[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

I think it was LT who said if you cant make your point in 200 words, you may have missed it.
So lets try an make a summary

Jenny thinks we should cancel or limit our foreign aid to countries like Pakistan (quite unclear but I think her sole reason is because they can afford weapons, perhaps she thinks cancellig foreign aid would stop us from being a target, instead of becoming more of one.. unclear argument, lets skip it until she elaborates)
You think Jenny is bang on correct

I think you both need to do further research, if you're fine with killing strangers you can't see but saddened at the thought of killing a stranger that you can see, then you havent thought about this enough.

I'm not fine with any innocents being killed anywhere, but I think I'll agree to disagree Withano.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I'm not fine with any innocents being killed anywhere, but I think I'll agree to disagree Withano.

Then how is Jenny bang on correct? The opposite was the summary of her argument which you agreed to originally.

[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.

[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?

[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.