Aid or Armies? Guns or Gifts?

I was staggered to learn yesterday that this country will be spending more on Foreign Aid than on it’s armed forces by 2031. Have we gone stark, staring, raving mad???

Research conducted by the House of Commons Library found aid spending will be £28 billion compared to a defence spend of £27 billion all thanks to lunatic foreign target set by the Fourth Reich and it’s fifth columnist Nick Clegg. Thanks to the coalition agreement, aid has a target forced upon it of 0.7% of GDP regardless of how much we actually have to spare (basically, fuck all!) and who we send it to. Do we really need to give money to China and India, countries who are considerably better off than we are? It’s crazy.

So it’s OK to have target for aid and stick to it, but the Tory manifesto will reveal that whilst there is a target of 2% of national income for defence, we don’t seem to have to stick to that.

Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox summed it all up nicely when he said that said he and fellow Tory MPs would find it ‘hard to swallow’ if Mr Cameron allowed spending to fall below the 2 per cent Nato threshold while maintaining a pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP on aid.

Why the hell don’t we just chuck these stupid targets out of the window and decide on a case by case basis what we actually need to spend? Surely it’s more important to defend the country that it is to prop up prosperous economies and foreign dictators.

Perhaps they think that ISIS will simply let us be if we give them lots of aid to help build their caliphate and take away the threat of our forces shooting at them? I sincerely doubt it, but I wonder if this has occured the likes of the Limp Dumps and their EU masters?.

It’s a bloody disgrace…

Advertisements

7 responses to “Aid or Armies? Guns or Gifts?

  1. Well let's face it most foreign aid goes on arms and not supporting the countries it's given to anyway. Maybe the theory is they will arm themselves and all kill each other, which whilst not aiding our army financially may at least save some of our troops lives. I have given up trying to understand why we give so much money away in “aid” whilst letting our own people struggle and suffer. Of course it's far more important to arm Muslims in Pakistan than give the elderly heat in their homes. Many of the countries we send aid to don't even want it and actually resent it.
    The UK and the US have a nasty history of arming the wrong side before realising they are the wrong side and that the arms supplied will be used on their own troops air long. They will never learn to cease meddling in matters that don't concern them.

  2. I think 0.7% is a fine figure, maybe even 5% ……….of a surplus. Who would go and get a bank loan, when already bankrupt, to give to a charity.

  3. Aid or Armies? Guns or Gifts?

    None of the above please……well as little as is possible would be the best idea.

    We should spend the same as Belguim/Ireland/Holland etc on our armed forces and finally get rid of the second world war glory mentality which has led us to overspend on armed forces and foreign aid.

    Rickie

  4. Maybe it's because we pump aid to China that they can announce (yesterday) that they'll hike their military spending by 10% to $145 billion

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/world/asia/chinas-military-budget-increasing-10-for-2015-official-says.html?_r=0

    And why – on the same day – they question if India's military budget (up by 11% to $40 billion) is enough.

    http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/is-indias-defense-budget-adequate/

    Shan't get into detail about our aid to Ukraine, nor our “assisting” in training their military.

    Nor Saudi, nor Bahrain.

  5. Every day it becomes more obvious that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Personally I'd be in favour of scraping all foreign aid. Maybe, just maybe, those struggling third world countries would finally sort out their own problems – after all who the hell gave the wealthy countries aid to enable them to gat where they are today? – answer – nobody! I've often argued that Africa should be the wealthiest continent given it's climate and natural resources, but it seems that they would rather fight among themselves, sit on their arses or keep producing more mouths than they can feed.

  6. Having just travelled 3,600 miles across Africa on a train, I agree and disagree with your comment…

    Certainly the first thing that struck me was the number of children. The average family has around 6 kids so it's no wonder they are living in poverty. If they just tied a knot in it, then the population would stop growing and such an alarming rate.

    On the other hand, if you look at Zambia, they have the copper belt. For years they were wealthy on the back of supplying copper for bullet and shell cases. When the Vietnam war end, the market collapsed and they couldn't give the stuff away. Literally.

    It varies terrifically from place to place, but tourism is certainly propping up a lot of African countries these days or oil where there is some. It's not everywhere. Certainly Mugabe would have been dead years ago if there was any oil in Zimbabwe.

    And they do like fighting tribe on tribe. Easier to steal from your neighbouring village than to work for it – and so much more macho!!

  7. Foreign Aid:-
    Taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.

First comments must be approved - but after that you're in !

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s