Overseas Aid - the Debate

[BigJimLittleJim]

Seeing as one of these nice UKIP nutjobs has seen fit to bring this topic to the public's attention, I thought we should do our bit on BM to debate the matter.

To me it's a no-brainer, as a very wealthy country, we should do what we can for poorer countries for several very valid reasons.

1. It's a humanistic, charitable act of kindness.

2. It brings good Karma and creates a good example for others to follow.

C. Dirt poor countries can be a hotbed of extremism and can breed terrorists intent on redistributing the wealth, and not in a peaceful way - if you have nothing to lose, then..... As a purely practical policy, if we give these countries the wherewithal to economically grow and prosper, they are more likely to join in our "civilised" way of life, than cut themselves off from us - Afghanistan being an example of a country that really needs to not fail, China an example of how a little help and encouragement can make an enemy a friend.

4. Where would we get delicious fruit drinks from if we cut off aid from Umbongo Bongo land?

 

[SteWadda]

I am fine with us sending aid to countries that need it.

But if shouldn't be going to places like India and Brazil who have enough money to look after their own poor.

 

[117 M34]

I am fine with us sending aid to countries that need it.

But if shouldn't be going to places like India and Brazil who have enough money to look after their own poor.

Or Israel!

 

[stonerblue]

The 'aid' we give to other countries has very little to do with helping the people and everything to do with juicy contracts that net the UK billions in the long term.

 

[BigJimLittleJim]

I am fine with us sending aid to countries that need it.

But if shouldn't be going to places like India and Brazil who have enough money to look after their own poor.

That does seem odd doesn't it? But I wonder if we give aid to their governments on one hand, and gain in business contracts agreed on production of said aid with the other hand as it were? It seems when our PM goes to such countries as part of his trade delegations, he comes back with several juicy arms deals etc..which he hasn't won with his sparkling personality alone, surely?

 

[SteWadda]

I am fine with us sending aid to countries that need it.

But if shouldn't be going to places like India and Brazil who have enough money to look after their own poor.

That does seem odd doesn't it? But I wonder if we give aid to their governments on one hand, and gain in business contracts agreed on production of said aid with the other hand as it were? It seems when our PM goes to such countries as part of his trade delegations, he comes back with several juicy arms deals etc..which he hasn't won with his sparkling personality alone, surely?

Didn't India tell us that didn't even want any aid from us?

 

[mrcunny]

Fuck um...They are taking the piss.most of these countries are corrupt and some even spend the money on arms...so fuck um..

Pakistan for one..spending billions on the nuclear bomb and hoping we will give aid..nah..

 

[johnmc]

No problem if it is aid where needed and not payment for something in return

 

[allan harper]

Fuck um...They are taking the piss.most of these countries are corrupt and some even spend the money on arms...so fuck um..

Pakistan for one..spending billions on the nuclear bomb and hoping we will give aid..nah..

This topic was being discussed in the pub yesterday and this was the view of most people.,

 

[pee dubya]

No problem with the principle of aid where and when it's needed, but i think the delivery of it is all wrong at the moment.