both what would you do ?

[Withano]

Why is it grim to help our own, if you had to choose between a family member who needed help to pay a bill or donate to a charity and you couldn't afford to do both what would you do ?

Helping "your own" isnt grim (the term our own is a little grim but thats not the point that youve missed) the point that you missed it that it is grim to cease help of those that you dont consider "your own", simply because they are not "your own".
The point you missed it that its grim to let those who you dont consider "your own" to die because you want those that you do consider "your own" to be slightly more comfortable.
Its grim That some people would rather limit funding to one group of people to maximise funding to "their own" effectively and indirectly killing literally thousands, instead of keeping a rational compromise of killing close to 0, Its completely grim.

And to be fair, there was only one in the thread that repeated that this is their wish after their initial post - everyone else has either said that they would research more into it or have avoided the question completely after their initial grim rant. so to give credit, most arent as bad as Ive made out, but many posts in here are completely grim and indirectly murderous.

[Brillopad]

Helping "your own" isnt grim (the term our own is a little grim but thats not the point that youve missed) the point that you missed it that it is grim to cease help of those that you dont consider "your own", simply because they are not "your own".
The point you missed it that its grim to let those who you dont consider "your own" to die because you want those that you do consider "your own" to be slightly more comfortable.
Its grim That some people would rather limit funding to one group of people to maximise it to "their own" effectively killing thousands, instead of keeping a rational compromise of killing close to 0, Its completely grim.

Even if we didn't have enough of 'our own' to help, as mentioned in a previous post, whatever we do it never stops. No lessons are ever learned.

If like more developed countries ipeople stopped having so many children they can't possibly afford and dooming them to a life of pain and suffering instead of expecting other countries to foot the bill, there would be a lot less suffering. Does being poor stop people from caring about the poverty they bring their children into.

[Withano]

Even if we didn't have enough of 'our own' to help, as mentioned in a previous post, whatever we do it never stops. No lessons are ever learned.

If like more developed countries ipeople stopped having so many children they can't possibly afford and dooming them to a life of pain and suffering instead of expecting other countries to foot the bill, there would be a lot less suffering. Does being poor stop people from caring about the poverty they bring their children into.

I dont even believe you understand what you're going on about anymore.

[Brillopad]

I dont even believe you understand what you're going on about anymore.

Having child after child with not enough food to feed them is cruel. You don't have to be educated to realise that.

[kirklancaster]

We give more in aid than any other country except the USA. So it astounds me that the first thing I read on this forum is Withano claiming we are the most corrupt nation in the world and that only Foreign Aid is saving us. What complete and utter bullsh1t. When people knock out country it just demonstrates a profounbd lack of knowledge.

Why are some countries still in need of aid? Because despite decades of cash they still can't sort themselves out because of civil and religious war, because the leader is feeding cash straight into his treasury, or maybe buying himself a new private jet. We've been digging wells in Africa since Victorian times and yet we're still seeing adverts about how kids are having to drink water than animals have pissed in.

While we have people sleeping on our streets and dying because they have to choose between turning on the heat and eating, then no money should go abroad. If people want to donate personally, knock yourself out.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Man, I REALLY MISS YOU.

[Maru]

The urgency to address our social welfare programs and failing infrastructure should be priority #1. As that would hinder our ability to not only help ourselves, but help others. The problem... we don't have a modern day Alexander Hamilton who is willing to look at these programs recursively and figure out just how deep in the hole we are in. So for all we know we may be in a state of emergency. Instead, our leadership is too busy buying votes and addressing society's emotional arguments rather than taking a fine toothed comb to our quite over-sized, overly complex tax code, national budget, social welfare programs, etc...all needs to be overhauled to stay maintainable.

Anyway, it is my belief... if this were to be discovered and we find out we are in deep hole, they need to shut off all aid and declare a state of emergency. There are areas in our deep metros, centers of poverty and crime that are really hurting. There is also risk of other communities that should this continue to go unchecked, could grow exponentially. We are already seeing a need for law enforcement costs to rise...which would just be another line item to add to our national debt if the cities then have to turn to federal (i.e. state of emergency) to address these rising costs.

