International aid - arguments for and against stopping it
Discussion
Atomic Gibbon said:
Take your business head off for a second.
Roughly 1 million children will die in Pakistan if aid is not given, because there was a massive flood, and now there is no food, clean water, or place to poo in without giving mateyboy next to you dissentry.
Good enough reason?
[devils advocate mode]When a country can afford nuclear weapons and space programmes, why should we give them money to support the basic human needs of their inhabitants?[/devils advocate mode]Roughly 1 million children will die in Pakistan if aid is not given, because there was a massive flood, and now there is no food, clean water, or place to poo in without giving mateyboy next to you dissentry.
Good enough reason?
Marf said:
Atomic Gibbon said:
Take your business head off for a second.
Roughly 1 million children will die in Pakistan if aid is not given, because there was a massive flood, and now there is no food, clean water, or place to poo in without giving mateyboy next to you dissentry.
Good enough reason?
[devils advocate mode]When a country can afford nuclear weapons and space programmes, why should we give them money to support the basic human needs of their inhabitants?[/devils advocate mode]Roughly 1 million children will die in Pakistan if aid is not given, because there was a massive flood, and now there is no food, clean water, or place to poo in without giving mateyboy next to you dissentry.
Good enough reason?
I always thought that international aid was all about building goodwill with countries that could do things we wanted them to, whether that be let us station armed forces there, back us in wars or select our companies for large public projects.
My understanding is therefore that international aid is anything but altruistic and should in fact be considered an investment. This is why all of our political parties pledged to ring fence it in their manifestos.
Marf said:
When a country can afford nuclear weapons and space programmes, why should we give them money to support the basic human needs of their inhabitants?
The argument here is that countries like Pakistan need to spend a greater proportion of their GDP on defence given the volatile nature of the region and their near neighbours. Most of this money is spent with western contractors who pay tax to their respective governments part of which is put aside to help the client country in times of need.Space programmes are part of the development of communications in the country which aids social development and money again is spent in large amounts with western companies and on it goes…..
To a point, one could argue that we are in fact using their money to help them.
Politics – particularly global politics – isn’t case of “do this instead of that” – more a case of balance really.
Guybrush said:
Another reason: corruption; very little if any of the money gets through to the intended people.
The west isn’t sending money. It is using money to fund aid that is provided by western companies and agencies that are monitored very carefully.
Not saying that it’s not a problem – it is – but nowhere near the extent it has been in the past and not to a level to justifying stopping it.
youngsyr said:
Aren't we all missing the real point of international aid here though?
I always thought that international aid was all about building goodwill with countries that could do things we wanted them to, whether that be let us station armed forces there, back us in wars or select our companies for large public projects.
My understanding is therefore that international aid is anything but altruistic and should in fact be considered an investment. This is why all of our political parties pledged to ring fence it in their manifestos.
Spot on!I always thought that international aid was all about building goodwill with countries that could do things we wanted them to, whether that be let us station armed forces there, back us in wars or select our companies for large public projects.
My understanding is therefore that international aid is anything but altruistic and should in fact be considered an investment. This is why all of our political parties pledged to ring fence it in their manifestos.
A million die every year from Malaria. So the humanitarians here surely must be giving everything they have?Why would you need to waste money on a fancy car when millions are dying?
The point I'm making is that everyone is selfish finally and there's no need for anyone to play the saint as we all simply have different tolerence levels when it comes to the suffering of others.
For the record I made a donation which was but a fraction of what I can afford to give and I feel good rather than bad.
The point I'm making is that everyone is selfish finally and there's no need for anyone to play the saint as we all simply have different tolerence levels when it comes to the suffering of others.
For the record I made a donation which was but a fraction of what I can afford to give and I feel good rather than bad.
Frankeh said:
Why do people insist on using a 'them and us' mentality.
How about we stop thinking of people as British, American, Iraqi, Iranian, French, Korena, Spanish, etc and start thinking of people as humans. A race of which we are all part of.
So my argument for international aid? It's helping our own.
+ 100000000000000How about we stop thinking of people as British, American, Iraqi, Iranian, French, Korena, Spanish, etc and start thinking of people as humans. A race of which we are all part of.
So my argument for international aid? It's helping our own.
After all our differences we are all the same. Cut anyone with a sword and they will all bleed red!
funkyrobot said:
I would agree with international aid if I was sure that all of the aid went to the people who need it.
+1So many times, the money that is sent in all good faith ends
up in the Swiss bank accounts of various folks along the way.
Or, saying the same thing in a slightly different way,
very few countries in the world subscribe to the Western
European way of doing things.
Which says nothing about the pain and suffering of the folks
directly affected.
