Turn on thread page Beta

Should we have to spend 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you believe the UK should spend a minimum of 0.7% each year on foreign aid?
    Yes
    47.46%
    No
    52.54%

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Foreign aid expenditure serves a much subtler purpose than just the positive human impact abroad: it serves to culture the values of a society in which individuals have to be educated and develop.
    I remember writing a certain journal's article in which I finished by saying: "To measure our collective worth by the efforts we make abroad; this is the kind of society in which the values that will inspire future generations of medics will thrive."
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    *Actually no. See the Middle Ages. Or China. Or India. Or Hong Kong.

    . As long as an elite are able to have supplies (which they almost always will) and can exert terror onto the local populace there can be a degree of stability which is the only possibility for growth.

    Liberals seem to think you can turn somewhere like Sudan into Sweden in the space of a few years if enough money and resources are thrown at it. This is dangerous utopian nonsense.
    The idea that you can turn countries in which everyone dies at 40 due to disease to Sweden, simply by the rule of law is utopian nonsense.

    Obviously you need both.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdddd)
    If we had been inputting the billions each year we do literally the world population would have water by now. You could answer mine why should I answer yours? Idiot.
    Well that's rather silly. Much of Africa is developing and progressing economically.

    Should we not be providing vaccinations?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    Short answer yes. Long answer- The UK only spends 25% of the foreign aid budget on multilateral organisations and disease prevention this includes the £230m the UK gave to stop the spread of Ebola in West Africa. So in essence around 60% of the foreign aid budget is used in undeveloped countries with £700m going to Pakistan and Nigeria some of the most corrupt countries in the world some reports suggest up to 50% of all the money given to them goes into their own pockets.

    How can you defend the current funding formula?
    Well you can argue some of its not spent well but that's a reason to spend it better rather than stop spending.

    We should be spending a lot more in providing vaccinations and medical resources.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The DUP deal was a farce.

    Foreign aid doesn’t make a difference to the lives of ordinary British people. The deficit however does.
    Foreign aid definitely does make a difference to our lives. If the rest of the developing world was left in poverty, they’ll swarm over here in search of prosperity. Did you really think that once we wash our hands off them, that’s the end of it? Also improving the economies of poorer countries allows them to participate in global economical dealings which improves everyone’s wealth as a whole. They contribute to global wealth by participating in buying and selling.

    Who told you that Germany or Switzerland aren’t in debt? Show your statistics please.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    Ok, if you believe we should be spending more, do you believe our spending should be in accordance with the amount we decide is nessecary and can afford, instead of an arbritary target which no one else follows and comes with rules that exclude things like hurricane hit British Virgin Islands?
    Should we be spending money on vaccinations to prevent widespread disease?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Well that's rather silly. Much of Africa is developing and progressing economically.

    Should we not be providing vaccinations?
    You're an idiot. You make claims you simply cannot back up. Show me is then.

    I never said that, you're twisting my words pal, you've lost, nothing you can do.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Well you can argue some of its not spent well but that's a reason to spend it better rather than stop spending.

    We should be spending a lot more in providing vaccinations and medical resources.
    Lol, you've been ruined there. Thought Hospitals and schools are built under foreign aid? Aye, obviously not.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Should we be spending money on vaccinations to prevent widespread disease?
    We've done that. We continue to do that. Where's your point if money will continue to go to vaccinations? Noone is saying stop vaccinations? You're making yourself look silly now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdddd)
    We've done that. We continue to do that. Where's your point if money will continue to go to vaccinations? Noone is saying stop vaccinations? You're making yourself look silly now.
    Well actually people are saying stop foreign aid so yes they are saying stop funding vaccinations and clean water..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Well actually people are saying stop foreign aid so yes they are saying stop funding vaccinations and clean water..
    Where has anyone said that? Stop foreign aid completely or stop the amount of funding? Its how you interpret things pal.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Give a man a fish, he will eat it. Teach a man to fish, he will be able to feed himself for the rest of his life.

