Galling behavior regarding Somalia

CommuterIE

Now the politicians on the left here are calling for more American money to be pumped into Somalia, lets have a history lesson!

In the early 90's when food aid was being distributed, warlords took it over and either sold it or fed their armies with it... The Americans entered the lawless country with one goal! To kill or apprehend these ****ers... Michael D Higgins asked publicly why the over 1,000 Somali deaths from Black Hawk Down weren't named at the end???? Maybe because they were outright thugs you leftist prick! Maybe he should learn more about history, before having the absolute gall yesterday to call for more American aid!!!!

20Cent

Link?

CommuterIE

20Cent wrote: »

Link?

Link to what exactly?

20Cent

CommuterIE wrote: »

Link to what exactly?

The "left" calling for the US to send money to Somalia and the Higgins thing.

CommuterIE

20Cent wrote: »

The "left" calling for the US to send money to Somalia and the Higgins thing.

LMAO, I heard it on the radio yesterday... but yeh the US is being called on by the EU to provide some aid... it is an absolutely stupid proposal as the US won't donate one cent

20Cent

CommuterIE wrote: »

LMAO, I heard it on the radio yesterday... but yeh the US is being called on by the EU to provide some aid... it is an absolutely stupid proposal as the US won't donate one cent

Sorry thought you were serious.

Magic Beans

They must have no oil so.

CommuterIE

Magic Beans wrote: »

They must have no oil so.

They don't actually, this is something the USA should be proud of because they did kill numerous warlords, can I ask you why you mentioned oil? It is a bit stupid in this context

CatFromHue

i posted abit of this article from the independent on a different thread. i might just post it all here now though as it's interesting on the us and what he has done for somalia, ive put the bits in bold as they're interesting.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/us-withholds-urgent-aid-for-somalia-as-famine-hits-2825795.html

Urgently needed US aid for Somalia worth tens of millions of dollars is being withheld as parts of the country are today to be officially declared a famine zone.

Conditions in the country, blighted first by war and then by drought, are so severe in some places that what was an "emergency" has now tipped into a "catastrophe", the UN said. It would be the first time the UN has officially used the term 'famine' since almost a million Ethiopians starved to death in 1984.

But Washington, the world's biggest donor to Somalia until 2009, is now barred from funding food appeals if there is a risk its aid would "materially benefit" terrorists.

The new rules, from the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, came into force after reports that al-Shabaab, Somalia's al-Qa'ida-linked insurgents, were taxing food convoys, stealing supplies and threatening aid agency workers.

Since then, US aid spending in Somalia has fallen by 88pc, from more than €106m in 2008 to €9.19m this year. By contrast, UN figures show that funding from other international donors including Britain has increased in the same period, largely channelled through local organisations and the few UN agencies still operating in southern Somalia.

That has still not been enough to avert the current disaster, said Jeremy Konyndyk, a policy director with Mercy Corps in the US, which has been affected by the anti-terror rules.

"Avoiding aid diversion is important, but the US's overzealous approach led to a damaging collapse in US humanitarian support to Somalia," he said. "This has undermined humanitarian response and preparedness and other donors have been unable to pick up the slack."

Oxfam, which warns today of a half-billion pound "black hole" in funding for drought appeals for 11m people in the Horn of Africa, said that the world had failed to respond quickly enough to what was a "predictable disaster".

"If more action had been taken earlier we would not now be at the stage where so many people are facing starvation," said Fran Equiza, Oxfam's regional director for the Horn of Africa.

In parts of one of the two regions to be officially certified as in famine, the number of people dying exceeds the official threshold for that classification by a factor of 10.

The withdrawal of US funds for southern Somalia, coupled with al-Shabaab's long-held belligerence towards foreigners, was "now costing lives", said Mr Konyndyk.

He added: "The aid effort will remain totally inadequate if legal restrictions force the US to remain on the sidelines."