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
quite thats what we're going to have to do so why shouldnt they?that said I think there should be a quick reaction disater force set up - always amazes me that it takes weeks to start to help out in natural disaters yet we can start a war in a day. Would comprise of docs, engineers etc based round the world.
maybe if this was set up instead of armies we might get somewhere
Edited by loltolhurst on Saturday 21st August 11:47
loltolhurst said:
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
quite thats what we're going to have to do so why shouldnt they?that said I think there should be a quick reaction disater force set up - always amazes me that it takes weeks to start to help out in natural disaters yet we can start a war in a day. Would comprise of docs, engineers etc based round the world.
maybe if this was set up instead of armies we might get somewhere
Edited by loltolhurst on Saturday 21st August 11:47
International Rescue!
Most of the foreign aid poured int Africa has had a very negative effect, in fact it has in a majority of cases made things worse.
If we stopped aid in a staged fashion, ie weaned the countries who currently depend on aid, off aid then they would almost certainly survive.
However a lot of people would die until the population more closely matched the food production.
Zimbabwe was pretty much feeding Africa as Rhodesia, now thanks to a nice gent our country helped and supported to get him where he is it is the epitome of f
ked.
The blame for Zimbabwe lies almost completely with the UK, so should we stop funding Africa before we do more harm.
Yep.
But slowly and keeping the money handy for famine relief and disaster aid.
Might take a long time but the more of Africa which follows the Botswana route as opposed to Zimbabwe the better for us all.
If we stopped aid in a staged fashion, ie weaned the countries who currently depend on aid, off aid then they would almost certainly survive.
However a lot of people would die until the population more closely matched the food production.
Zimbabwe was pretty much feeding Africa as Rhodesia, now thanks to a nice gent our country helped and supported to get him where he is it is the epitome of f
ked.The blame for Zimbabwe lies almost completely with the UK, so should we stop funding Africa before we do more harm.
Yep.
But slowly and keeping the money handy for famine relief and disaster aid.
Might take a long time but the more of Africa which follows the Botswana route as opposed to Zimbabwe the better for us all.
odyssey2200 said:
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
^^^ This"Teach a man to fish" and all that...
Shaid GTB said:
odyssey2200 said:
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
^^^ This"Teach a man to fish" and all that...
stitched said:
Shaid GTB said:
odyssey2200 said:
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
^^^ This"Teach a man to fish" and all that...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 21st August 13:13
Shaid GTB said:
odyssey2200 said:
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
^^^ This"Teach a man to fish" and all that...
Sheets Tabuer said:
Shaid GTB said:
odyssey2200 said:
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
^^^ This"Teach a man to fish" and all that...
Shaid GTB said:
Sheets Tabuer said:
Shaid GTB said:
odyssey2200 said:
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
^^^ This"Teach a man to fish" and all that...
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2...
Sheets Tabuer said:
Shaid GTB said:
Sheets Tabuer said:
Shaid GTB said:
odyssey2200 said:
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
^^^ This"Teach a man to fish" and all that...
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2...
Shaid GTB said:
stitched said:
Shaid GTB said:
odyssey2200 said:
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
^^^ This"Teach a man to fish" and all that...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by Shaid GTB on Saturday 21st August 13:13
That thread would seem to confirm that the Pakistani forces are only active within their own borders.
I see the point that having UK as US invading their neighbour will have excaberated their situation, but I can't quite see why you contend that Pakistans military fighting inside Pakistans borders is fighting the USA's war for them.
If the Pakistani people in general want to reduce the power/influence of radical islam in their own borders and the UK and US are fighting islamic insurgents across the border, who would otherwise be helping the Pakistani insurgents, then surely the us/uk are fighting Pakistans war for them rather than as you contend the other way round?
stitched said:
Shaid GTB said:
stitched said:
Shaid GTB said:
odyssey2200 said:
Mojocvh said:
Maybe they could freeze buying f16's and making nuclear bombs for a couple of months and SORT THEIR OWN COUNTRY OUT themselves?
^^^ This"Teach a man to fish" and all that...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 21st August 13:13
That thread would seem to confirm that the Pakistani forces are only active within their own borders.
I see the point that having UK as US invading their neighbour will have excaberated their situation, but I can't quite see why you contend that Pakistans military fighting inside Pakistans borders is fighting the USA's war for them.
If the Pakistani people in general want to reduce the power/influence of radical islam in their own borders and the UK and US are fighting islamic insurgents across the border, who would otherwise be helping the Pakistani insurgents, then surely the us/uk are fighting Pakistans war for them rather than as you contend the other way round?
Why sould international aid be stopped just because you do not approve of their government? I cannot believe the lack of humanity certain aspects of PHers have. It is a disgrace. How would those who go against international aid another is feel if they were stranded in the middle of a flood/famine with a next to useless government? Then only for a certain demographic of people to belittle them to the extent where the victims are to be blamed for the consequences themselves
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff