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

Where did the rest of the thread go?

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/upload...pment-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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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I did ask you how you knew what aid went where and how millions would die if the aid was withdrawn, you gave me a link which didn't answer me.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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:.

: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.

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.

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.

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.

..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...

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.