It is hoped that today's declaration of famine will spur Washington into a change of heart, although Johnnie Carson, Hillary Clinton's deputy in charge of African affairs, said that Washington "had not and would not" talk to al-Shabaab.

Some aid agencies, including Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, with support from Britain, have begun delivering air-dropped supplies into Islamist-held areas, although their scope is limited. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

- Mike Pflanz in Nairobi

according to that article somalia the us has been very good to somalia for a number of years.

Richard Hillman

Left wing loon in hypocritical shocker :eek:

America shouldnt donate 1 cent to them. When the US helicopters crashed in Mogadishu the locals could of helped them out but they slaughtered them and dragged their bodies through the streets. You reep what you sow.

Victor

CommuterIE wrote: »

Now the politicians on the left here are calling for more American money to be pumped into Somalia, lets have a history lesson!

In the early 90's when food aid was being distributed, warlords took it over and either sold it or fed their armies with it... The Americans entered the lawless country with one goal! To kill or apprehend these ****ers... Michael D Higgins asked publicly why the over 1,000 Somali deaths from Black Hawk Down weren't named at the end???? Maybe because they were outright thugs you leftist prick! Maybe he should learn more about history, before having the absolute gall yesterday to call for more American aid!!!!

How many of the Somalis killed in the Blackhawk Down incident were actually combatants? Possibly many, but it is likely that an awful lot of non-combatants were also killed. You can't shoot up a city, kill 1,000+ people and not kill non-combatants.

You might also read this: http://50thingstonotknow.blogspot.com/2006/12/one-of-heroes-of-black-hawk-down-is.html

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Left wing loon in hypocritical shocker :eek:

America shouldnt donate 1 cent to them. When the US helicopters crashed in Mogadishu the locals could of helped them out but they slaughtered them and dragged their bodies through the streets. You reep what you sow.

How many of the people starving now did anything like that?

If you bother to read Blackhark Down, you'll know that certain militaties didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in Somalia. Certainly in Mogadishu, helicopters were used as a means to intimidate the general population.

Turkana

Magic Beans wrote: »

They must have no oil so.

There's a very high chance it has oil.

Overheal

Bottom line is there is nothing to be gained politically, economically, or for national security. And the US also has an unprecedented debt to tackle. I don't see why the US would have an interest at throwing aid at the problem. If anything the Navy could have fun expending ordnance on the pirates (and they do!) but theres nothing to be accomplished from any further involvement to be honest. The EU can shove it's request.

As for Naval involvement, I say leave it to the Russians. They seem to enjoy it.

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/05/pirates_have_all_died_russia_s.html
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/63244,news-comment,news-politics,russian-navy-sent-somali-pirates-to-their-death-from-the-moscow-university

loldog

Well, this crowd Al Shabaab have said they will prevent aid getting in and say claims of a famine are exaggerated. So, really, what can you do when the whole place is a Libertarian nightmare?

.

Magic Beans

CommuterIE wrote: »

They don't actually, this is something the USA should be proud of because they did kill numerous warlords, can I ask you why you mentioned oil? It is a bit stupid in this context

The US seems to be only interested in intervening in countries who impact on their "national interest". This seems to mean that they have oil, drugs, are a source of an important natural resource or are in a geographically important spot which might be useful in the future for staging their military.

I think that's a fairly accurate reading of their policy so lets skip the "stupid" comment thanks.

Cannibal Ox

Overheal wrote:

Bottom line is there is nothing to be gained politically, economically, or for national security.

If the US has nothing to gain in Somalia, then why have they been launching drone attacks at Al Shabab?

loldog wrote:

Well, this crowd Al Shabaab have said they will prevent aid getting in and say claims of a famine are exaggerated.

No they haven't. They've said that aid agencies they banned previously will not be allowed in.

mgmt

loldog wrote: »

Well, this crowd Al Shabaab have said they will prevent aid getting in and say claims of a famine are exaggerated. So, really, what can you do when the whole place is a Libertarian nightmare?