Our jails are full, our average law enforcement officer has an increasingly large amount of roles to fulfill... meanwhile, we are not addressing these problems in any form, except in 'social welfare' programs that are growing our national debt to levels it's never been... it's in our interest to get back to being as independent as possible, to deal with these issues, to bring back the middle class... and honestly, nobody will starve. Philanthropy is alive and well in our nations. When those people get back on their feet, people will donate... just as they already do now.

This is also ignoring the elephants in the room, the segments of our world population/local communities that actively choose to stay the course... because they depend on this income to maintain their way of life (rich or poor).

My husband has told me numerous stories of people coming to mental health detentions that have said plain and clear, they are there for the free drugs (in the form of pharmaceuticals) and purposefully get into trouble so they can game the system. Instead, the DOJ (Department of Justice) wants to give them even more incentive/room to abuse the system than than afford us more officers which would help to better to keep situations under control (i.e. lessen brutality) and also to give those with mental health issues the attention and dignity ... the help they do deserve.

Personally, I have no problems with giving out aid... but it's well proven the enormous amount of trouble that is brewing with regards to our budgets, our welfare problems... and instead we've chosen to pass the buck for the past 10 to 15 years. Yet, our politicians continue writing blank checks or otherwise adding to our debt rather than addressing these issues. If we don't act on these signs, it could take us all under... and worse, may happen at a time when it is 20X more expensive to fix than it is now. Taking the global economy with it.

So in short... if we comb through these issues and still find we have the cash flow to spare, then sure, we should pick and choose and selectively choose who to aid (i.e. not aiding countries deeply rooted in terrorism) as that would be the moral thing to do... however, it needs to be a set with a timeline... otherwise we need to stop aid and put ourselves in a state of emergency to get these issues under control. They are also contributing substantially to our social issues as well, which are also growing at an alarmingly rate... especially police brutality, various poverty stricken minority communities (such as New Orleans post-Katrina), kids leaving school only to find a lack of jobs (while carrying a mortgage sized student loan payment monthly), rising costs of medical which strips everyone's bottom line, rising taxes on small businesses (which leads to chains/monopolies)... oh and all our environmental issues... etc

My concern is if we continue to ignore these issues, soon it will be so devastatingly expensive to fix, i.e. that we will be in a massively deep hole and then we will all be in trouble... including countries where the situation is already desperate.

My political take on this too is we should never give aid to countries that are deeply embedded in or otherwise in bed with terrorist organizations, sects, movements of any kind... i.e. if you make it a comfortable battleground for these people, you should expect the rest of the world to turn their noses up to you come time you need anything. Instead, we may end up in bed with them... for oil, for contacts, for intelligence, whatever reasoning one can justify such things...

I know personally many family members and friends who have donated time, energy and materials to different causes over the years. I am involved in animal rescue myself. My grandmother alone, has donated over $5,000 yearly of her own income to charitable causes... and she is on a fixed income :laugh: There are positive acts happening all around us... but some reason, these acts mean very little to people in comparison to dragging our government's into philanthropy when I know at least my own government in particular has shown repeatedly it's epic amount of greed, poor spending habits and waste of taxpayer money and resources to any cause. I would better trust my donated funds to the source rather than... a govt who doesn't pick and choose, but instead squanders our funds for God knows what...

[jaxie]

We give more in aid than any other country except the USA. So it astounds me that the first thing I read on this forum is Withano claiming we are the most corrupt nation in the world and that only Foreign Aid is saving us. What complete and utter bullsh1t. When people knock out country it just demonstrates a profounbd lack of knowledge.

Why are some countries still in need of aid? Because despite decades of cash they still can't sort themselves out because of civil and religious war, because the leader is feeding cash straight into his treasury, or maybe buying himself a new private jet. We've been digging wells in Africa since Victorian times and yet we're still seeing adverts about how kids are having to drink water than animals have pissed in.

While we have people sleeping on our streets and dying because they have to choose between turning on the heat and eating, then no money should go abroad. If people want to donate personally, knock yourself out.

:clap2:

[jaxie]

Hahah, this isnt a guilt trip, this is a fact. And its grim if youre comfortable with it, a lot appear to be more than comfortable - practically promoting it. Grim.

We do already give priority to our own. Weird thing to say. What you really want to say is that its time to give everything to our own? Grim.

