[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?

[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.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

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.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Shaun

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.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by Shaun

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]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

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.

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

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?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

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]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

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.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

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.

Very well said Jenny.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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?

[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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Maru

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

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

[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.

[Cal.]

Cos it's a good thing to do.

[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.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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.

Very true