.

You contradicted yourself in the previous sentence. But don't let a famine get in the way of scoring lame political points.

karma_

CommuterIE wrote: »

They don't actually, this is something the USA should be proud of because they did kill numerous warlords, can I ask you why you mentioned oil? It is a bit stupid in this context

They likely do. Other Somali resources include uranium and largely unexploited reserves of iron ore, tin, gypsum, bauxite, copper, salt, natural gas, likely oil reserves.

Source, the CIA world factbook!

irishh_bob

Magic Beans wrote: »

The US seems to be only interested in intervening in countries who impact on their "national interest". This seems to mean that they have oil, drugs, are a source of an important natural resource or are in a geographically important spot which might be useful in the future for staging their military.

I think that's a fairly accurate reading of their policy so lets skip the "stupid" comment thanks.

all countries are like that , america just happens to be presently the most powerfull and noticable in this regard , the chineese are in africa and they are there for thier own gains , unlike america , the chineese dont try and potray themselves as defenders of humanity or swords of righteousness

the vast majority of people are motivated by self interest , know that and life becomes a lot more simple and straightforward

corkonion

why should anyone donate anything to Somalia. Its a drought ridden piece of land and providing aid just allows one misarable generation of people exist horribly until the next drought/famine arrives. Mother nature decides.
This is a lawless country and the vast majority of any aid given will end up in warlords hands while the hungry and the dieing remain hungry and dieing. It is the warlords and the pirates that should be called on to help their people not the USA.

Overheal

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

If the US has nothing to gain in Somalia, then why have they been launching drone attacks at Al Shabab?

Not aware of that before. And not aware enough to comment. Other than to say the US has unique military assets, like drones, and if an operation on Somalia is being spearheaded by an allied nation that asked for drone support, that may be what happened, as in the case of Libya with cruise missile strikes leading the initial push.

The US seems to be only interested in intervening in countries who impact on their "national interest".

Ya don't say. Aside from all the teenage comments about oil, the fact is you can't point me to any other nation which acts selflessly in expending it's national assets to intervene in foreign situations. Nevermind that in 3 interventions in the last 10 years (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) the instability in oil production didn't improve oil production, it impaired it, causing oil prices to inflate by over 300%.

anymore

Magic Beans wrote: »

The US seems to be only interested in intervening in countries who impact on their "national interest". This seems to mean that they have oil, drugs, are a source of an important natural resource or are in a geographically important spot which might be useful in the future for staging their military.

I think that's a fairly accurate reading of their policy so lets skip the "stupid" comment thanks.

It constatly amazes me that this is silly arguement about oil is trotted out about the US. So here goes again:

If the US's only interest in Iraq was about oil, it would have done a quiet deal with Saddam Hussein guaranteeing the US a supply of oil and at a good price and would have watched in the sidelines as Saddam did as he pleased. I am not sure how to make it plainer.
That said, I and most other sensible people want the US to ensure the safety of our sources of strategic materials like oil. There is nothing quite like a a half mile queue of cars waiting for thier turn at the petrol pumps to bring home a sense of reality to irish people !
God Bless America ! :pac:

SamHarris

anymore wrote: »

It constatly amazes me that this is silly arguement about oil is trotted out about the US. So here goes again:

If the US's only interest in Iraq was about oil, it would have done a quiet deal with Saddam Hussein guaranteeing the US a supply of oil and at a good price and would have watched in the sidelines as Saddam did as he pleased. I am not sure how to make it plainer.
That said, I and most other sensible people want the US to ensure the safety of our sources of strategic materials like oil. There is nothing quite like a a half mile queue of cars waiting for thier turn at the petrol pumps to bring home a sense of reality to irish people !
God Bless America ! :pac:

Sadam Hussein DID do a deal with oil companies to basically sell them oil at far below market price. the oil lobby was vehemently against the war.

The war was (rightly or wrongly) ideologically driven.