Priority to our own? Go tell that to the people living on the streets of London in the cold weather.

[Withano]

Priority to our own? Go tell that to the people living on the streets of London in the cold weather.

I think they understand basic mathematics and that more money goes to unfortunate uk citizens than it does citizens across the world combined.

[jaxie]

The urgency to address our social welfare programs and failing infrastructure should be priority #1. As that would hinder our ability to not only help ourselves, but help others. The problem... we don't have a modern day Alexander Hamilton who is willing to look at these programs recursively and figure out just how deep in the hole we are in. So for all we know we may be in a state of emergency. Instead, our leadership is too busy buying votes and addressing society's emotional arguments rather than taking a fine toothed comb to our quite over-sized, overly complex tax code, national budget, social welfare programs, etc...all needs to be overhauled to stay maintainable.

Anyway, it is my belief... if this were to be discovered and we find out we are in deep hole, they need to shut off all aid and declare a state of emergency. There are areas in our deep metros, centers of poverty and crime that are really hurting. There is also risk of other communities that should this continue to go unchecked, could grow exponentially. We are already seeing a need for law enforcement costs to rise...which would just be another line item to add to our national debt if the cities then have to turn to federal (i.e. state of emergency) to address these rising costs.

Our jails are full, our average law enforcement officer has an increasingly large amount of roles to fulfill... meanwhile, we are not addressing these problems in any form, except in 'social welfare' programs that are growing our national debt to levels it's never been... it's in our interest to get back to being as independent as possible, to deal with these issues, to bring back the middle class... and honestly, nobody will starve. Philanthropy is alive and well in our nations. When those people get back on their feet, people will donate... just as they already do now.

This is also ignoring the elephants in the room, the segments of our world population/local communities that actively choose to stay the course... because they depend on this income to maintain their way of life (rich or poor).

My husband has told me numerous stories of people coming to mental health detentions that have said plain and clear, they are there for the free drugs (in the form of pharmaceuticals) and purposefully get into trouble so they can game the system. Instead, the DOJ (Department of Justice) wants to give them even more incentive/room to abuse the system than than afford us more officers which would help to better to keep situations under control (i.e. lessen brutality) and also to give those with mental health issues the attention and dignity ... the help they do deserve.

Personally, I have no problems with giving out aid... but it's well proven the enormous amount of trouble that is brewing with regards to our budgets, our welfare problems... and instead we've chosen to pass the buck for the past 10 to 15 years. Yet, our politicians continue writing blank checks or otherwise adding to our debt rather than addressing these issues. If we don't act on these signs, it could take us all under... and worse, may happen at a time when it is 20X more expensive to fix than it is now. Taking the global economy with it.

So in short... if we comb through these issues and still find we have the cash flow to spare, then sure, we should pick and choose and selectively choose who to aid (i.e. not aiding countries deeply rooted in terrorism) as that would be the moral thing to do... however, it needs to be a set with a timeline... otherwise we need to stop aid and put ourselves in a state of emergency to get these issues under control. They are also contributing substantially to our social issues as well, which are also growing at an alarmingly rate... especially police brutality, various poverty stricken minority communities (such as New Orleans post-Katrina), kids leaving school only to find a lack of jobs (while carrying a mortgage sized student loan payment monthly), rising costs of medical which strips everyone's bottom line, rising taxes on small businesses (which leads to chains/monopolies)... oh and all our environmental issues... etc

My concern is if we continue to ignore these issues, soon it will be so devastatingly expensive to fix, i.e. that we will be in a massively deep hole and then we will all be in trouble... including countries where the situation is already desperate.

My political take on this too is we should never give aid to countries that are deeply embedded in or otherwise in bed with terrorist organizations, sects, movements of any kind... i.e. if you make it a comfortable battleground for these people, you should expect the rest of the world to turn their noses up to you come time you need anything. Instead, we may end up in bed with them... for oil, for contacts, for intelligence, whatever reasoning one can justify such things...

