Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9064917)

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.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster (Post 9065630)

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.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9065734)

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.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster (Post 9065756)

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

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9065774)

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

Originally Posted by Maru (Post 9065030)

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.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster (Post 9065815)

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.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9065877)

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

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9065877)

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

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9064928)

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.

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9065888)

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:

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey (Post 9065887)

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.

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9065890)

Great point. I wish I'd said that!

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9065883)

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

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9065892)

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.

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9065894)

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?

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9065898)

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.

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9065908)

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..

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9065914)

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.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 9065929)

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9065935)

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

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9065922)

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.

Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9065914)

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.