[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by Withano

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

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

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

How do you know this? 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]

Originally Posted by Withano

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]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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]

Originally Posted by Withano

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. 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?

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.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Withano

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]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Great point. I wish I'd said that!

You said something better

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

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 Ł20 I cannot demand to know what you intend to do with it. :/

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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 Ł20 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?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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?

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

*disclaimer
In an ideal world nobody should need nukes.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.....

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.