I know personally many family members and friends who have donated to time, energy and materials to different causes over the years. I am involved in animal rescue myself. My grandmother alone, has donated over $5,000 of her own income to charitable causes... and she is on a fixed income :laugh: There are positive acts happening all around us... but some reason, these acts mean very little to people in comparison to dragging our government's into philanthropy when I know at least my own government in particular has shown repeatedly it's epic amount of greed, poor spending habits and waste of taxpayer money and resources to any cause. I would better trust my donated to the source rather than... a govt who doesn't pick and choose, but instead squanders our funds for God knows what...

Very intelligently put Maru. :clap2:

[jaxie]

I think they understand basic mathematics and that more money goes to unfortunate uk citizens than it does citizens across the world combined.

How wonderful of you to speak for them and their circumstances.

[kirklancaster]

The urgency to address our social welfare programs and failing infrastructure should be priority #1. As that would hinder our ability to not only help ourselves, but help others. The problem... we don't have a modern day Alexander Hamilton who is willing to look at these programs recursively and figure out just how deep in the hole we are in. So for all we know we may be in a state of emergency. Instead, our leadership is too busy buying votes and addressing society's emotional arguments rather than taking a fine toothed comb to our quite over-sized, overly complex tax code, national budget, social welfare programs, etc...all needs to be overhauled to stay maintainable.

Anyway, it is my belief... if this were to be discovered and we find out we are in deep hole, they need to shut off all aid and declare a state of emergency. There are areas in our deep metros, centers of poverty and crime that are really hurting. There is also risk of other communities that should this continue to go unchecked, could grow exponentially. We are already seeing a need for law enforcement costs to rise...which would just be another line item to add to our national debt if the cities then have to turn to federal (i.e. state of emergency) to address these rising costs.

Our jails are full, our average law enforcement officer has an increasingly large amount of roles to fulfill... meanwhile, we are not addressing these problems in any form, except in 'social welfare' programs that are growing our national debt to levels it's never been... it's in our interest to get back to being as independent as possible, to deal with these issues, to bring back the middle class... and honestly, nobody will starve. Philanthropy is alive and well in our nations. When those people get back on their feet, people will donate... just as they already do now.

This is also ignoring the elephants in the room, the segments of our world population/local communities that actively choose to stay the course... because they depend on this income to maintain their way of life (rich or poor).

My husband has told me numerous stories of people coming to mental health detentions that have said plain and clear, they are there for the free drugs (in the form of pharmaceuticals) and purposefully get into trouble so they can game the system. Instead, the DOJ (Department of Justice) wants to give them even more incentive/room to abuse the system than than afford us more officers which would help to better to keep situations under control (i.e. lessen brutality) and also to give those with mental health issues the attention and dignity ... the help they do deserve.

Personally, I have no problems with giving out aid... but it's well proven the enormous amount of trouble that is brewing with regards to our budgets, our welfare problems... and instead we've chosen to pass the buck for the past 10 to 15 years. Yet, our politicians continue writing blank checks or otherwise adding to our debt rather than addressing these issues. If we don't act on these signs, it could take us all under... and worse, may happen at a time when it is 20X more expensive to fix than it is now. Taking the global economy with it.

So in short... if we comb through these issues and still find we have the cash flow to spare, then sure, we should pick and choose and selectively choose who to aid (i.e. not aiding countries deeply rooted in terrorism) as that would be the moral thing to do... however, it needs to be a set with a timeline... otherwise we need to stop aid and put ourselves in a state of emergency to get these issues under control. They are also contributing substantially to our social issues as well, which are also growing at an alarmingly rate... especially police brutality, various poverty stricken minority communities (such as New Orleans post-Katrina), kids leaving school only to find a lack of jobs (while carrying a mortgage sized student loan payment monthly), rising costs of medical which strips everyone's bottom line, rising taxes on small businesses (which leads to chains/monopolies)... oh and all our environmental issues... etc

My concern is if we continue to ignore these issues, soon it will be so devastatingly expensive to fix, i.e. that we will be in a massively deep hole and then we will all be in trouble... including countries where the situation is already desperate.

My political take on this too is we should never give aid to countries that are deeply embedded in or otherwise in bed with terrorist organizations, sects, movements of any kind... i.e. if you make it a comfortable battleground for these people, you should expect the rest of the world to turn their noses up to you come time you need anything. Instead, we may end up in bed with them... for oil, for contacts, for intelligence, whatever reasoning one can justify such things...

