Somalia and South Sudan to receive £100 million each in UK aid

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊













MattBackHome

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
11,873
Obviously a good thing. But I have a feeling that the govt could have acted sooner on this given the escalation in warnings from DFID, FO, Amnesty, HRW etc.

On a side note I don't trust Priti Patel at all.
 






sjamesb3466

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2009
5,198
Leicester
I just hope the food and water gets to the people that need it and it doesn't fall into the hands of either side in the civil wars as it will undoubtedly be used as a recruiting tool to further their cause (join us and your family can eat).

Whilst I do think that the UK needs to be part of the international community that helps in these situations I find it very depressing that those in power in these countries still seem to find the money to buy guns and ammunition.

Somalia has been in ruins for over 20 years with little sign of improvement, what the solution is I don't think anyone knows. A perfect example however of how pointless an organisation the UN is.
 






Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
All geopolitical and/or religious debates on here have become identical.

I wonder when we can lump this thread in with Trump, Brexit, Corbyn, and Islam.


"Let the blinkered vision and name calling commence".
 


MattBackHome

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
11,873
A perfect example however of how pointless an organisation the UN is.

I agree with the rest of your post but am not sure that's entirely fair. The UN have been key in reporting on political developments, the evolution of the war, Al Shaabab and coastal piracy etc. They've brokered numerous peace agreements between warring factions and facilitated the involvement of untold numbers of NGOs. They've coordinated, or been involved in, all of the humanitarian assistance so far since 1990 ish. They've deployed forces, though the im[pact of these in the most hard hit areas is perhaps debateable.

They perhaps could have done more, but the fact that it's a shitpit now doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worse, or a much larger shitpit without the help of the UN.
 






Martlet

Well-known member
Jul 15, 2003
687
I get pretty confused by the "shut the doors and give it to the NHS" argument. What are we supposed to, sit back, let people starve and not expect them to try to flee to better lives in Europe?

A bit like football - you have a choice, either set the first line of defence up the field (which incidentally led to our second goal on Saturday) or sit further and further back, and try to block the goal through sheer weight of numbers.

We can either try to stop these problems happening in the first place, delivering acute aid when they're really bad - or, if we don't, we'd better start spending a damn site more on border patrols, detention centres and deportation costs, as the problems aren't going to go away on their own....
 




Jan 30, 2008
31,981
I get pretty confused by the "shut the doors and give it to the NHS" argument. What are we supposed to, sit back, let people starve and not expect them to try to flee to better lives in Europe?

A bit like football - you have a choice, either set the first line of defence up the field (which incidentally led to our second goal on Saturday) or sit further and further back, and try to block the goal through sheer weight of numbers.

We can either try to stop these problems happening in the first place, delivering acute aid when they're really bad - or, if we don't, we'd better start spending a damn site more on border patrols, detention centres and deportation costs, as the problems aren't going to go away on their own....
HOW ABOUT GETTING THEIR COUNTRYS LEADERS TO GET THEIR HOUSE IN ORDER ???
regards
DR
 








Brighton Mod

Its All Too Beautiful
Be careful what you wish for, I have considerable experience of Somalia and had seen millions of pounds given there in differing ways and by many conduits. £100m doesn't mean £100m to starving children who become dependent on overseas hand outs, but means £40m channelled through Save the Children, £1 through Oxfam etc etc. The best performers I ever saw were Medicins Sans Frontier and Medicins du Monde. The worst performers I ever saw were the UN and the EU, both self serving, first to run when it became difficult and both just so poorly out of control financially it actually became embarassing. Dig deep to find the real story and you'll find out how little much reaches its target. Aid is a racket and a huge industry now.
 


Brighton Mod

Its All Too Beautiful
I agree with the rest of your post but am not sure that's entirely fair. The UN have been key in reporting on political developments, the evolution of the war, Al Shaabab and coastal piracy etc. They've brokered numerous peace agreements between warring factions and facilitated the involvement of untold numbers of NGOs. They've coordinated, or been involved in, all of the humanitarian assistance so far since 1990 ish. They've deployed forces, though the im[pact of these in the most hard hit areas is perhaps debateable.

They perhaps could have done more, but the fact that it's a shitpit now doesn't mean that it wouldn't be worse, or a much larger shitpit without the help of the UN.

The UN, what a joke they are, I spent six weeks in Somalia attempting to find the then Zone Director of East Africa in the bush with tribal elements and gaining intelligence to find out that he had flown back to Ghana...... along with $1m. You have to see these people to believe the life style they live, the UN representatives are the new colonial powers, spending unaccountably other peoples money. They are poor beyond belief, would you allocate your best ambassadors to the UN? of course not, jobs for the boys.
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top