Armed forces should take over one third of Britain’s foreign aid budget,

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Blogg, Jan 2, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Lot of noise around this, Daily Hate in full flow, but here is the source:

    Press Release:

    Aiding and Abetting

    Foreign aid failures and the 0.7% deception

    For me though this sums it up:

    "This paper does not take a position on the desirability of democratic and humanitarian conditions on aid, though it takes exception to the hypocrisy and inconsistency with which the UK government currently imposes such conditions. It makes little moral sense for instance to cut off aid to Malawi because of that country’s treatment of homosexuals but to continue subsidising destructive regimes in countries like Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. Aid conditionality may well be desirable in general but it requires a pre- existing clarity about the primary goals of British aid.

    Despite decades of lavish failure and negative outcomes including the enrichment of corrupt tyrants, the subsidizing of warlords and the subversion of good government, aid work of all kinds continues to enjoy uncritical support from sections of the media. This is not surprising given the existence of a nexus between Western media organisations and the aid agencies on which many of them depend for access and transport in conflict areas.”
  2. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    its a good idea as soldiers can deliver aid without the huge costs of extra security spongers, they would only mess it up by trying to buy custom spec chinooks at 12 times costs to fit an ice cream jingle.

    sodexo can do the relief camp catering at 18p a head as usual.