Foreign Aid question

[ginga john 268]

Just a quite liberal question really, with little old Uk plc giving 650 million a year to Pakistan, 280 million to India, and another 86 million to Ethiopia to help deal with "massive influx"

of starving refugees from Somalia as well as various smaller amounts to countries around the world the question is;

Why ?

I work, pay my tax, don't have the money to go on holiday, am just about keeping up with the mortgage, have to watch every penny and then i see an seemingly endless amount of hard earned tax payers money going off to every where except here, add the foreign aid bill to the EU bill and who the hell are we working for?

The government keep saying we're skint, broke, kaput so the greedy councils have to tighten their belts which means the library has to close, the swimming pool has to close, the hospital has to be cut back civil servants have to take less money and less pensions (i agree with that one) but how far would that 1.1 billion pounds go toward keeping local services going or keeping people in their old peoples home etc

I ask myself why and the my only answer is that we are the victims of a political class that are pushing ahead with the emasculation of the masses, we are the victims of a government that rules for its own purposes and not for the benefit of this countries people

Perhaps this why the personal possession of non sporting fire arms was banned so that revolution will be with bows and arrows !!

To top it all we are now expected to reduce the size of the regular army by another 7000 staff and to replace them with part timers !!

So if any one has a reasonable and sensible answer to my question then please enlighten me

 

I hope this rain stops soon or I'll have to think some more !!

 

:thumbdown:

[Ideation 8,216]

Look at the countries we give it to, and who their neighbors are.

[Milwr Jr. 99]

It's not our job to sort these other countries out.

 

We should be focusing on ourselves, then, and only then should we consider foreign aid.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Milwr Jr.

[Ideation 8,216]

It's not our job to sort these other countries out.

 

We should be focusing on ourselves, then, and only then should we consider foreign aid.

 

 

Do you not get it though? It's f**k all to do with bailing out poor folk? It;s just a way to keep certain folk onside to create political 'stability' and military back up.

[Milwr Jr. 99]

It's not our job to sort these other countries out.

 

We should be focusing on ourselves, then, and only then should we consider foreign aid.

 

 

Do you not get it though? It's f**k all to do with bailing out poor folk? It;s just a way to keep certain folk onside to create political 'stability' and military back up.

 

I could care less about the political stability it brings. And as for military back up... when was the last time the Indian or Pakistani military won a war ? Hell, when was the last time India or Pakistan used their army ? I mean, they're hardly a force to be reckoned with are they.

 

And, do we really need to keep Pakistan and India onside ? They're not the most reliable of allies.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Milwr Jr.

[shepp 2,285]

The thing is all three major party's follow pretty much the same policies, with all the grandstanding labour are making about the cuts, there plans were not so different in reality.

I am all for the cuts but when you hear about this foreign aid money and to top it sending military to Libya, dropping bombs costing £1/2 million each. I hoped Cameron would have learnt from Blairs disastrous wars.

Mind you all this money is a drop in the ocean compared to what we pump into Europe.

[hullhunter 219]

NO

[FightTheBan 1,147]

It's not our job to sort these other countries out.

 

We should be focusing on ourselves, then, and only then should we consider foreign aid.

 

 

Do you not get it though? It's f**k all to do with bailing out poor folk? It;s just a way to keep certain folk onside to create political 'stability' and military back up.

 

I could care less about the political stability it brings. And as for military back up... when was the last time the Indian or Pakistani military won a war ? Hell, when was the last time India or Pakistan used their army ? I mean, they're hardly a force to be reckoned with are they.

 

And, do we really need to keep Pakistan and India onside ? They're not the most reliable of allies.

 

 

 

 

FTB

[Ideation 8,216]

It's not our job to sort these other countries out.

 

We should be focusing on ourselves, then, and only then should we consider foreign aid.

 

 

Do you not get it though? It's f**k all to do with bailing out poor folk? It;s just a way to keep certain folk onside to create political 'stability' and military back up.

 

I could care less about the political stability it brings. And as for military back up... when was the last time the Indian or Pakistani military won a war ? Hell, when was the last time India or Pakistan used their army ? I mean, they're hardly a force to be reckoned with are they.

 

And, do we really need to keep Pakistan and India onside ? They're not the most reliable of allies.

 

 

I can't really be arsed to explain it, not sure it will filter through.

 

But India and pakistan have nuclear capability.

 

And considering where they are in the world and who is around them, having them 'onside' is kind of wise.

 

To be fair the money we watse on fighting in Iraq / Afghanistan is tens of billions. So maybe we should cut that first!

[Milwr Jr. 99]

It's not our job to sort these other countries out.

 

We should be focusing on ourselves, then, and only then should we consider foreign aid.

