By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - UK threatens to cut aid over gay rights

superchunk on 31 October 2011

I think all nations should do this.

In order to push for change, the money givers should force the change.

No one should fund Israel until it leaves Palestine.
No one should fund any middle eastern nation, until they move to democracy and at least begin other steps for change.
No one should fund x until moral y is began in some fashion. It just makes sense.

There is a line to allow country x to grow at its own pace with its own laws. However, there should be a set of basic human rights that are enforced if one expects aid/support.



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 31 October 2011
superchunk said:
I think all nations should do this.

In order to push for change, the money givers should force the change.

No one should fund Israel until it leaves Palestine.
No one should fund any middle eastern nation, until they move to democracy and at least begin other steps for change.
No one should fund x until moral y is began in some fashion. It just makes sense.

There is a line to allow country x to grow at its own pace with its own laws. However, there should be a set of basic human rights that are enforced if one expects aid/support.


This is one of the things I like about Ron Paul's foreign policy: many members of the GOP argue that Paul isn't a "friend of Israel" because he will cut all aid to Israel... but he points out that the US Government currently hands out three times as much aid to Israel's "enemies" than it does to Israel.



superchunk on 31 October 2011
SamuelRSmith said:
superchunk said:
I think all nations should do this.

In order to push for change, the money givers should force the change.

No one should fund Israel until it leaves Palestine.
No one should fund any middle eastern nation, until they move to democracy and at least begin other steps for change.
No one should fund x until moral y is began in some fashion. It just makes sense.

There is a line to allow country x to grow at its own pace with its own laws. However, there should be a set of basic human rights that are enforced if one expects aid/support.


This is one of the things I like about Ron Paul's foreign policy: many members of the GOP argue that Paul isn't a "friend of Israel" because he will cut all aid to Israel... but he points out that the US Government currently hands out three times as much aid to Israel's "enemies" than it does to Israel.

Yep. Cut them all until they are in line with our understanding of human rights. They all fail at this in various ways.



ProdigyBam on 31 October 2011

He should care about persecuted christians first since most of the british people are christian and the culture is based on christian-judeo teachings, while at most 5-10% are homosexual, just saying..



Fedor Emelianenko - Greatest Fighter and most humble man to ever walk the earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVVrNOQtlzY

sad.man.loves.vgc on 31 October 2011
ProdigyBam said:
He should care about persecuted christians first since most of the british people are christian and the culture is based on christian-judeo teachings, while at most 5-10% are homosexual, just saying..

 

 

EDIT: I am not sure I understadnt the post in first place, so nvm.



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 31 October 2011
ProdigyBam said:
He should care about persecuted christians first since most of the british people are christian and the culture is based on christian-judeo teachings, while at most 5-10% are homosexual, just saying..


His choice of protecting gay rights is clearly a movement to help him win public opinion. Protecting persecuted Christains would not do this, and would probably cause a massive media shit-storm.



osamanobama on 31 October 2011
HappySqurriel said:
Depending on how "Gay Rights" are defined, I think this is entirely acceptable and appropriate ...

In my opinion, western developed nations should not be supporting countries that reject values we consider essential. While there is a healthy debate on gay marriage and similar issues in western countries, the vast majority of people believe that individuals should be entitled to live their life as a homosexual free from persecution by the state.

this, definitely depends on thier definition of "gay rights"

could be a good thing



sapphi_snake on 31 October 2011
Kasz216 said:

I think this is just a plan by David Cameron to slash the foreign aid budget.

On the one hand, it sounds like a good idea to try and force gay rights.

Though on the other hand, i worry about the Anti-UK blowback in countries where people will suddenly begin starving combined with cultures that wouldn't even recognize gay rights if they weren't ruled by autocrats.

One could even argue that by having it forced by another government, actual acceptence of such a law would take even longer.

Complicated issue.

Well, it wasn't all that terrible in Romania.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

The Fury on 01 November 2011

It's something that should be considered, UK's foreign policies in aid and military involvement costs a lot, especially when that aid and money spent on military could be spent on ourselves, in aid and military.



Hmm, pie.

Player1x3 on 01 November 2011

I'd say let them do whatever they want with their money. It is insane how arrogant western countries are, thinking they can manipulate people into changing their laws, just because they think theirs are so superior. Also, let the african children starve to death and their family dies out with diseases, dick taking men will have their ''equal rights'' no matter what cost. If i ran one of those countries, I wouldn't neither expect nor accept their money, and sure as hell wouldn't be changing my laws without the voice of people