Also, why is it so "evil" to keep an eye on oil interests? It is as important as food an water, its absence would cause a complete collapse of *everything*. Oil is about more than greed, it is a necessity.


That wasnt a defence of the Iraq war, merely pointing out that people who are always whining that oil is a factor have no clue what they are talking about with regards to it's importance and *why* is it always a factor.

On the point of Somalia I really don't see why the US has to once again shoulder a humanitarian crisis in a region that has been amoungst the most hostile to them in the world. Sure it wasnt all the people, or even the internationally recgonized goverment, but the fact remains that an organistion that is allied to Al Qaeda, has jumped whole heartedly into the "America the Great Satan" ideology and has dragged American troops bodies through streets controls the vast majority of the country. This certainly should be taken into account when the US govenment divies up its finitie aid rescources.

SamHarris

karma_ wrote: »

They likely do. Other Somali resources include uranium and largely unexploited reserves of iron ore, tin, gypsum, bauxite, copper, salt, natural gas, likely oil reserves.

Source, the CIA world factbook!

That country is at least a decade away from being anywhere near an even minor oil exporter. Wouldnt matter if it had Saudi Arabian reserves, the security situation as it is means it wont be drilled for now.

Which is a pitty as it would go a long way to them beign able to buy their own food.

SamHarris

Magic Beans wrote: »

The US seems to be only interested in intervening in countries who impact on their "national interest". This seems to mean that they have oil, drugs, are a source of an important natural resource or are in a geographically important spot which might be useful in the future for staging their military.

I think that's a fairly accurate reading of their policy so lets skip the "stupid" comment thanks.

What? So they use their military to defend their national interest? The pigs!

Like it or not the US foreign policy is a mix of both ideology (be it human rights, democracy or neo conservative global strategy) and national interests.

nacho libre

anymore wrote: »

It constatly amazes me that this is silly arguement about oil is trotted out about the US. So here goes again:

If the US's only interest in Iraq was about oil, it would have done a quiet deal with Saddam Hussein guaranteeing the US a supply of oil and at a good price and would have watched in the sidelines as Saddam did as he pleased. I am not sure how to make it plainer.

What you seem to overlook is that it is very important to America that oil is traded in Dollars. Any country who chooses to do otherwise, is therefore going against America's interests.
The idea that America's foreign policy is driven by anything other than
defending its interests is bogus, if the situation was as you like to portray it, that being a mixture of both ideology and self interests, then it wouldn't have replaced democratically elected leaders with countless autocrats over the years, nor would it have funded brutal death squads, while at the same time rabbiting on about human rights and democracy. Talking about such things is just a ruse to get citizenry to support invasions. It also allows the apologists to feel better about supporting unsavoury actions.
The reality is Russia and America, or indeed any powerful nations, only really care about protecting their strategic interests.

Sticky_Fingers

nacho libre wrote: »

What you seem to overlook is that it is very important to America that oil is traded in Dollars. Any country who chooses to do otherwise, is therefore going against America's interests.

This probably had a very large impact upon the decision to invade, Saddam was trading oil in Euros (source here) and thus was a treat to the petrodollar system that has helped keep the US in clover since the 70's. Any attack on that system had to be dealt and was IMO one of the reasons they went to war.

Magic Beans

anymore wrote: »

If the US's only interest in Iraq was about oil, it would have done a quiet deal with Saddam Hussein guaranteeing the US a supply of oil and at a good price and would have watched in the sidelines as Saddam did as he pleased.

For 10 bonus points, who put Saddam in power?

CommuterIE

Magic Beans wrote: »

For 10 bonus points, who put Saddam in power?

This argument is illogical... who gave weapons to Bin Ladens group in Afghanistan, and you will be one of the very first people to say USA! In a demeaning manner, yet you don't know your history, ignorance drives your arguments... the Americans provided weapons to those in Afghanistan who fought against the Soviets... there was a cold war going on, but people like you find it convenient to forget that fact. Bin Laden betrayed the Americans who had helped him, simple as!