 

 

Do you not get it though? It's f**k all to do with bailing out poor folk? It;s just a way to keep certain folk onside to create political 'stability' and military back up.

 

I could care less about the political stability it brings. And as for military back up... when was the last time the Indian or Pakistani military won a war ? Hell, when was the last time India or Pakistan used their army ? I mean, they're hardly a force to be reckoned with are they.

 

And, do we really need to keep Pakistan and India onside ? They're not the most reliable of allies.

 

 

I can't really be arsed to explain it, not sure it will filter through.

 

But India and pakistan have nuclear capability.

 

And considering where they are in the world and who is around them, having them 'onside' is kind of wise.

 

To be fair the money we watse on fighting in Iraq / Afghanistan is tens of billions. So maybe we should cut that first!

 

Wow, nice bit of scaremongering there.

 

Everybody has nuclear capabilities nowadays. And let us be entirely honest, if someone really wanted to drop the bomb on us and our capitalist, western allies, it wouldn't be that hard. North Korea have nuclear capabilities, we aren't giving them billions of pounds to bribe them into coercion.

 

Besides, is life these days really worth saving ?

[secretagentmole 1,701]

When we give aid to Africa most of it winds up in the hands of the local chief/politician/dictator, bugger all gets in the grasp of the people who need it or can use it! The problem is there are too many people and not enough food, every time we stop a disaster like this another one comes along, we have to say no. They have 10 or 12 kids so 1 or 2 will survive, that is their history, however with white man knows best attitude we have ensured that 8-10 live, so more mouths to feed and even less food to go round.

 

Famine is natures way of removing an excess population, with our caring sharing attitude we are helping to perpetuate a continual cycle of famine. If roles were reversed would they be so quick to give?

Edited July 16, 2011 by secretagentmole

[jasper65 6]

Just a quite liberal question really, with little old Uk plc giving 650 million a year to Pakistan, 280 million to India, and another 86 million to Ethiopia to help deal with "massive influx"

of starving refugees from Somalia as well as various smaller amounts to countries around the world the question is;

Why ?

I work, pay my tax, don't have the money to go on holiday, am just about keeping up with the mortgage, have to watch every penny and then i see an seemingly endless amount of hard earned tax payers money going off to every where except here, add the foreign aid bill to the EU bill and who the hell are we working for?

The government keep saying we're skint, broke, kaput so the greedy councils have to tighten their belts which means the library has to close, the swimming pool has to close, the hospital has to be cut back civil servants have to take less money and less pensions (i agree with that one) but how far would that 1.1 billion pounds go toward keeping local services going or keeping people in their old peoples home etc

I ask myself why and the my only answer is that we are the victims of a political class that are pushing ahead with the emasculation of the masses, we are the victims of a government that rules for its own purposes and not for the benefit of this countries people

Perhaps this why the personal possession of non sporting fire arms was banned so that revolution will be with bows and arrows !!

To top it all we are now expected to reduce the size of the regular army by another 7000 staff and to replace them with part timers !!

So if any one has a reasonable and sensible answer to my question then please enlighten me

 

I hope this rain stops soon or I'll have to think some more !!

 

:thumbdown:

 

Cracking post also been thinking about this one a fair while.

 

I genuinly thought (although I didn't vote for him) Cameron would be good for change, it now turns out he has probably made more U turns on his policies he promised before the election than any other PM.

 

Its fair enough we had to make sacrifices to bail us out of the crap Labour left behind! but while we're all suffering due to cutbacks he's giving a vast majority away in aid . I read somewhere that Pakistan also has a bigger rich list in its country than we do! so why all the aid?

 

this is a country that Bin laden was openly taking refuge in and the best bit is they denied they knew he was there .

[shepp 2,285]

When we give aid to Africa most of it winds up in the hands of the local chief/politician/dictator, bugger all gets in the grasp of the people who need it or can use it! The problem is there are too many people and not enough food, every time we stop a disaster like this another one comes along, we have to say no. They have 10 or 12 kids so 1 or 2 will survive, that is their history, however with white man knows best attitude we have ensured that 8-10 live, so more mouths to feed and even less food to go round.

 

Famine is natures way of removing an excess population, with our caring sharing attitude we are helping to perpetuate a continual cycle of famine. If roles were reversed would they be so quick to give?

 

On top of that charity is a big industry with masses of money going to fund some very well paid jobs and big offices in central London.

[secretagentmole 1,701]

Most of the money raised in those television adverts goes to the fund raising company, same with the charity bods on the street, I tell them to go forth and multiply in two words that sound a little bit Russian... Well it ends in off anyway...

[FightTheBan 1,147]

Giving aid to Africa is a bit like pissing into a gale force wind.

 

Let the c**ts starve, thin them out and maybe they will get on a bit better.

 

FTB