[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

Christ. Limiting foreign aid will limit medication, will limit vaccines. Will kill many people, most specifically children and pregnant mothers. Some things dont need proof, they need twenty seconds of thought.

Making a thread about where our money should go would be fine, making a thread on how governments spend their cash is fine. But thats not what this thread is, this thread is simply implying that foreign aid isnt needed in countries that can afford weapons and that is ugly. You have simply killed off anybody living under a corrupt government with a "its not my bloody job" attitude. Make it your job to care about those struggling to stay alive.

Money should never be given blindly or you are in danger of funding the very things you claim to oppose.

The thread is asking why we are giving aid to countries who can afford weapons of mass destruction. It's a fair question.

If you want to make dramatic statements prove it or don't call others stupid for disagreeing with you.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

This is possibly one of the most ludicrous statement I have EVER witnessed Withano - Are you REALLY saying that a Government is OK to squander its money on Nuclear Weapons, New Palaces with gold wc's and fleets of top limousines for its ministers, or equipping its armies with latest hi-tech weaponry and equipment, while its poorer citizens go without food, water and shelter, because Foreign Aid will step in and save the day?

Yes, yes he is.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

This is possibly one of the most ludicrous statement I have EVER witnessed Withano - Are you REALLY saying that a Government is OK to squander its money on Nuclear Weapons, New Palaces with gold wc's and fleets of top limousines for its ministers, or equipping its armies with latest hi-tech weaponry and equipment, while its poorer citizens go without food, water and shelter, because Foreign Aid will step in and save the day?

Thats a different issue, but to me, no not personally. Offtopic though.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Yes, yes he is.

Oh right, there we were thinking i was the one putting words in your mouth, you gave me a telling off for it too

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Withano

Oh right, there we were thinking i was the one putting words in your mouth, you gave me a telling off for it too

[Kizzy]

I don't see Germans bitching about their war reparations...which they are still paying.

[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

I don't see Germans bitching about their war reparations...which they are still paying.

Do you read German forums then? I always admire people who read other languages.

Oh except that according to several articles and essays on the web they bitched and moaned a lot and never paid that much in reparations.

[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

Do you read German forums then? I always admire people who read other languages.

Oh except that according to several articles and essays on the web they bitched and moaned a lot and never paid that much in reparations.

Which articles are those?...

[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

Which articles are those?...

Google I'm not being the secretary.

[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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Of course but not if we are paying for it.

Essentially it's their money, they can do what they like with it, I don't like my taxes funding things like arming saudis but ....

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Google I'm not being the secretary.

I don't have time to check every unsubstantiated claim on the forum.... I'd be here forever

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I don't have time to check every unsubstantiated claim on the forum.... I'd be here forever

Stay uninformed then. I was curious.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Stay uninformed then. I was curious.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Essentially it's their money, they can do what they like with it, I don't like my taxes funding things like arming saudis but ....

Then I can choose not to give it and it won't be their money at all. If I am giving aid of course I should have every right to question what it is spent on, just as I'd have every right to stop giving if I disapproved. I wouldn't fund an alcoholic or drug addicted friend. That wouldn't help them at all.

I am stunned anyone thinks it's OK that aid could be spent on weapons of mass destruction if that is how the recipient wants to spend it.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by Withano

Christ. Limiting foreign aid will limit medication, will limit vaccines. Will kill many people, most specifically children and pregnant mothers. Some things dont need proof, they need twenty seconds of thought.

Making a thread about where our money should go would be fine, making a thread on how governments spend their cash is fine. But thats not what this thread is, this thread is simply implying that foreign aid isnt needed in countries that can afford weapons and that is ugly. You have simply killed off anybody living under a corrupt government with a "its not my bloody job" attitude. Make it your job to care about those struggling to stay alive.

But can't you see Withano that people who live under a corrupt government are NEVER going to see one penny of that foreign aid. So all we are doing in effect is enabling that corrupt government to prosper. Please tell me you can see that?