Icepick

CommuterIE wrote: »

They don't actually, this is something the USA should be proud of because they did kill numerous warlords, can I ask you why you mentioned oil? It is a bit stupid in this context

Actually, they do.
And also, Somali piracy 'threatens global oil supplies'

walshb

corkonion wrote: »

why should anyone donate anything to Somalia. Its a drought ridden piece of land and providing aid just allows one misarable generation of people exist horribly until the next drought/famine arrives. Mother nature decides.
This is a lawless country and the vast majority of any aid given will end up in warlords hands while the hungry and the dieing remain hungry and dieing. It is the warlords and the pirates that should be called on to help their people not the USA.

Indeed,

There are plenty of people in these countries that are well fed, and healthy; why don't they help those who aren't? That is what most civilised human beings would do.

anymore

Magic Beans wrote: »

For 10 bonus points, who put Saddam in power?

who put Hitler in power ?

dvpower

walshb wrote: »

Indeed,

There are plenty of people in these countries that are well fed, and healthy; why don't they help those who aren't? That is what most civilised human beings would do.

What? Turn our back on starving human beings because they're not in our back yard?:eek:

tweedledee

Dont send anything!!!!!!The people who need it will not get any of it.Its controlled 100% by several different fighting factions.Foreign aid is like gold in east Africa.

dvpower

tweedledee wrote: »

Dont send anything!!!!!!The people who need it will not get any of it.Its controlled 100% by several different fighting factions.Foreign aid is like gold in east Africa.

Trocaire, Concern, Christian Aid, Unicef ... all fighting factions.
Who knew?

walshb

dvpower wrote: »

What? Turn our back on starving human beings because they're not in our back yard?:eek:

Where did I say that?

My issue is with the non stop monetary aid. It is not working. I know aid is needed, money is needed, but with these charities, it's all about money with them. It's been going on for so so long now. What use is it doing? To me it seems nothing more than buisness to these charities. Sure, the CEOs are on
great wages. It's no different than any other business. They just happen to make money from misery.

dvpower

walshb wrote: »

Where did I say that?

corkonion wrote: »

why should anyone donate anything to Somalia. Its a drought ridden piece of land and providing aid just allows one misarable generation of people exist horribly until the next drought/famine arrives. Mother nature decides.

walshb wrote: »

Indeed,

in·deed   
[in-deed] Show IPA
–adverb
1.
in fact; in reality; in truth; truly (used for emphasis, to confirm and amplify a previous statement, to indicate a concession or admission, or, interrogatively, to obtain confirmation): Indeed, it did rain as hard as predicted. Did you indeed finish the work?

.

tweedledee

DV power no need to be soooo smart 'cause you aint got a clue what you are on about.I've actually been to East Africa on several occasions.(not working for a charity).
The charities you mention don't control what happens on the ground,especially in Somalia and Sudan.They get permission from WHOEVER controls the area,whether its from the military(Government) or faction leaders,or the impotant ,gutless UN.Don't be sooo naive spouting yer uninformed garb from yer couch at home.
Typical armchair cowboy!!

dvpower

tweedledee wrote: »

DV power no need to be soooo smart 'cause you aint got a clue what you are on about.I've actually been to East Africa on several occasions.(not working for a charity).
The charities you mention don't control what happens on the ground,especially in Somalia and Sudan.They get permission from WHOEVER controls the area,whether its from the military(Government) or faction leaders,or the impotant ,gutless UN.Don't be sooo naive spouting yer uninformed garb from yer couch at home.
Typical armchair cowboy!!

So you stand by your post?

tweedledee wrote: »

The people who need it will not get any of it.