    The point I’m making here is that it’s pointless just handing over money to these countries. Plus some foreign aid projects have been stupid, ie the Ethiopian Spice Girls, what a waste of money that was!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdddd)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deny_Flight

    We did, we provided close air support and provided air strikes. Thats why there is a lot of unexploded bombs still there to this day. Its not 'Do we pay our fair share to try to make the world a better place' but 'Do we make the world a better place.
    Close air support and occasional air strikes is not 'heavy bombing'. British aircraft were a small part of an American dominated NATO force. The most significant air attack was to relieve the siege of Sarajevo in 1995, when a total of 1,026 bombs were used against Bosnian Serb targets, but again, most of these were dropped by the Americans. In all the time that I spent there no mention was made of unexploded NATO munitions. There were off-limits areas, but these were where mines had been laid by local forces.
    To put things in context, the total number of bombs dropped by NATO in their heaviest engagement was three times the daily average of shells fired at Sarajevo, in a siege that lasted nearly four years.

    Bombing did help lift the siege of Sarajevo and end the war, but you can't make the world a better place just through military power. It takes, time, money and effort. That lesson was conclusively proved in Iraq.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    Plus some foreign aid projects have been stupid, ie the Ethiopian Spice Girls, what a waste of money that was!
    Have you read the log frame for that?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Have you read the log frame for that?
    To be honest no.


    My main point is this thread is we should mainly be providing money for distaster relief. Like Haiti for example. I also think (I don’t know if this is done already) that the DfId should release a breakdown on which projects/areas the foreign aid budget is going.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    To be honest no.


    My main point is this thread is we should mainly be providing money for distaster relief. Like Haiti for example. I also think (I don’t know if this is done already) that the DfId should release a breakdown on which projects/areas the foreign aid budget is going.
    https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you sir.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Close air support and occasional air strikes is not 'heavy bombing'. British aircraft were a small part of an American dominated NATO force. The most significant air attack was to relieve the siege of Sarajevo in 1995, when a total of 1,026 bombs were used against Bosnian Serb targets, but again, most of these were dropped by the Americans. In all the time that I spent there no mention was made of unexploded NATO munitions. There were off-limits areas, but these were where mines had been laid by local forces.
    To put things in context, the total number of bombs dropped by NATO in their heaviest engagement was three times the daily average of shells fired at Sarajevo, in a siege that lasted nearly four years.

    Bombing did help lift the siege of Sarajevo and end the war, but you can't make the world a better place just through military power. It takes, time, money and effort. That lesson was conclusively proved in Iraq.
    Then you don't know nothing about the military. So an occasional carpet bomb isn't heavy bombing? A 2000lb bomb isn't heavy bombing? Heavy bombing doesn't necessarily mean the amount.

    Exactly, so heavy bombing by NATO forces of which the UK took part lol, directed under British commanders.. Oh really? http://m.naharnet.com/stories/en/131...ime-explosives In Serbia, most of the areas still infected with unexploded mines and bombs from 1999 NATO bombing campaign.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    Give a man a fish, he will eat it. Teach a man to fish, he will be able to feed himself for the rest of his life.

    The point I’m making here is that it’s pointless just handing over money to these countries. Plus some foreign aid projects have been stupid, ie the Ethiopian Spice Girls, what a waste of money that was!
    Perfectly said.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Close air support and occasional air strikes is not 'heavy bombing'. British aircraft were a small part of an American dominated NATO force. The most significant air attack was to relieve the siege of Sarajevo in 1995, when a total of 1,026 bombs were used against Bosnian Serb targets, but again, most of these were dropped by the Americans. In all the time that I spent there no mention was made of unexploded NATO munitions. There were off-limits areas, but these were where mines had been laid by local forces.
    To put things in context, the total number of bombs dropped by NATO in their heaviest engagement was three times the daily average of shells fired at Sarajevo, in a siege that lasted nearly four years.

    Bombing did help lift the siege of Sarajevo and end the war, but you can't make the world a better place just through military power. It takes, time, money and effort. That lesson was conclusively proved in Iraq.
    Britain doesn't have any 'heavy bombing' aircraft any more, everything is targeted air strikes.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.