I was listening to the radio today and I heard David Cameron is pledging 2 billion pounds towards Syrian aid.  Which is pretty much the nice way of saying he's demanding the money from the tax payers then giving it to another country.

The Nigerian guy I work with said "You're country is fucking crazy man, you go round bombing countries that have nothing to do with you then you go round giving billions to countries that have nothing to do with you."

I have to say I pretty much agree with him, which is rare.

In Britain we do have a few important organizations that could realllllly use 2 billion dollars, and I'm not talking about football clubs.

The NHS has a 2 billion pound deficit supposedly, that's the amount that was reported in 2015 and all that seems to get reported in the newspapers is that it's getting worse.
The police ( I know a few people on this forum hate them but in general I think they are quite useful overall) seem to have spending cuts all the time, or so the newspapers are reporting.
I understand I'm not totally knowledgeable about politics, the economy.  Plus I have some bias in my opinion since I live in England and directly benefit from having hospitals that aren't shit and a police force that isn't underpaid.  But overall I don't think it's such a good idea to pledge 2 billion to another country in terms of aid.
It would be great if David Cameron was a billionaire and was pledging 2 billion to Syrian aid, or if the UK was so rich that we had the money spare.
And if it's military aid, the kind where you give Muslims guns to shoot some other Muslims then that's probably even worse of an idea.

Any thoughts on this anyone?

Gee, maybe it's because the country is in ruins and nearly everybody a displaced person. Everybody's talking about the flood of fugitives and how to handle it. Well, maybe it's better to try and rebuild there than to have them come to our shores. At least that's what the rightwing's constantly bawling about. Sitting back and simply running one's mouth won't solve the problem.

And it's not only the UK, it's 9 billlion Euro overall, coming from the whole of UN.

I wouldn't try rebuilding anything until the shooting stops.  IT didn't work out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan for us.

(February 4, 2016 at 9:21 pm)abaris Wrote: the country is in ruins and nearly everybody a displaced person. Everybody's talking about the flood of fugitives and how to handle it. Well, maybe it's better to try and rebuild there than to have them come to our shores. At least that's what the rightwing's constantly bawling about. Sitting back and simply running one's mouth won't solve the problem.

And it's not only the UK, it's 9 billlion Euro overall, coming from the whole of UN.

I'm not sure the aid involves rebuilding Syria, the reports so far have been vague.  Also whether that action is a good idea or not seems debatable to me.  It might be like trying to rebuild the burned down kitchen while the fire is still blazing, there is a war still going on there, and ISIS still remains there.

It would make me wonder how they would do it, and secondly I wonder who would get the building contracts and how closely the building companies would they be linked to governments providing the taxed money.

Also the none of what is going on in Syria is enough to distract me from the problem with our own countries NHS. It may seem selfish of me but traditionally tax is pretty much mainly to benefit directly the inhabitants of the country that were taxed, and charity is money that is given willingly to help unfortunate people in other countries.

To me it seems like there's a big two billion pound peg that would fit perfectly into an NHS hole, but instead it's being used for "aid" for a country not even in Europe.

I'm sure all the warlords that get a share will spend it wisely.

Jordan and Lebanon are the places which need the money to care for all the refugees that have poured in.

My biggest concern in cases like this is who exactly the money goes to, and whether they can be trusted to use it as intended. I don't know enough to be able to comment there.

The wisdom of the expenditure relies directly upon how and where it is spent.

What use it it t be a wealthy nation (or even a wealthy person, really) if you just sit on the money, or watch while the world around you burns?  I mean hell, if nothing else, all those bombings have been incurring an ever increasing debt to the globe...right?

(February 5, 2016 at 1:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What use it it t be a wealthy nation (or even a wealthy person, really) if you just sit on the money, or watch while the world around you burns?  I mean hell, if nothing else, all those bombings have been incurring an ever increasing debt to the globe...right?

I don't know about sitting on the money, I was thinking the money would be better spent towards the national health service which in 2015 had a deficit of around 2 billion pounds.