It's just that while sitting on my couch at home, I did see a news report where some of the starving people "The people who need it" were actually getting some aid.

tweedledee

Walshb you are 100% correct.The "Charity" industry is a multi-billion dollar one.True some funds do make their way to the people who need it but most of it disappears into the "charities" banks,salaries,pay-offs,warlords(politians) backpockets etc etc.
A couple of years ago I was flying to Sudan from the Arabian Gulf on a contract.Sudan was in the middle of a severe drought,in a really bad way it was.
First class was full of Somali and Sudanese eh, polititians(warlords).Some of them in military uniforms.Business class (where I was) had over 25 "aid workers" from France and Ireland.Their bosses,3 of them,were in First Class!!!!!!!!Yup,FIRST CLASS!!!!!!!!
I flew alot around Africa and learned most Agencies flew their staff in Premium Cabins,which is VERY expensive.
Most flights into Addis in Ethiopia are full in First/Business and quite empty in Economy,where I normally sit.Go figure!!!:(

dvpower

tweedledee wrote: »

The people who need it will not get any of it.

tweedledee wrote: »

True some funds do make their way to the people who need it

What a turnaround!!! Did I miss some breaking news overnight?

tweedledee wrote: »

.Don't be sooo naive spouting yer uninformed garb from yer couch at home.

Typical armchair cowboy!!

Quite

tweedledee

God you are sooo naive young man/woman.You havn't a clue.
Of course some of the aid gets through.About 10% of it gets to who needs it!!!
Approx 90% of the cash funds DO NOT!!!
Even in IRAQ,(ohh yeah bin there also),BILLIONS of dollars in "aid" has gone missing,no sign of it.Even some of the charities over there don't know where it is??????Just gone!!
Aid agencies insist that the TV crews report as much as possible to show the good stuff,so naive you and yer naive friends give more cash to God knows who to give to whoever they like,even themselves.
Go to Kenya and have a look at the huge villas and vast 5* compounds that house the Government there.Visit the 4* International Hotels(private compounds) where the aid workers stay.
Visit the bars in these hotels and mingle with said Aid workers as they get drunk on expensive Brandies and Wines,all paid for by,,,,,,,,,,,,,YOU!!!!!!:)

dvpower

tweedledee wrote: »

Approx 90% of the cash funds DO NOT!!!

In the space of 12 hours we've gone from 0% getting through to 10%.
At this rate, by thursday afternoon the problem will be solved.:rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

Probably better in another thread, but I've serious doubts as to whether our charity money does anything to help, and it may indeed be hindering development in these countries. Look at what social welfare has done on our own doorstep - created a class of useless scobes who live their whole lives as ignorant, criminal parasites. The comparison with whole countries may or may not hold much water, but it's pretty clear that countries can make themselves wealthy with no aid at all (e.g. Japan) and that countries can receive aid for decades and still be in the toilet (e.g. Somalia).

tweedledee

Social welfare states and Aid led states are in trouble because of corruption,lots of it.Sad but true.
Most wealthy European States regard the Irish as the Africans of Europe!!!!:mad:

Happyman42

tweedledee wrote: »

God you are sooo naive young man/woman.You havn't a clue.
Of course some of the aid gets through.About 10% of it gets to who needs it!!!
Approx 90% of the cash funds DO NOT!!!
Even in IRAQ,(ohh yeah bin there also),BILLIONS of dollars in "aid" has gone missing,no sign of it.Even some of the charities over there don't know where it is??????Just gone!!
Aid agencies insist that the TV crews report as much as possible to show the good stuff,so naive you and yer naive friends give more cash to God knows who to give to whoever they like,even themselves.
Go to Kenya and have a look at the huge villas and vast 5* compounds that house the Government there.Visit the 4* International Hotels(private compounds) where the aid workers stay.
Visit the bars in these hotels and mingle with said Aid workers as they get drunk on expensive Brandies and Wines,all paid for by,,,,,,,,,,,,,YOU!!!!!!:)

I have always suspected there was an element of this in 'Aid Work'....so which former Aid workers are going to do the 'right' thing and expose this? HAS TO BE DONE, no excuses.