I know personally many family members and friends who have donated time, energy and materials to different causes over the years. I am involved in animal rescue myself. My grandmother alone, has donated over $5,000 yearly of her own income to charitable causes... and she is on a fixed income :laugh: There are positive acts happening all around us... but some reason, these acts mean very little to people in comparison to dragging our government's into philanthropy when I know at least my own government in particular has shown repeatedly it's epic amount of greed, poor spending habits and waste of taxpayer money and resources to any cause. I would better trust my donated to the source rather than... a govt who doesn't pick and choose, but instead squanders our funds for God knows what...

:worship:

[Withano]

How wonderful of you to speak for them and their circumstances.

How did i speak for them any more than you did. You implied they dont know which numbers are larger than others, I said that they probably did.

[jaxie]

How did i speak for them any more than you did. You implied they dont know which numbers are larger than others, I said that they probably did.

I didn't say anything about numbers. :shrug:

[Niamh.]

Priority to our own? Go tell that to the people living on the streets of London in the cold weather.

I don't know how it is over there but I know here the majority of homeless people are there because they have other issues like alcoholism or drug addictions etc and they don't go through the proper system to get housing/benefits. Our social welfare system is pretty generous

[Maru]

I don't know how it is over there but I know here the majority of homeless people are there because they have other issues like alcoholism or drug addictions etc and they don't go through the proper system to get housing/benefits. Our social welfare system is pretty generous

Our disability (which is what they would be under) system is a joke really... you can't make more than $300 gross a month in order to apply and it takes multiple rejections to be accepted (to see a judge) and often sometimes costs money to win a case.

Sadly, we know the system well because of a neurological disorder that runs in the family. A long time friend is a disability lawyer and he's had to make sure some of his clients don't stand too close to a judge so that his case won't get thrown out. Of course they had to pay to get help...

So if you aren't able to work because you're sick and you can't depend on anyone... AND you need doctor's thorough proof you need assistance (which costs money :laugh:).... and this may process can take 1 1/2 - 3 years... yeah...

I don't know what the solution should be, but we almost certainly don't take care of our own. I drive by homeless veterans everyday and even if you apply, you need an address and phone number for most things... therein lies the issue. Though I think being in jail helps them get that help sometimes, ironically enough.... but if you're jailed, then you may end up with a record (such as stealing) which prohibits you from getting even a minimum wage job... meanwhile you can't even start the care you actually need... thus begins the cycle.

[jaxie]

I don't know how it is over there but I know here the majority of homeless people are there because they have other issues like alcoholism or drug addictions etc and they don't go through the proper system to get housing/benefits. Our social welfare system is pretty generous

The problem is that some people find themselves in a catch 22. Need an address to get benefits, on the streets so don't have an address. There are people with problems and mental health issues on the streets. That doesn't mean we should abandon them because they have other issues. :shrug: There are also a lot of runaways.

[Niamh.]

The problem is that some people find themselves in a catch 22. Need an address to get benefits, on the streets so don't have an address. There are people with problems and mental health issues on the streets. That doesn't mean we should abandon them because they have other issues. :shrug: There are also a lot of runaways.

I never said they should be abandoned but sometimes people need to want to take the help as well

[Kizzy]

'Why you want to remove aid entirely to one and use that money to go towards solving some issues partially for the other is beyond me.'

Because they live a long long way away plus they are a different *religion * creed * colour to us ( delete where appropriate).
It sickens me that the choice to wave our bloodstained flag rather than face our ongoing issues surrounding exploitation and conflict is the most jaw droppingly pig headed response to this issue.

Did cameron not buy himself a private jet while we were sending all this aid we could ill afford? While we were up to our tits in 'austerity' reeling from a worldwide recession ? While kids slept rough in the uk and families relied on food banks to eat?

It's laughable to suggest that this is why the choice for many is heat or eat, if we gave no international aid there would still be the casting adrift of undesirables... that is the conservative laissez-faire way, sink or swim, no safety net.

How many (illegal) wars and conflicts have we embroiled ourselves in over our recent history, how much devastation have they caused? How did the costs of these conflicts impact on us financially?

If we give more it's because we took more, and we're STILL taking!