[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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.

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.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

You don't have an answer so you resort to calling me a troll.
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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You don't have an answer so you resort to calling me a troll.
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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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 ). 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 ).. 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 , 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 .

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

Actually, you missed the point by not reading through the thread. 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.

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).. 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.

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.

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.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.