Zubeneschamali

Happyman42 wrote: »

which former Aid workers are going to do the 'right' thing and expose this? HAS TO BE DONE, no excuses.

Unless, of course, it's a load of made-up codswallop to make callous people feel better about their miserly treatment of starving children.

Monty Burnz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Unless, of course, it's a load of made-up codswallop to make callous people feel better about their miserly treatment of starving children.

Or a realisation that what we had been doing to try to help is only making things worse.

dvpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Look at what social welfare has done on our own doorstep - created a class of useless scobes who live their whole lives as ignorant, criminal parasites.

That and providing people with some basic income when they fall on hard times.

We have a very high percentage of our population who rely either wholly or partially on social welfare, and a very low percentage of these are 'ignorant, criminal parasites'.

Same with aid; we help millions of people with the aid we give, often life preserving humanitarian aid, but some of it finds it way into the hands of corrupt individuals and it may in a small way contribute towards a dependency culture.

But no reasonable person would seriously advocate immediately removing all social welfare payments, just because some 'useless scobes' get it and no reasonable person should seriously advocate cutting off live saving food aid to people who are starving to death.

Monty Burnz

dvpower wrote: »

That and providing people with some basic income when they fall on hard times.

Indeed, but some people appear to have 'fallen on hard times' long before they were born - several generations back.

dvpower wrote: »

We have a very high percentage of our population who rely either wholly or partially on social welfare, and a very low percentage of these are 'ignorant, criminal parasites'.

Yes, in the midst of a depression lots of genuine people are on the dole. During the bubble there were still huge numbers of people who never worked and never intended to work - these are the people I'm thinking of. Social welfare hasn't helped them in the long run, and it hasn't helped the society they live in.

dvpower wrote: »

Same with aid; we help millions of people with the aid we give, often life preserving humanitarian aid, but some of it finds it way into the hands of corrupt individuals and it may in a small way contribute towards a dependency culture.

I'm not so sure. I can't think of any - shall we say - 'endemically poor' country that has been in receipt of charity aid that has got its act together and become a successful state (which is not to say that none exist). I can certainly think of examples where countries have developed themselves without our 'help'.

dvpower wrote: »

But no reasonable person would seriously advocate immediately removing all social welfare payments, just because some 'useless scobes' get it and no reasonable person should seriously advocate cutting off live saving food aid to people who are starving to death.

No, but I think a reasonable person would actually raise the question as to whether we are going about things the right way when we see the unintentional mess that this aid sometimes seems to cause.

dvpower

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed, but some people appear to have 'fallen on hard times' long before they were born - several generations back.

Yes, in the midst of a depression lots of genuine people are on the dole. During the bubble there were still huge numbers of people who never worked and never intended to work - these are the people I'm thinking of. Social welfare hasn't helped them in the long run, and it hasn't helped the society they live in.

So, we agree; some social welfare is good and some is bad. What we need to do is better design the system so we don;t incentivise the feckless, while providing a safety net for others.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I can't think of any - shall we say - 'endemically poor' country that has been in receipt of charity aid that has got its act together and become a successful state (which is not to say that none exist). I can certainly think of examples where countries have developed themselves without our 'help'.

We need to be able to differentiate between short term emergency humanitarian aid (like we need in Somalia right now), longer term development aid and the very long term partnerships that the likes of Irish Aid are involved in.

There is an acute emergency in Somalia right now. It would be callous in the extreme to suggest that we should withhold aid because there are some structural problems with some aid programs.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No, but I think a reasonable person would actually raise the question as to whether we are going about things the right way when we see the unintentional mess that this aid sometimes seems to cause.

I've no argument there.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

[...] I've serious doubts as to whether our charity money does anything to help [...]

I'm glad to see that you've stepped back from this position. We should continue to give humanitarian aid to starving individuals, because it does do something to help; it saves their lives.