Foreign Aid

pillars of hercules

pillars of hercules

Striker
Instead of giving so much money in overseas aid I would prefer most of the cash was given to the armed forces and spent on a new intervention and relief force which could be sent to needy places.

The UK could train hundreds of new doctors, nurses, engineers etc for the forces improving our national skill base and send them around the world to needy countries to help with disaster relief, create safe havens and help rebuilding infrastructure. This would ensure we met out 2% GDP defence commitment, give a steady stream of highly skilled people into the economy and most of all do some real good in the world.

I posted the above in 2015. Watching the US Navy hospital ship sail into NY having 2 or 3 of these floating hospitals would have made massive difference to our health service capacity today.
pillars of hercules said:
Instead of giving so much money in overseas aid I would prefer most of the cash was given to the armed forces and spent on a new intervention and relief force which could be sent to needy places.

The UK could train hundreds of new doctors, nurses, engineers etc for the forces improving our national skill base and send them around the world to needy countries to help with disaster relief, create safe havens and help rebuilding infrastructure. This would ensure we met out 2% GDP defence commitment, give a steady stream of highly skilled people into the economy and most of all do some real good in the world.

I posted the above in 2015. Watching the US Navy hospital ship sail into NY having 2 or 3 of these floating hospitals would have made massive difference to our health service capacity today.
Click to expand...
I did mean to say I'm not against giving but would prefer to do it in a way that allowed us to control where the aid would go and also be a benefit to our own country.
 
Last edited:


Daydream Believer said:
Foreign Aid is basically a bribe to get the other country to behave in a way that would cost far more if we did it militarily.
Oh & the last place you want people to be at the moment is on a ship where the majority of the rooms are using recycled air.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. We would have had thousands of extra medical personnel to staff new facilities. Extra supplies of PPE and a great advert for UK soft power abroad.

People always look for negatives where there are none.
 
Its a logistical issue, we do a lot of disaster relief work. We always have a ship or two in the Caribbean usually an RFA Bay class (LSDA with helicopter and royal marine and engineer contingent) But the amount one or two ships can achieve is scarily small in those situations, unless you have seen an entire island flattened by a hurricane you really cant prepare how useless you feel. In the Ebola crisis we sent RFA Argus, our closest thing to a hospital ship, she is classed as primary casualty receiving ship, as she is armed so cant be white or wear a red cross. She did amazing support work there, despite the army trying to fuck the entire operation up. People often say just send a ship, when ships are along side its usually for maintenance etc if a ship is fully crewed and operational its doing something or should be, not waiting for a disaster. Crews alongside get complacent. Some countries also dont like the idea of foreign armed forces pitching up even if they are needed. Add to that a ship would take weeks to get to the pacific and the cost of stationing one out there is prohibitive, we keep two jetties at Singapore they are rarely used. Then you have retention issues of staff... kids dont want to be away fromwifi the gym and costa these days. Not shitting on your idea just naming a few of many issues.
 
DavyC said:
Its a logistical issue, we do a lot of disaster relief work. We always have a ship or two in the Caribbean usually an RFA Bay class (LSDA with helicopter and royal marine and engineer contingent) But the amount one or two ships can achieve is scarily small in those situations, unless you have seen an entire island flattened by a hurricane you really cant prepare how useless you feel. In the Ebola crisis we sent RFA Argus, our closest thing to a hospital ship, she is classed as primary casualty receiving ship, as she is armed so cant be white or wear a red cross. She did amazing support work there, despite the army trying to fuck the entire operation up. People often say just send a ship, when ships are along side its usually for maintenance etc if a ship is fully crewed and operational its doing something or should be, not waiting for a disaster. Crews alongside get complacent. Some countries also dont like the idea of foreign armed forces pitching up even if they are needed. Add to that a ship would take weeks to get to the pacific and the cost of stationing one out there is prohibitive, we keep two jetties at Singapore they are rarely used. Then you have retention issues of staff... kids dont want to be away fromwifi the gym and costa these days. Not shitting on your idea just naming a few of many issues.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying, but what I'm talking about are huge purpose build hospital ships with purpose built operating theatres, ICUs, classrooms and multiple helicopter landing pads, where kids could be paid while training to become doctors and nurses without a student loan. They could get practical medical experience while providing practical aid to disadvantaged parts of the world. These hospital ships could be accompanied by a RFA ship with a detachment of marines and Royal Engineers to provide protection and carry out infrastructure projects.

All this could be paid for from our current overseas aid budget.
 
You don't put money in a charity box then miss your mortgage/rent payment!

If foreign countries need a "sweetener" to trade with us we are probably not making anything on the deal anyway.

If Boris and Rishi announced next week that the overseas aid budget is scrapped and that future aid is humanitarian based on 80% + positive votes in parliament they would piss the next 3 elections.

BTW - humanitarian is things like the tsunami, not ongoing African issues
 
Daydream Believer said:
Foreign Aid is basically a bribe to get the other country to behave in a way that would cost far more if we did it militarily.
Oh & the last place you want people to be at the moment is on a ship where the majority of the rooms are using recycled air.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that a single country has changed its behaviour because we've given them aid money? And even if they have changed their behaviour, that we'd have otherwise have used military force to bring about these changes?
 
pillars of hercules said:
I get what you're saying, but what I'm talking about are huge purpose build hospital ships with purpose built operating theatres, ICUs, classrooms and multiple helicopter landing pads, where kids could be paid while training to become doctors and nurses without a student loan. They could get practical medical experience while providing practical aid to disadvantaged parts of the world. These hospital ships could be accompanied by a RFA ship with a detachment of marines and Royal Engineers to provide protection and carry out infrastructure projects.

All this could be paid for from our current overseas aid budget.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
SAFC1962 said:
You don't put money in a charity box then miss your mortgage/rent payment!

If foreign countries need a "sweetener" to trade with us we are probably not making anything on the deal anyway.

If Boris and Rishi announced next week that the overseas aid budget is scrapped and that future aid is humanitarian based on 80% + positive votes in parliament they would piss the next 3 elections.

BTW - humanitarian is things like the tsunami, not ongoing African issues
Click to expand...

Do you think politicians don't know this? Yet they do it anyway. That should tell you something.
Hulkster said:
Is there any evidence that a single country has changed its behaviour because we've given them aid money? And even if they have changed their behaviour, that we'd have otherwise have used military force to bring about these changes?
Click to expand...

Well India & Pakistan haven't started an all out war with each other yet.
 
Last edited:
pillars of hercules said:
You're missing the point. We would have had thousands of extra medical personnel to staff new facilities. Extra supplies of PPE and a great advert for UK soft power abroad.

People always look for negatives where there are none.
Click to expand...
foreign aid can help us to get cheaper stuff to build facilities.
Hulkster said:
So the reason India and Pakistan haven't fought a full scale war is because of foreign aid?!

This is a sensational claim, and if true, an incredible achievement!
Click to expand...
not far from the truth. same with a lot of african countries.
 
Its highlighted every time our economy has an emergency but its NEVER EVER changed by our government so I guess you are wasting your breath.
 
It’s a good idea and, in its purest form, a worthwhile endeavour. However it’s been twisted over time until the point it no longer resembles what it should do to offer the greatest benefit. There’s no chance it should be 18 billion a year or whatever it is. It should be about 500 million and a vote put forward and voted on by MPs if we want to increase it, to a cap of 25%. Also, aid should only be given to countries with a lower GDP than us.
 
Do you think that some countries might not feel too good about the British Army arriving?
 

Back
Top