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?

..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...

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

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...

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.